930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Herr Professor Doktor Doom on December 17, 2003, 10:44:00 pm
-
Here's a chance to fight back against the right-wing! Read the text below and vote in the poll...
also copy and paste the text below to as many people and boards as possible :D
vote on this poll, and pass this message around to all your friends!
------------------------------------------
Please take time to do:
Want to annoy the (antigay) American Family Association? They are conducting an online poll about gay marriage, and plan to show their results to Congress. When I took it, it said 93% oppose same-sex marriage and civil unions, and that 3% are in favor. Of course, it begs the question, who are they polling? Well, some friends and I decided we needed some OTHER input.
Go here: http://www.marriagepoll.com (http://www.marriagepoll.com)
Help us skew their results! It takes a few seconds of your time. Send it to your friends! Heh heh - now it's down to 85%. :-)
[editor's note - now it's down to 78 percent.. bahaha]
-
if anyone's voted, just be aware that the poll now shows only 51 percent opposed to gay marriage :D
just a few more votes to make it a minority :D
-
It gets worse (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html), not better. Aren't Republicans in the party of "less government, less interference." I won't even rant, because I'll boil over and y'all have heard it before.
BUT, a constitutional amendment is not intended to be used like legislation....this is supposed to be unchangeable and steadfast over time. Our (as in everyone's) *basic* tenets. In some ways, I really hate America. Maybe they should add some language on the transfer of property and dowries in the marriage amendment. Those were the basic underpinnings of marriage not so long ago....
-
I only see a poll to boycott MTV...which I'm tempted to simply because it's garbage with all that real world shit on it.
I don't see a poll about gay marraige? Excuse my stupidity....or have they realized what's going on and yanked it off the site?
I just see a petition which is against gay marraige so not really a poll.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
I only see a poll to boycott MTV...which I'm tempted to simply because it's garbage with all that real world shit on it.
I don't see a poll about gay marraige? Excuse my stupidity....or have they realized what's going on and yanked it off the site?
I just see a petition which is against gay marraige so not really a poll.
The poll is over. Word got out about it and the pro-gay-marriage folks took over. The end results overwhelmingly favored gay marriage.
:D
-
Originally posted by Skeeter:
Originally posted by mankie:
I only see a poll to boycott MTV...which I'm tempted to simply because it's garbage with all that real world shit on it.
I don't see a poll about gay marraige? Excuse my stupidity....or have they realized what's going on and yanked it off the site?
I just see a petition which is against gay marraige so not really a poll.
The poll is over. Word got out about it and the pro-gay-marriage folks took over. The end results overwhelmingly favored gay marriage.
:D [/b]
I realize nobody cares, but a similar thing happened during the rugby world cup....the Aussies put up a poll about wether England deserved to beat France and how the England performance was...word got out in England so they took the poll over...the only difference was the Aussies were too stooooopid to realize what was going on so kept the poll online. It ended up that 97% of those who took the poll were behind England.
-
By the way, today Bush officially asked Congress to "protect" the institution of marriage by passing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Washington Blade story (http://www.washblade.com/2004/2-20/news/breaking/bushbackban.cfm)
-
The link in my post is for the CNN story on f*ckin' Bush's statements...
-
look at some of the recent g.o.p. pet amendments: no flag burning, balanced budget, gay marriage. clearly the most important issues of the times. it'll die, and they'll try to outlaw the letter x or something
-
The thought of a GOP sponsored "balanced budget ammendment" is quite humorous. Why aren't the Dems bringing this point up?
As is the fact that Republicans wanted to eliminated the Department of Education under Clinton and now the department has more power than ever before.
THought this was funny as well (from the Daily Mislead):
President Bush, attempting to obscure his record as the worst economic steward since Herbert Hoover, has become so desperate that he is exploring ways to manipulate statistics. Just days after Bush reneged on his pledge to create 2.6 million jobs and said with a straight face that "5.6% unemployment is a good national number," the New York Times uncovered a White House report showing that the president is considering re-classifying low-paid fast food jobs as "manufacturing jobs" as a way to hide the massive manufacturing job losses that have occurred during his term.
-
Originally posted by allmy$to930:
The thought of a GOP sponsored "balanced budget ammendment" is quite humorous. Why aren't the Dems bringing this point up?
the dems won't bring it up because to have a balanced budget will mean to a) raise taxes or b) cut govt. services. i doubt their constituency will support either of those options. the gop balanced budget amendment in the mid-90s was to get clinton to stop spending money on a list of projects, and cut govt. spending (i.e., waste). these days, that cuts both ways as certain conservatives (i.e., economic) want govt. spending cut to lower the deficit, and other conservatives (i.e., hawks and social) don't care what's spent as long it's something they support.
this whole thing is why i hate the state republican parties. . .social conservatives have taken over the gop, and generally muscle out more moderate voices.
-
Originally posted by allmy$to930:
"5.6% unemployment is a good national number,"
Average U.S. Unemployment Rate (From http://www.bls.gov (http://www.bls.gov))
Last 50 Years - 5.83%
Last 40 Years - 5.93%
Last 30 Years - 6.39%
Last 20 Years - 5.84%
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
this whole thing is why i hate the state republican parties. . .social conservatives have taken over the gop, and generally muscle out more moderate voices.
Absolutely right. Seems like there aren't many moderate GOP voices to be heard nowadays. I suppose it's too late for a Lamar Alexander comeback...
-
Originally posted by keithstg:
I suppose it's too late for a Lamar Alexander comeback...
Flannel is sooooooo '90s
-
Originally posted by keithstg:
Absolutely right. Seems like there aren't many moderate GOP voices to be heard nowadays. I suppose it's too late for a Lamar Alexander comeback...
i hear he's tearing things up in the senate these days.
-
ggw, I took no issue with the unemployment rate...thanks for the stats.
I simply thought shifting fast food jobs into the manufacturing sector was pathetic.
I think we need to come to terms with higher unemployment rates...that is the cost of efficiency. The talk of pushing the retirement age back will only add to the problem.
-
Originally posted by allmy$to930:
I simply thought shifting fast food jobs into the manufacturing sector was pathetic.
It is kind of pathetic. But the Democrats have made manufacturing job loss under Bush a campaign platform, conveniently ignoring the fact that manufacturing jobs have been declining steadily since the late-1960s. We just aren't a manufacturing nation anymore, we are a service economy.
Over the long term, productivity in manufacturing has increased at a consistently strong pace, so sales would have needed to expand even faster for employment to show any gains. But the growth in demand for manufactured goods has not kept pace with the growth in productivity, as consumers continue to devote more of their spending to services instead of goods. In addition, U.S. manufacturers have faced competition from countries where businesses face lower compensation costs. Finally, the downward trend is in part a statistical artifact: manufacturers are increasingly using contract and temporary labor, which provides jobs that, in the past, would have shown up in the statistics as manufacturing employment but now do not.
Unfortunately, politicians do pathetic things like reclassifying workers so that everything fits into neat little soundbites and nobody has to think about the more complicated issues underlying.
-
Originally posted by allmy$to930:
I think we need to come to terms with higher unemployment rates...that is the cost of efficiency. The talk of pushing the retirement age back will only add to the problem.
actually, unemployment rates are staid or slightly higher precisely because of efficiency. i believe that productivity rates are consistently high and/or increasing despite the lack of job growth throughout the employment sectors. that's why there's been all this talk about the jobless recovery. . .the current workforce has been able to handle the increased workload in the same amount of time before, due to efficiencies in the work place.
-
as a nonchristian, its really hard for me to vote for a republican due to the national party's pandering to these groups. i may be a hardcore civil libertarian, but i am much more open to fiscal policy. i would have voted for mccain over gore (still say johnny would have trounced al) though.
-
the equal rights amendment didn't get passed, so lets just exclude more people while were at it.
-
Sorry if it offends anyone but I voted against gay mariage. While I have friends and family members who live alternative lifestyles, I do not think that marriage is the correct avenue. What this really boils down to is that people either 1) just want the title or 2) really are fighting for the rights that come along with marriage. If it is the former then the discussion is not even worth the trouble. This leaves the later.
I do believe that anyone who is not married gets the short end of the stick in many situatuions and that this should be addressed. For example in most hospitals, a patient in intensive care can only be visited by immedaite family. Not thats about stupid. The rule should be something like limiting the vistor list to three poeple of the patients choice. It should not be tied to mariage. This is just an example, but most (if not all) of the 'rights' that non-marrieds get shorted on that in turn should be afforded to others can and should be addressed by changing how those rights are granted. They have nothing to do with marriage at all. (Thats the VERY VERY short version of my point of view.)
Bottom line is that I do agree that many folks including gays get shorted. I dont think though that marriage is the way to eliminate the shortings. I think we ought to address the areas where these issue really rest and take care of them there. I don't think that marriage in and of itself is one of those issues.
Thanks for allowing me to speak my side. As I said up front it was not intended to piss anyone off. Just wanted to give my take on things.
BTW I am not a member of any political party or group of any sort. I do not vote based on the label next to a candidates name...
DB
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
as a nonchristian, its really hard for me to vote for a republican due to the national party's pandering to these groups.
You'll love this, shoeshine:
Feb. 24, 2004 | George Bush's proposed 2005 budget cuts funding for veterans' healthcare and public housing. It freezes funding for after-school programs and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families grants. It provides less than one-sixth of the increase needed to close the budget shortfall in the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, which helps low-income HIV patients access medical care and lifesaving drugs. It cuts state Medicaid funding by $1.5 billion.
Yet when it comes to abstinence education, money seems to be no object. Bush's budget recommends $270 million for programs that try to dissuade teenagers from having sex, double the amount spent last year. Much of that money would be given in grants to Christian organizations such as Youth for Christ and to anti-abortion groups operating so-called crisis pregnancy centers, outfits that masquerade as women's health clinics but deliver a strongly anti-abortion message and often medically inaccurate information.
Federally funded abstinence education has been around since 1996, when Clinton's welfare reform bill provided grants to states to teach abstinence. Under Bush, though, it has expanded dramatically, from $97.5 million when he took office to $270 million next year. Bush has also retooled abstinence-only funding so that most of it is given directly to private groups, several of them evangelical religious organizations, and he has put it under the same agency that runs his faith-based initiatives.
Salon magazine (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/24/abstinence/index.html)
-
why should we care. let he butt fuckers get married!! it wont hurt you. the gov just wants more tax money.
"dman, it's Hansel, He's so hot right now"
-my new DVD, ZOOLANDER
even though it is not a Tenacious as the last Dvd i bought... :D
-
Originally posted by RatBastard:
Sorry if it offends anyone but I voted against gay mariage. While I have friends and family members who live alternative lifestyles, I do not think that marriage is the correct avenue. What this really boils down to is that people either 1) just want the title or 2) really are fighting for the rights that come along with marriage. If it is the former then the discussion is not even worth the trouble. This leaves the later.
RB, I am happy to see your thoughts on this --they're straightfoward and well stated, allowing for discussion of the issue. Never anything wrong with that!
It is the later of your two options, I believe, that gay marriage proponents seek -- the rights that come with marriage. And in fact, most of my gay friends whom I talk with about this don't care if there's gay marriage or not as long as civil unions come with those rights.
However, I don't think those things are what this debate is *really* about. My objection is to the pro-active attack of gay marriage by the right, as if 'traditional' marriage is the sacrosant bedrock upon which our nation is built (hey, doesn't 'traditional marriage' mean it's not allowed between races?). If that's the case, I want every divorced or twice-married congressperson and politician out of office NOW. Because they do not honor or abide by the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Further, it is through the *exclusion* of gays that I believe the amendment-proponents are painting homosexuals into a special class. And this burns me up, because this is their VERY argument against any kind of civil rights or protection laws for gays -- that they don't need "special laws" because they are not a special or protected class.
Hmmmm, hypocrisy? CAN'T BE.
So the debate, for me, is about the loaded intentions at the heart of the amendment and the debate's complete unmasking of hyprocrisy upon hypocrisy by the "traditional marriage stalwarts."
-
42
-
Rat, what is the difference in your opinion between straight couples just wanting the title of marriage and gay couples wanting it? Just curious...
-
Unless you're married yourself, I don't think you're really qualified to define what marriage is and what marriage isn't.
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Unless you're married yourself, I don't think you're really qualified to define what marriage is and what marriage isn't.
then how is one supposed to decide whether to get married in the first place?
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
then how is one supposed to decide whether to get married in the first place?
Don't feed the trolls
-
Originally posted by Bags:
However, I don't think those things are what this debate is *really* about. My objection is to the pro-active attack of gay marriage by the right, as if 'traditional' marriage is the sacrosant bedrock upon which our nation is built (hey, doesn't 'traditional marriage' mean it's not allowed between races?). If that's the case, I want every divorced or twice-married congressperson and politician out of office NOW. Because they do not honor or abide by the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Further, it is through the *exclusion* of gays that I believe the amendment-proponents are painting homosexuals into a special class. And this burns me up, because this is their VERY argument against any kind of civil rights or protection laws for gays -- that they don't need "special laws" because they are not a special or protected class.
divorce is a red herring. there are set rules for divorce, both civil and religious. . .with catholic divorce being the most rigorous. presumably, those rules were followed to the satisfaction of the courts and/or respective church. but marriage is, initially, a religious institution, and secondly, a civil institution. since the religious option is unavailable, the civil option is the only way to go.
this is a state matter that the federal government should not step into. however, bush, as leader of the country, should be allowed to voice his opinion on the matter. even kerry and edwards don't support gay marriage. his support for a constitutional amendment though is nonsense. people throw out this constitutional amendment thing every so often to show how much they really support something, but everyone knows that it won't happen. . ever.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Bags:
However, I don't think those things are what this debate is *really* about.
divorce is a red herring. but marriage is, initially, a religious institution, and secondly, a civil institution.[/b]
Precisely, so the U.S. government has NO business legislating on it, per the Constitution itself.
this is a state matter that the federal government should not step into. however, bush, as leader of the country, should be allowed to voice his opinion on the matter. even kerry and edwards don't support gay marriage. his support for a constitutional amendment though is nonsense. people throw out this constitutional amendment thing every so often to show how much they really support something, but everyone knows that it won't happen. . ever.
I agree that it should be a state matter. I don't give a fly about gay marriages, but do give a fly about a constitutional amendment *banning* them. Saying it won't happen does not alleviate G.W. of the responsibility of proposing it as a process. And for this reason I don't believe divorce is a red herring -- either marriage is an immovable, legislatable institution that must be honored or it's not.
Yes, you can legally break a contract or break a marriage. I'm not saying it's *illegal* for people to divorce, but if you're going to support and state that marriage is sacrosanct, mean it.
And don't forget the race stuff...and the property stuff, since we're relying on two centuries of history. You know, because marriage doesn't evolve at all.
-
I think Kurt Vonnegut's suggestion from his novel SLAPSTICK is a much better proposal than either gay marriage or constitutional ammendments.
all Americans were issued new middle names consisting of "...a noun, the name of a flower or fruit or nut or vegetable or legume, or a bird or reptile or a fish, or mollusk, or a gem, or a mineral or a chemical element--connected by a hypen to a number between one and twenty." People with the same middle name--both noun and number--became siblings; those who shared only the noun became cousins. The names were randomly assigned, so that everyone's family instantly expanded to include ten thousand new siblings and one-hundred and ninety-thousand new cousins, scattered across the country. Under the new system, everyone "belonged" somewhere, everyone was part of a big family. People would be "Lonesome No More!".
Dupek "Daffodil Eleven" Chopra
-
Savage Love
by Dan Savage
February 25 - March 2, 2004
The Village Voice
Can you explain gay marriage? I lost a friend who's a lesbian for saying that marriage is meaningless. It seems to me that the point of gay marriage is to win official recognition that homos aren't second-class citizensâ??it would amount to a state-sanctioned "Gays are OK!" message. I've got no problem with gay marriage, but it seems like there are more pressing issues, like the shitty economy and the war, and an awful lot of energy is being spent trying to win something that doesn't matter except as a symbol. So what's the big deal? Admittedly I'm a straight guy, Dan, but does it really matter all that much? â??Tortured Acronym
Sure, I can explain gay marriage. Some gay and lesbian couples would like to marry for the same reasons many straight couples would like to marry or have already married: They're in love, they've made a commitment to each other, and they want the rights, privileges, and responsibilities (RPRs) that come with legal marriage. While some gays and lesbians are after the "Gays are OK!" message (no one has ever gone broke overestimating the insecurities of gays and lesbians), most gay couples don't just want the symbolism of marriage, TA, but those RPRsâ??and guess what? Both matter. "Marriage brings extremely important tangible and intangible protections," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, the organization leading the charge on gay marriage. "Tangible or intangible, neither is symbolic. To have clarity and security, to have people know who you are in relation to the primary person that you're building your life with, is no mere symbol. And gay people have the same need for that security, clarity, and by the way, equality, as non-gay people." As for your lesbian ex-friend, can't you see how listening to a straight guy dismiss gay marriage as trivial might infuriate a lesbian? Lesbians are famously easy to infuriate (there, I just did it myself), but being told by someone who can get married that gay marriage is a silly distraction from the economy or the war would anger the mellowest homo. Also, where do you get off assuming that gays and lesbians aren't active on other issues? Many of the same folks lining up to get married in San Francisco last week were folks who, without a doubt, marched against the war in Iraq and made donations to Howard Dean (R.I.P.). For a taste of why so many gays and lesbians give a shit about marriage, check out www.dearmary.com, (http://www.dearmary.com,) a website devoted to shaming Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter. Before her father took over the world, Mary Cheney was a professional lesbian and an advocate for gay rights. Now, as her own father stumps for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would do lasting harm to his own daughter and all other American gays and lesbians, Mary Cheney is AWOL. At dearmary.com you'll find heart-wrenching letters that show why marriage rights for gays and lesbians are important. And anyone who's interested in sending Mary "My Heart Belongs to Daddy" Cheney a letter can do so via the website.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
www.dearmary.com (http://www.dearmary.com)
Link adjustment <img src="http://pages.prodigy.net/bestsmileys1/signs/17.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Thanks, Dupek -- I have problems with formatting from my iMac at home, so I just left it as was in the article...odd.
-
<img src="http://www.priceless420.com/Pr022304sexbed.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://pages.prodigy.net/hauxfan/Signs/Group_7/30.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Savage Love
by Dan Savage
February 25 - March 2, 2004
The Village Voice
Can you explain gay marriage? I lost a friend who's a lesbian for saying that marriage is meaningless. It seems to me that the point of gay marriage is to win official recognition that homos aren't second-class citizensâ??it would amount to a state-sanctioned "Gays are OK!" message. I've got no problem with gay marriage, but it seems like there are more pressing issues, like the shitty economy and the war, and an awful lot of energy is being spent trying to win something that doesn't matter except as a symbol. So what's the big deal? Admittedly I'm a straight guy, Dan, but does it really matter all that much? â??Tortured Acronym
I thought it was so they could have children and raise a family... ;)
Anyway, what's the big deal about gay marraige...Rhett's gay and he's been married for a while now.
-
42
-
We should have seen it coming:
Massachusetts Supreme Court Orders All Citizens to Gay-Marry (http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1)
BOSTONâ??Justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday in favor of full, equal, and mandatory gay marriages for all citizens. The order nullifies all pre-existing heterosexual marriages and lays the groundwork for the 2.4 million compulsory same-sex marriages that will take place in the state by May 15.
"As we are all aware, it's simply not possible for gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to co-exist," Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said. "Our ruling in November was just the first step toward creating an all-gay Massachusetts."
Marshall added: "Since the allowance of gay marriage undermines heterosexual unions, we decided to work a few steps ahead and strike down opposite-sex unions altogether."
Marshall said the court's action will put a swift end to the mounting debate.
"Instead of spending months or even years volleying this thing back and forth, we thought we might as well just cut to the eventual outcome of our decision to allow gay marriages," Marshall said. "Clearly, this is where this all was headed anyway."
The justices then congratulated the state's 4.8 million marriage-age residents on their legally mandated engagements.
The court issued the surprise order in response to a query from the Massachusetts Senate over whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage but not the title, are constitutional.
"If the history of our nation has demonstrated anything, it's that separate is never equal," Marshall said. "Therefore, any measure short of dismantling conventional matrimony and mandating the immediate homosexual marriage of all residents of Massachusetts would dishonor same-sex unions. I'm confident that this measure will be seen by all right-thinking people as the only solution to our state's, and indeed America's, ongoing marriage controversy."
Marshall then announced her engagement to Holyoke kindergarten teacher Betsy Peterson, a pairing that had been randomly generated by computers in the census office earlier that day.
Those who don't choose to marry in private will be married in concurrent mass ceremonies at Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium, and the Boston Convention and Exposition Center. Any citizen who is not gay-married or is still in an illegal heterosexual relationship after that date will be arrested and tried for non-support.
Hundreds of confused but vocal protesters lined the street outside the statehouse Monday night, waving both American and rainbow flags. Their chants, which broke out in pockets up and down the street, included, "Hey hey, ho ho, homophobia's got to go, but frankly, this is fucked up" and "Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, but not Adam and Some Random Guy." Others held signs that read, "On Second Thought, Boston Christians Are Willing To Consider A Compromise."
According to police reports, demonstrators were vocal but orderly.
"The unholy union of people of the same gender destroys the only type of romantic love sanctioned by Our Lord in Heaven: the love between a man and a woman," 54-year-old protester Rose Shoults said. "Me and my new partner Helene are going to fry in hell."
The much-anticipated order sets the stage for Massachusetts' upcoming constitutional convention, where the state legislature will consider an amendment to legally define marriage as a union between two members of the same gender. Without the order, Rep. Michael Festa said the vote, and his personally dreaded wedding to House Speaker and longtime political opponent Thomas Finneran, would be delayed.
"This is a victory, not only for our state, but for America," Festa said. "Simply allowing consenting gay adults the same rights as heterosexuals was never the point. By forcing everyone in the state into a gay marriage, we're setting the stage for our more pressing hidden agendas: mandatory sodomy and, in due time, the legalization of bestiality and pedophilia."
Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country, at 1.3 percent, according to the 2000 census. Under the new laws, the figure is expected to increase by approximately 98.7 percentage points.
-
Look at what we've come to.....
A father watched his daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and innocent his little girl was.
Suddenly she just stopped and stared at the ground. He went over to her and noticed she was looking at two spiders mating.
"Daddy, what are those two spiders doing?" she asked. "They're mating," her father replied.
"What do you call the spider on top, Daddy?" she asked. "That's a Daddy Longlegs," Her father answered.
So, the other one is a Mommy Longlegs?" The little girl asked. No," her father replied. "Both of them are Daddy Longlegs."
The little girl thought for a moment, then took her foot and stomped them flat.
"That might be OK in Massachusetts, but we're not having any of that crap here in Texas"
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Rhett's gay and he's been married for a while now.
he's bi, mankie, just like everybody
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Look at what we've come to.....
A father watched his daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and innocent his little girl was.
Suddenly she just stopped and stared at the ground. He went over to her and noticed she was looking at two spiders mating.
"Daddy, what are those two spiders doing?" she asked. "They're mating," her father replied.
"What do you call the spider on top, Daddy?" she asked. "That's a Daddy Longlegs," Her father answered.
So, the other one is a Mommy Longlegs?" The little girl asked. No," her father replied. "Both of them are Daddy Longlegs."
The little girl thought for a moment, then took her foot and stomped them flat.
"That might be OK in Massachusetts, but we're not having any of that crap here in Texas"
What? We've come to a bad joke?
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by mankie:
Rhett's gay and he's been married for a while now.
he's bi, mankie, just like everybody [/b]
Everybody is bisexual?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by mankie:
Rhett's gay and he's been married for a while now.
he's bi, mankie, just like everybody [/b]
Everybody is bisexual? [/b]
I think people all have the potential to be bisexual, the majority are just socialized to be one way or the other...sexuality is not really a question of one or the other, it may be more a question of when...
-
People all have the potential to be killers. But we have been socialized against it.
Are we all killers?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
People all have the potential to be killers. But we have been socialized against it.
Are we all killers?
I am.
and your snotty "arguing" techinques of asking stupid questions like that really gets on my nerves.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
your snotty "arguing" techinques of asking stupid questions like that really gets on my nerves.
Which do you hate more, the "stupid question" technique, or the "TRANSLATION:" technique?
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
...and your snotty "arguing" techinques of asking stupid questions like that really gets on my nerves.
ooh..ooh...let me try the techinque...
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
People all have the potential to be killers. But we have been socialized against it.
Are we all killers?
do you eat meat?
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
do you eat meat?
No.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
do you eat meat?
No. [/b]
are you pro-choice?
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
do you eat meat?
No. [/b]
are you pro-choice? [/b]
No.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
do you eat meat?
No. [/b]
are you pro-choice? [/b]
No. [/b]
if someone broke into your home and threatened the lives of you and/or your family and you were able to kill them, would you?
-
do you plan to vote for a proiraqi-war candidate?
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
if someone broke into your home and threatened the lives of you and/or your family and you were able to kill them, would you?
Yes.
-
do you plan on seeing the Passion of Christ?
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
do you plan to vote for a proiraqi-war candidate?
You mean Kerry, Edwards, or Bush?
Yes.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
if someone broke into your home and threatened the lives of you and/or your family and you were able to kill them, would you?
Yes. [/b]
I rest my case.
-
Originally posted by pollard:
do you plan on seeing the Passion of Christ?
Yes.
-
Originally posted by pollard:
do you plan on seeing the Passion of Christ?
uhm, I believe the movie's title is The Passion of *the* Christ...
(I only say this because it drives me crazy)
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Yes.
The success of that movie will kill me. Killer!
-
Originally posted by pollard:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Yes.
The success of that movie will kill me. Killer! [/b]
hahahahha
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
if someone broke into your home and threatened the lives of you and/or your family and you were able to kill them, would you?
Yes. [/b]
I rest my case. [/b]
Your case being what?
That one will choose to be bisexual if someone breaks into one's house and threatens one's life or the lives of one's family?
-
Do you let your girlfriend/wife stick her finger up your ass?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
do you plan to vote for a proiraqi-war candidate?
You mean Kerry, Edwards, or Bush?
Yes. [/b]
trick question, i know.
logic spirals rule
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by mankie:
Rhett's gay and he's been married for a while now.
he's bi, mankie, just like everybody [/b]
I thought everyone was gay...Curt Cobain said so and he's a modern day prophet evidently.
:roll:
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
your snotty "arguing" techinques of asking stupid questions like that really gets on my nerves.
Which do you hate more, the "stupid question" technique, or the "TRANSLATION:" technique? [/b]
The TRANSLATION technique without a doubt.
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Do you let your girlfriend/wife stick her finger up your ass?
with or without lube?
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Do you let your girlfriend/wife stick her finger up your ass?
<img src="http://www.goofyphotos.com/fun/stinky.jpg" alt=" - " />
pooooooooo............
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
if someone broke into your home and threatened the lives of you and/or your family and you were able to kill them, would you?
Yes. [/b]
I rest my case. [/b]
Seriously, what's your case?
You have shown that in an extreme situation I would kill to protect myself or my family.
Are you arguing that I am therefore a "killer" merely because of this potentiality?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
if someone broke into your home and threatened the lives of you and/or your family and you were able to kill them, would you?
Yes. [/b]
I rest my case. [/b]
Seriously, what's your case?
You have shown that in an extreme situation I would kill to protect myself or my family.
Are you arguing that I am therefore a "killer" merely because of this potentiality? [/b]
sorry for the delay...I was actually doing some work...or, talking about it...anyway...basically, yes...yes, it's too harsh a stroke for the argument of all people having the potential for bisexuality, but I just think a human being can basically be socialized to do or be almost anything and that sexuality/gender roles are very strongly part of our socialization...
-
Maybe she is arguing that if someone were trying to shove a gun up your ass, you'd probably give in and go bi.
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
if someone broke into your home and threatened the lives of you and/or your family and you were able to kill them, would you?
Yes. [/b]
I rest my case. [/b]
Seriously, what's your case?
You have shown that in an extreme situation I would kill to protect myself or my family.
Are you arguing that I am therefore a "killer" merely because of this potentiality? [/b]
sorry for the delay...I was actually doing some work...or, talking about it...anyway...basically, yes...yes, it's too harsh a stroke for the argument of all people having the potential for bisexuality, but I just think a human being can basically be socialized to do or be almost anything and that sexuality/gender roles are very strongly part of our socialization... [/b]
So what you're saying is homosexuality IS a choice then? Weakens the gay marraige argument if you ask me...if you want to marry you should change your choice back to being straight.
Right?
-
Originally posted by mankie:
So what you're saying is homosexuality IS a choice then? Weakens the gay marraige argument if you ask me...if you want to marry you should change your choice back to being straight.
Right? [/QB]
I won't say whether it's a choice or not. I really can't since I'm not homosexual. I, personally, can't understand NOT being able to NOT want to have sex with someone of my same gender. I can take or leave chicks.
This, however, has no bearing on whether they should be able to get married. Whether they choose to be with someone of the same sex or not, all it is is a commitment to share a life with another individual for as long as you both live. That's it.
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by mankie:
So what you're saying is homosexuality IS a choice then? Weakens the gay marraige argument if you ask me...if you want to marry you should change your choice back to being straight.
Right? [/b]
I won't say whether it's a choice or not. I really can't since I'm not homosexual. I, personally, can't understand NOT being able to NOT want to have sex with someone of my same gender. I can take or leave chicks.
This, however, has no bearing on whether they should be able to get married. Whether they choose to be with someone of the same sex or not, all it is is a commitment to share a life with another individual for as long as you both live. That's it. [/QB]
Marriage is traditionally a commitment between a man and a woman. I had sympathy for gays on this issue if they were born that way, but if they can be "socialized", as you say, to be straight, then fuck em...want to get wed, go straight.
I think you're wrong though, because personally, there's no way I'm touching another blokes knob, no way, no how.
-
Can't+NOT+NOT
You lost me with that sentence!
Right? [/QB][/QUOTE]I won't say whether it's a choice or not. I really can't since I'm not homosexual. I, personally, can't understand NOT being able to NOT want to have sex with someone of my same gender. I can take or leave chicks.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Can't+NOT+NOT
You lost me with that sentence!
Right?
It means I can't relate to a desire for someone of my own sex that is so strong I couldn't chose not to go for it. It means that if a girl was cute enough and the circumstances were right, I might go for it, but I am not compelled to...whereas I understand some homosexuals tend to describe their situation as being very strongly drawn to their own sex to the point that they would be in denial if they did not go for it. I'm saying that since I'm not gay I can't really say if it's a choice for them or not. I can only speak of what I think about bisexuality.
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Can't+NOT+NOT
You lost me with that sentence!
Right?
It means I can't relate to a desire for someone of my own sex that is so strong I couldn't chose not to go for it. It means that if a girl was cute enough and the circumstances were right, I might go for it, but I am not compelled to...whereas I understand some homosexuals tend to describe their situation as being very strongly drawn to their own sex to the point that they would be in denial if they did not go for it. I'm saying that since I'm not gay I can't really say if it's a choice for them or not. I can only speak of what I think about bisexuality. [/b]
I think women have a stronger tendency to be bisexual...men are more black and white on the issue, for the most part.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
I think women have a stronger tendency to be bisexual...men are more black and white on the issue, for the most part.
hello!
that's because of the socialization...in our culture, it's OK for women to be touchy-feely with people...including other women...women are "pretty"...women are objectified much more in media for both men and women...that is why...it's nothing inherent...in ancient Greece, most of the scholars were bi, weren't they? they procreated with the women, but they had sex with other men for pleasure and camraderie...it's totally cultural
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by mankie:
I think women have a stronger tendency to be bisexual...men are more black and white on the issue, for the most part.
hello!
that's because of the socialization...in our culture, it's OK for women to be touchy-feely with people...including other women...women are "pretty"...women are objectified much more in media for both men and women...that is why...it's nothing inherent...in ancient Greece, most of the scholars were bi, weren't they? they procreated with the women, but they had sex with other men for pleasure and camraderie...it's totally cultural [/b]
Err, they were Greek..what's your point?
It has nothing to do with socialization, it has everything to do with emotional make up of the sexes...why is it little girls immediately start to play with baby dolls and boys with trucks before there's been a chance to "socialize" them as you say?
-
Originally posted by mankie:
It has nothing to do with socialization, it has everything to do with emotional make up of the sexes...why is it little girls immediately start to play with baby dolls and boys with trucks before there's been a chance to "socialize" them as you say?
what does playing with dolls or trucks have to do with emotional makeup or sexuality...plenty of gay or bi guys are just as "masculine" on the outside...and I chose mainly stuffed animals when I was a kid...what does that make me, I wonder? a "Furry"? I do like my men hairy
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by mankie:
I think women have a stronger tendency to be bisexual...men are more black and white on the issue, for the most part.
hello!
that's because of the socialization...in our culture, it's OK for women to be touchy-feely with people...including other women...women are "pretty"...women are objectified much more in media for both men and women...that is why...it's nothing inherent...in ancient Greece, most of the scholars were bi, weren't they? they procreated with the women, but they had sex with other men for pleasure and camraderie...it's totally cultural [/b]
All that being said, (and I agree), I think the point has been missed - what one does for sexual gratification is quite a different matter than what one does for emotional fulfilment. I don't know any bisexuals who have the same number of relationships with both sexes - even if they'd just as soon hook up with a guy as a girl. With that in mind, I'd argue that sexual orientation cannot be socialized - we are born a certain way, but with what I would consider to be varying degrees of flexibility.
-
What you said makes sense...varying degrees of flexibility, yes...and the difference between sexual and emotional fulfillment.
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
and the difference between sexual and emotional fulfillment.
which is why I'm so strongly in favor of gay marriage - I can't think of a better way to emphasize the importance of emotional fulfilment in a relationship.
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by mankie:
It has nothing to do with socialization, it has everything to do with emotional make up of the sexes...why is it little girls immediately start to play with baby dolls and boys with trucks before there's been a chance to "socialize" them as you say?
what does playing with dolls or trucks have to do with emotional makeup or sexuality...plenty of gay or bi guys are just as "masculine" on the outside...and I chose mainly stuffed animals when I was a kid...what does that make me, I wonder? a "Furry"? I do like my men hairy [/b]
My point was that you were basically saying we're all the same, but some have a willy and some a hoo-ha and boobies, then depending on our socialization we decide if we're going straight, bi or gay....my point was simply that we are very different even before socialization can have an impact....a bad example with the doll/truck I admit, but it was just to make the point.
Your stuffed animal example is also a bad one because I would say that is an animal lover thing not a sexual thing. You'll find many little boys who will love a teddy bear but not a doll. That's like saying I'm gay because I hug and kiss my 15 month old son.
-
Originally posted by walkie hearts you all:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
and the difference between sexual and emotional fulfillment.
which is why I'm so strongly in favor of gay marriage - I can't think of a better way to emphasize the importance of emotional fulfilment in a relationship. [/b]
I agree there should be civil gay marraiges, if for no other reason than they gays should be given the same spousal rights as everyone else, but I also think each religion should be left to make it's own decision on wether they want to perform gay marraiges. And no I'm not religious whatsoever.
-
I was joking about the stuffed animal...and I don't think we're "all the same" men and women...I still think that many more men would be bisexual if they received the same societal encouragement women do. My attraction to women, when I have it, is not at all emotional and is purely sexual...so it's not really an emotional thing. Maybe that's what differentiates the bi's who want to just play with people of their own gender from the gays who want a relationship and a life with someone of their own gender.
I'd never want an intense relationship with a woman...women are such a pain in the ass : )
-
Originally posted by mankie:
I agree there should be civil gay marraiges, if for no other reason than they gays should be given the same spousal rights as everyone else, but I also think each religion should be left to make it's own decision on wether they want to perform gay marraiges. And no I'm not religious whatsoever.
I agree with you on all counts here. Religions can do what they want. For example, I never understood gays who wanted to be Catholic...why be Catholic if you're gay and they traditionally prohibit that? Just be something else, or make up your own thing...
-
Truer words were never spoken.
But sometimes pains in the ass can be pleasureable.
Just make sure you use lots of lube.
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
I'd never want an intense relationship with a woman...women are such a pain in the ass : )
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Truer words were never spoken.
But sometimes pains in the ass can be pleasureable.
Just make sure you use lots of lube.
And you guys give Samantha a hard time about her content.Pot,kettle,kettle,pot ;)
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Truer words were never spoken.
But sometimes pains in the ass can be pleasureable.
Just make sure you use lots of lube.
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
I'd never want an intense relationship with a woman...women are such a pain in the ass : )
[/b]
yeah? you'll be lubing yourself up after that comment!
-
I don't see what's wrong with having gay marriages. It doesn't affect anyone except the people who are getting married. Most gay couples aren't going to go around screaming about how they're married, anyway. It technically has nothing to do with anyone else, or at least I think it doesn't.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
but I also think each religion should be left to make it's own decision on wether they want to perform gay marraiges. And no I'm not religious whatsoever.
I agree with that completely. If the Roman Catholic church will not perform that marriage, become Episcopal or Unitarian. And that's why the government has no say. Back to the Constitution and all....
Alas, the marriage has to be recognized by the state for all those rights to convey....
-
Originally posted by Bags:
I agree with that completely. If the Roman Catholic church will not perform that marriage, become Episcopal or Unitarian.
Beware of Protestantism. Have you ever heard a Catholic say that God talks directly to him? God hasn't spoken directly to man for over 2000+ years.
But apparently He talks frequently to George W. Bush, Pat, Robertson, Bob Jones and numerous other Protestant nutters. God doesn't speak directly to the pope, but He does to George W. Bush, go figure..?
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Originally posted by Bags:
[qb]
But apparently He talks frequently to George W. Bush, Pat, Robertson, Bob Jones and numerous other Protestant nutters. God doesn't speak directly to the pope, but He does to George W. Bush, go figure..? [/b]
Ahh,that explains it,he's been hearing voices.Shame they don't tell him to get a clue!
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Beware of Protestantism. Have you ever heard a Catholic say that God talks directly to him? God hasn't spoken directly to man for over 2000+ years.
That's because the Catholic church wants to ensure that man needs it to connect to God. Total B.S. I'm basically a humanist, but if I had to weigh pros and cons of different religious doctrines, I certainly wouldn't buy into a religion that requires I have another human, or saint, be an intermediary between me and God
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Beware of Protestantism. Have you ever heard a Catholic say that God talks directly to him? God hasn't spoken directly to man for over 2000+ years.
That's because the Catholic church wants to ensure that man needs it to connect to God. Total B.S. I'm basically a humanist, but if I had to weigh pros and cons of different religious doctrines, I certainly wouldn't buy into a religion that requires I have another human, or saint, be an intermediary between me and God [/b]
amen.
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Originally posted by Bags:
I agree with that completely. If the Roman Catholic church will not perform that marriage, become Episcopal or Unitarian.
Beware of Protestantism. Have you ever heard a Catholic say that God talks directly to him? God hasn't spoken directly to man for over 2000+ years.
But apparently He talks frequently to George W. Bush, Pat, Robertson, Bob Jones and numerous other Protestant nutters. God doesn't speak directly to the pope, but He does to George W. Bush, go figure..? [/b]
Well, that's why I suggested Episcopal or Unitarian. God doesn't speak to them....not directly, at least!
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
That's because the Catholic church wants to ensure that man needs it to connect to God. Total B.S. I'm basically a humanist, but if I had to weigh pros and cons of different religious doctrines, I certainly wouldn't buy into a religion that requires I have another human, or saint, be an intermediary between me and God
Cool your jets, Ms.Balls! I'm merely stating that to leap from one branch of X-ianity to another is pure tomfoolery. Looking for "The Answer" in any house of worship is ridiculousness personified. One would be better fufilled spiritually beating-off in the back row of a Mel Gibson movie.
From Catholic to Protestant is from bad to worse. The only tasteful thing the Protestants have ever done is handle snakes & drink arsenic. If you desire a Christian religion with decorum, then may I suggest Russian Orthodox. The ornamentation is simply splendiferous. Iconography trumps even Michaelangelo in terms of good taste. I always thought the Italian masters were a bit too ostentatious. You?
As to homos? Well, according to the father of sociobioloigy, E.O.Wilson, altruistic genes are scattered throught the population. So one needn't neccessarily be a limp wristed, lisping ass-pirate to further the cause of fagness. One could even be a Bush votin', gun totin', bible thumpin' homo-hater and still be carrying those same altruistic genes. Stop worrying. A gay future is assured.
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Originally posted by Bags:
I agree with that completely. If the Roman Catholic church will not perform that marriage, become Episcopal or Unitarian.
Beware of Protestantism. Have you ever heard a Catholic say that God talks directly to him? God hasn't spoken directly to man for over 2000+ years.
But apparently He talks frequently to George W. Bush, Pat, Robertson, Bob Jones and numerous other Protestant nutters. God doesn't speak directly to the pope, but He does to George W. Bush, go figure..? [/b]
Didn't you know that God hates Catholics because their priests are all pedeophile fags, that's why he doesn't talk to them....he told me so himself because I'm proddie-dog.
-
<img src="http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040223/capt.cak10702231948.democrats_kerry_cak107.jpg" alt=" - " />
poooooooooo
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
One could even be a Bush votin', gun totin', bible thumpin' homo-hater and still be carrying those same altruistic genes. Stop worrying. A gay future is assured.
I think you mean, used to be a Bush votin', gun totin'.......
A FALLING OUT AMONG FRIENDS
By Debra Rosenberg and Mark Miller
Newsweek
March 8 issue - David Catania has been one of George W. Bush's most loyal supporters. The Washington, D.C., city councilman has raised nearly $80,000 for the president's re-election. He's a Bush delegate to this summer's GOP convention and holds a seat on the platform committee, which shapes the party's official agenda. But last week Catania, like many other gay Republicans, was furious at the president's backing of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Now he's dropping his fund-raising efforts and no longer plans to vote for Bush. "You know the concept of buyer's remorse? I've got it," he says. "I want my money back." Now Catania intends to fight the amendment on the platform committee and work against a second Bush term.
Catania is a member of the "Austin 12," an informal group of gay Republicans who advised the Bush 2000 campaign, serving as a sounding board on gay issues. In April of that year, the 12 traveled to Austin to meet with the then Governor Bush, who was eager to burnish his image as a "compassionate conservative." He'd resisted meeting with the chief gay GOP group, the Log Cabin Republicansâ??they'd backed his presidential-primary rival John McCainâ??but agreed to sit down with a dozen handpicked gay supporters. In an emotional meeting at his campaign headquarters, Bush listened carefully and declared himself "a better man" for their visit. But four years later, even Bush's most devoted gay supporters are wavering. "I have always accepted the president's opposition to gay marriage," says Charles Francis, a longtime Bush family friend and a D.C. consultant who organized the Austin meeting. But for the Austin 12â??all of whom spoke with NEWSWEEK last weekâ??Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment is a step too far. "It writes inequality into the founding document, and we can never support that," Francis says.
The 12 argue that Bush had a solid record on gay issues until the marriage amendment. In the Austin meeting, they asked him for several assurancesâ??a gay speaker at the 2000 convention, a promise not to repeal executive orders that prohibited discrimination against gays in federal jobs, a willingness to hire gays in his administration. Bush delivered on them all. He even appointed one of the 12, Scott Evertz, as his first AIDS czar. A White House aide acknowledged that Bush has friends "who are homosexual. He understands their position, but they might understand that he has his principles."
That did little to help the sense of betrayal last week among the Austin 12. None was consulted by the White House before the decision. Some, like Evertz and former congressman Steve Gunderson, say they are deeply disappointed but so far continue to support Bush. But New York real-estate developer Donald Capoccia was so disgusted that he quit his Bush-appointed post on the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. Like Catania, many of the 12 say they won't vote for Bush at all. That could cost him not only the estimated 1 million gay votersâ??a quarter of the gay voteâ??who supported him in 2000, but like-minded swing voters too. Still, Bush will likely have many on his side: polls show slowly rising public support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Now that Bush has formally called for the marriage amendment, more-radical activists are whispering about the idea of an '80s-style outing campaign against prominent gay Republicans (and their relatives) to highlight what they say is obvious hypocrisyâ??a strategy the 12 oppose. "I think it will get uglier than anything we saw on AIDS," says Gunderson. "This country will be more polarized than we've been in decades." That's exactly what the Austin 12 had hoped to avoid in the first place.
With Tamara Lipper
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
-
Wouldn't it be comedic irony if Dubya lost the election just because he doesn't want a couple of fairy's to get wed, after starting this big old war to get the doodles to rally around him.
It would be to me anyway.
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
I think Kurt Vonnegut's suggestion from his novel SLAPSTICK is a much better proposal than either gay marriage or constitutional ammendments.
all Americans were issued new middle names consisting of "...a noun, the name of a flower or fruit or nut or vegetable or legume, or a bird or reptile or a fish, or mollusk, or a gem, or a mineral or a chemical element--connected by a hypen to a number between one and twenty." People with the same middle name--both noun and number--became siblings; those who shared only the noun became cousins. The names were randomly assigned, so that everyone's family instantly expanded to include ten thousand new siblings and one-hundred and ninety-thousand new cousins, scattered across the country. Under the new system, everyone "belonged" somewhere, everyone was part of a big family. People would be "Lonesome No More!".
Dupek "Daffodil Eleven" Chopra
Hey I know someone named, Coffee [One]. Just "Coffee" when addressing him. He is from Africa and his name was determined by the day of the week which he was born. The "One" is for ranking in family order. He's the oldest of 13 siblings. If his other siblings were born on the same day of the week as Coffee, they received the next number in order...ex/"Coffee Two", and so on. (Believe me, communicating that story at first, was a conversation similar to "Who's On First?")
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
David Catania has been one of George W. Bush's most loyal supporters... "You know the concept of buyer's remorse? I've got it," he says. "I want my money back." [/b]
gay republicans are like black republicans...SCARY AS HELL
-
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
gay republicans are like black republicans...SCARY AS HELL
how so, when I used to work with a group opposed to the religious right, one of the groups we worked with was http://www.lcr.org/ (http://www.lcr.org/) , they are pretty reasonable people, most groups like that are republicans for economic issues, not social
-
Originally posted by pollard:
Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
gay republicans are like black republicans...SCARY AS HELL
how so, when I used to work with a group opposed to the religious right, one of the groups we worked with was http://www.lcr.org/ (http://www.lcr.org/) , they are pretty reasonable people, most groups like that are republicans for economic issues, not social [/b]
well, SCARY AS HELL may have been a dramatic way to say it, but, I just find it curious when groups so typically disenfranchised align themselves with a group that generally seems to seek to oppress them--albeit in subtle ways
I think the phrases that come to mind are "unholy alliance" or "strange bedfellows"
and, I'd say that most of these types you mention would probably make sure they appear "reasonable" when they are looking after their financial interests (even to the detriment of other things)
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Originally posted by Bags:
I agree with that completely. If the Roman Catholic church will not perform that marriage, become Episcopal or Unitarian.
Beware of Protestantism. Have you ever heard a Catholic say that God talks directly to him? God hasn't spoken directly to man for over 2000+ years.
But apparently He talks frequently to George W. Bush, Pat, Robertson, Bob Jones and numerous other Protestant nutters. God doesn't speak directly to the pope, but He does to George W. Bush, go figure..? [/b]
According to Catholics, God need not speak directly to the pope because he is God's rep on earth, and infallible. Presumably they both speak through the ether to each other.
-
Originally posted by El Tee:
Hey I know someone named, Coffee [One].
Are you sure his name wasn't Kofi Annan and not Coffee One?
-
Originally posted by Groundskeeper's Willy:
Originally posted by El Tee:
Hey I know someone named, Coffee [One].
Are you sure his name wasn't Kofi Annan and not Coffee One? [/b]
I had exactly the same thought but resisted the temptation to post as any comment I make regarding people of color....good or bad, is portrayed as "racist" by the Board PC Police.
-
Originally posted by Groundskeeper's Willy:
Originally posted by El Tee:
Hey I know someone named, Coffee [One].
Are you sure his name wasn't Kofi Annan and not Coffee One? [/b]
Hmm...it's possible...but when we spoke I asked questions such as "How is that spelled? Coffee like the beverage?" and "One as in the number one?" He said yes to both...Well there's a brainteaser.
-
Latest on the marriage front, in case anyone didn't see it:
N.Y. attorney general urges halt to same-sex marriages (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/03/ny.samesex/index.html)
&
Oregon county issues same-sex marriage licenses (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/03/same.sex.marriage/index.html)
-
<img src="http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/US/West/03/03/same.sex.marriage/story.couple.ap.jpg" alt=" - " />
Indie rock lesbos?
Originally posted by nkotbie:
Latest on the marriage front, in case anyone didn't see it:
N.Y. attorney general urges halt to same-sex marriages (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/03/ny.samesex/index.html)
&
Oregon county issues same-sex marriage licenses (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/03/same.sex.marriage/index.html)
-
Originally posted by keithstg:
[QB]
According to Catholics, God need not speak directly to the pope because he is God's rep on earth, and infallible. Presumably they both speak through the ether to each other.
Presumption is the mother of all fuckups, Sherlock.
-
As a friend pointed out to me, this is perhaps the longest NY Times editorial we've ever seen. Took up just about all of the editor's column on Sunday.
March 7, 2004
The Road to Gay Marriage
When Massachusetts' highest court ruled that gays have a right to marry, it opened a floodgate. From San Francisco to New Paltz, N.Y., thousands of gay couples have wed, and the movement shows no sign of slowing. There has been opposition, from the White House down, but support has come from across the nation and the political spectrum. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of the most populous state, said it would be "fine" with him if California allowed gay marriage. The student newspaper at Baylor, the world's largest Baptist university, ran a pro-gay-marriage editorial.
At an anti-gay-marriage meeting in Washington last week, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, warned that the "wildfire" of same-sex marriages will spread unless opponents mobilize. But even if they do, it is unlikely gay marriage can or will be halted. Opponents are pinning their hopes on a federal constitutional amendment, but even many Americans who are skittish about gay marriage do not want to enshrine intolerance as one of the nation's fundamental principles. The founders made it extremely hard to amend the Constitution, and it is unlikely this effort will succeed.
With allies in the White House and both houses of Congress, gay marriage opponents want the issue decided in Washington. But it appears we are embarking on 50 national conversations, not one. Following the lead of Vermont, which has civil unions, and Massachusetts, other states will weigh what rights to accord same-sex couples, and how to treat marriages and unions from other states. When the federal government does act, it is likely that, as with the Supreme Court's 1967 ruling on interracial marriage, it will be to lift up those states that failed to give all their citizens equal rights.
The idea of marriage between two people of the same sex is still very new, and for some unsettling, but we have been down this road before. This debate follows the same narrative arc as women's liberation, racial integration, disability rights and every other march of marginalized Americans into the mainstream. Same-sex marriage seems destined to have the same trajectory: from being too outlandish to be taken seriously, to being branded offensive and lawless, to eventual acceptance.
The Flood of Gay Marriages
The television images from San Francisco brought gay marriage into America's living rooms in a way no court decision could. Mayor Gavin Newsom's critics called his actions lawless, but the law was, and still is, murky. When California's attorney general asked the State Supreme Court to address same-sex marriage, it declined to stop the city from performing the ceremonies right away, or to invalidate those already performed. When New Paltz's mayor began performing same-sex marriages, New York law seemed similarly uncertain.
The rebellious mayors have so far acted honorably. Testing the law is a civil rights tradition: Jim Crow laws were undone by blacks who refused to obey them. Visible protests of questionable laws can, as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in "Letter From Birmingham Jail," "dramatize" an issue so "it can no longer be ignored." The mayors have succeeded in dramatizing the issue. But for them to defy court orders requires a far greater crisis than is present here. If courts direct officials not to perform gay marriages, they should not.
The Role of `Activist Judges'
Opponents of gay marriage have tried to place all of the blame for recent events on "activist judges." Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, has called for a Congressional investigation of "judicial invalidation of traditional marriage laws." The judiciary, however, is only one part of a much larger story. Gay rights and gay marriages are being driven by an array of social forces and institutions. In California, the driving force has been an elected mayor, with the support of his constituents. In that case, it is gay marriage opponents who are asking judges to step in.
To the extent that the courts do have a leading role, it is perfectly natural. Gay marriage opponents like to portray judges as alien beings, but state court judges are an integral part of state government. They were elected, or appointed by someone who was. The founders created three equal branches, and a Constitution setting out broad principles, at both the national and state levels. Courts are supposed to give life to phrases like "equal protection" and "due process." Much of the nation's progress, from integration to religious freedom, has been won just this way.
The Emerging Legal Patchwork
As more courts and legislatures take up the issue, the rules for gay civil unions and marriages will most likely vary considerably across the nation. More states can be expected to follow Vermont's lead and allow civil unions that carry most of the rights of marriage. Others may allow gay marriage. This is hardly unusual, since states have historically made their own marriage and divorce rules. Currently, some people, such as first cousins, can marry in some states but not others.
The last great constitutional transformation of marriage in this country, the invalidation of laws against interracial marriage, moved slowly. In 1948, California became the first state in the nation to strike down its laws against interracial marriages. It was not until 1967 that the Supreme Court held Virginia's law unconstitutional, and created a rule that applied nationally.
The Battle for Interstate Recognition
Popular attention is now on wedding ceremonies for people of the same sex, but a no less important issue is whether states will recognize gay marriages and unions performed in other states. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which says no state can be forced to recognize gay marriages. But the law has not been tested, and it should eventually be found to violate the constitutional requirement that states respect each other's legal acts. As a practical matter, the nation is too tightly bound today for people's marriages to dissolve, and child custody arrangements to change, merely because they move to another state.
Whether or not they have to recognize other states' civil unions and gay marriages, states clearly have the option to. Whether they will is likely to be the next important chapter of the gay marriage story. Couples who are married or who have civil unions will return to their home states, or move to new ones, and seek to have their status recognized. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer of New York, in an opinion last week, strongly suggested New York's law requires it to recognize gay marriages and civil unions entered into elsewhere. At least one New York court has already reached this conclusion.
Final Destination
The controversy over same-sex weddings has obscured the remarkable transformation in opinion over civil unions. Less than 20 years ago, the United States Supreme Court enthusiastically upheld a Georgia law making gay sex a crime. Last year, the court reversed itself, and a national consensus seems to be forming that gay couples have a right to, at the least, enter into civil unions that carry the same rights as marriage. Even President Bush, who has endorsed a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage, has suggested he had no problem with states' recognizing civil unions.
Civil unions, with rights similar to marriage, are a major step, but ultimately only an interim one. As both sides in the debate agree, marriage is something more than a mere bundle of legal rights. Whatever else the state is handing out when it issues a marriage license, whatever approval or endorsement it is providing, will ultimately have to be made available to all Americans equally.
To the Virginia judge who ruled that Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, could not marry, the reason was self-evident. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents," he wrote. "And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages." Calling marriage one of the "basic civil rights of man," the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that Virginia had to let interracial couples marry. Thirty-seven years from now, the reasons for opposing gay marriage will no doubt feel just as archaic, and the right to enter into it will be just as widely accepted.
-
Did Jason Blair write it?
-
Summary: They're here, they're queer and they ain't goin' nowhere...so GET USED TO IT :p
-
Look at what i found. Are gay people drowning in a sea of normalcy, now that we have what we want?
-
i'm not sure if i interpret the crickets as a good thing or a bad thing...
-
I think its a, we have reached a peak point of not caring about most things any more, thing. I always fight the good fight, of do I care about the world and what exists around me, or do I only care about myself and what I want and believe in to be right. damn, you, reality of morals.
-
I think its a, we have reached a peak point of not caring about most things any more, thing. I always fight the good fight, of do I care about the world and what exists around me, or do I only care about myself and what I want and believe in to be right. damn, you, reality of morals.
I think it's more of a "everyone on this board feels the same" and what else is there to discuss?
-
yeah in 2004 it was an issue
even republicans are behind it now in 2016
But I am curious what the long term impact has been in the gay community
I've heard a number of stories of couples who rushed to get married and now regret it
I know a number of gay couples with children both in SF and DC and for them, I'm the happiest as it really legitimatizes it from a legal standpoint and not an emotional/political one
-
yeah, that too. damn you, conformity.
-
But I am curious what the long term impact has been in the gay community
I've heard a number of stories of couples who rushed to get married and now regret it
The gender of the spouse doesn't make a difference in your second statement.
-
But I am curious what the long term impact has been in the gay community
I've heard a number of stories of couples who rushed to get married and now regret it
The gender of the spouse doesn't make a difference in your second statement.
well of course that's happened since marriage was invented
but there was such a big deal to run down to the court house and get your gay marriage on when it was news
-
I do love the fact that gay people are now looking deep, real deep within themselves to see that they really are just like everyone else . . . and its boring. I want to laugh, but yes, sometimes it is boring.
-
we are all boring...well... except here on the 930 board!