Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

CA State Senator DUI (with bonus *** nightclub hijinks)Follow

#77 Mar 09 2010 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Samira wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I actually feel a little pity for the guy. It's got to be hard to be so opposed to homosexual rights, and be a homosexual yourself.


Do you not think he voted the way he voted in order to divert suspicion? The lady, as it were, protested too much.



I'm sure that's part of it. Which, in my opinion, only makes it more pitiful. Smiley: frown
#78 Mar 09 2010 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,463 posts
It is pitiful that he thought his own turmoil allowed him to limit people who overcame theirs and want to live openly and proudly.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#79gbaji, Posted: Mar 09 2010 at 4:03 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Getting back to this thread:
#80 Mar 09 2010 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#81 Mar 09 2010 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:

I guess I would believe this bullsh*t if some of the bills he voted down didn't push '***' rights so much as ensure basic human rights.
Quote:
Ashburn has voted on the wrong side of 30 to 40 *** rights-related bills, including no on Assembly Bill 14 in 2007, which Kors said prohibited discrimination against gays in public places including bars, and no on Assembly Bill 394 in 2007, which Equality California says helped ensure full implementation of school safety standards regarding harassment and discrimination.


And let's just take Mr. Kors' statements about those bills as absolute fact. Um.. A lot of those bills were really really crappy. They absolutely crossed the line from equal protection under the law to "special protection". I don't care how much you may feel oppressed and whatnot, it's still wrong to write harassment laws which only allow claims if the harassed person is in one of a set of groups.

You cannot allow a double standard. The one about school discrimination was discussed at length. It would have effectively un-evened the political speech playing field. A kid wearing a "yes on prop8" tee-shirt at school would be considered to be engaged in harassment. Yet another student wearing a "no on prop8" tee-shirt would not. It was that broad. And yes. Even without such horrible laws on the books, we've had lawsuits for exactly that sort of thing on our school campuses. Some of them are pretty ludicrous. Some of them are contradictory (getting sued simultaneously for allowing someone to wear a t-shirt and for not allowing someone to wear the exact same t-shirt, and losing both lawsuits for example).

We really don't need yet more laws perpetuating this sort of silliness. I'm firmly of the belief that existing laws are just fine for preventing people from hurting or harassing you. We don't need more. Really...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#82 Mar 09 2010 at 4:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,237 posts
A lot of them? Out of the 35 or so bills he voted against, how many would you say?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#83gbaji, Posted: Mar 09 2010 at 4:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I've said this a dozen times in the past. Fewer children born to single mothers. That's why we encourage heterosexual couples to marry. The benefits for that, even a small dent in that, vastly outweigh every other economic aspect of the issue.
#84 Mar 09 2010 at 4:37 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But that's their choice. Isn't it? When the government provides subsidies to try to get people to buy hybrids, we might support or oppose said subsidy, right? But no one in their right mind would argue that if you oppose said government subsidy that you are denying people the "right" to own a hybrid car.

Don't you think it's strange that that exact illogic is used in the case of *** marriage? Think about it...
Well, except in this case it's the government saying that only certain people can buy hybrids.

gbaji wrote:
I've said this a dozen times in the past. Fewer children born to single mothers. That's why we encourage heterosexual couples to marry. The benefits for that, even a small dent in that, vastly outweigh every other economic aspect of the issue.
No no, not why we encourage hetero marriage, why we don't want gays to get married. The statement is that assuming the *** marriage will generate a net social benefit why not just let them get married. It's a different reason then hetero marriage for you sure, but that's not a problem. Different aspects often call for different reasons. If scenario A generates $100, and scenario B generates $5, then while the difference is huge, they are both still good decisions, especially when pursuing B does not affect A.

I don't agree with your "reasons" for marriage laws, but assuming you're right, the same reasons don't have to apply to allowing *** marriage. If there are another set of reasons benefits and costs that apply to this scenario, that can also justify it, even though following your reasons it doesn't likely affect single parenting much.

Edited, Mar 9th 2010 4:40pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#85 Mar 09 2010 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I've said this a dozen times in the past. Fewer children born to single mothers. That's why we encourage heterosexual couples to marry. The benefits for that, even a small dent in that, vastly outweigh every other economic aspect of the issue.
No no, not why we encourage hetero marriage, why we don't want gays to get married. The statement is that assuming the *** marriage will generate a net social benefit why not just let them get married. It's a different reason then hetero marriage for you sure, but that's not a problem. Different aspects often call for different reasons. If scenario A generates $100, and scenario B generates $5, then while the difference is huge, they are both still good decisions, especially when pursuing B does not affect A.
I'm going to skip ahead and respond to gbaji's argument before he has a chance to make it.
future gbaji wrote:
But that forces the rest of us to pay more in taxes to help cover the increased cost of benefits that are now being given to homosexual married couples!
Homosexual couples already have to pay taxes to heterosexual couples for benefits they're not allowed to have.



Edited, Mar 9th 2010 4:45pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#86 Mar 09 2010 at 4:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Samira wrote:
A lot of them? Out of the 35 or so bills he voted against, how many would you say?


I don't know. You tell me. I'm not the one making allegations as to his motives for voting against them. I do know, being a citizen of the state in question, that there have been a number of truly BS laws attempted in the last decade. California always does. There are usually dozens of really really bad laws pushed by various special interest groups each year which are blatantly biased, unfair, and in some cases unconstitutional. Just because the interest group in question labels them as a "rights" issue doesn't actually make it so...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Mar 09 2010 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
no bsphil, my point was that the cost is balanced by benefits, and while they are different perhaps then hetero marriage they are not somehow less reasonable. I'm sure Gbaji wouldn't miss that. @Gbaji, ignore him, I'm still interested in this conversation.

Edited, Mar 9th 2010 4:47pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#88 Mar 09 2010 at 4:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
bsphil wrote:
Homosexual couples already have to pay taxes to heterosexual couples for benefits they're not allowed to have.


So do single heterosexual people. What's your point?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Mar 09 2010 at 4:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
no bsphil, my point was that the cost is balanced by benefits, and while they are different perhaps then hetero marriage they are not somehow less reasonable. I'm sure Gbaji wouldn't miss that. @Gbaji, ignore him, I'm still interested in this conversation.
Yes, yes he would miss that.

Or, argue that the benefits are minimal while the costs are relatively astronomical.

gbaji wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Homosexual couples already have to pay taxes to heterosexual couples for benefits they're not allowed to have.
So do single heterosexual people. What's your point?
Except single heterosexual people can get married.



Edited, Mar 9th 2010 4:51pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#90 Mar 09 2010 at 5:11 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Not worth responding to the bulk of your rebuttles, since they are completely without a basis, but:

Quote:
No. It's a one time event. Why would you think otherwise? Did you see a "per year" unit attached to those figures? While I'm sure they may need to hire extra people to handle the short period of increased demand, it's *not* a sustained value.


It very clearly said over the next three years.

L2Read.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#91 Mar 09 2010 at 5:11 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
Oh for Christ's sake, let's not get Gbaji started on his inane reasons for not allowing *** marriage yet again.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#92 Mar 09 2010 at 5:16 PM Rating: Good
Technogeek wrote:
Oh for Christ's sake, let's not get Gbaji started on his inane reasons for not allowing *** marriage yet again.
I'm trying to steer the conversation away from why we have marriage in the first place, and into the idea of having *** marriage, by itself.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#93 Mar 09 2010 at 5:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
2. It further assumes some average marriage-industry revenue per-marriage. While I suppose this is assumption on my part, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the average *** marriage in this case will consist of the two going to city hall and getting their license witnessed and signed. You aren't going to get the same revenue per-marriage that the industry normally assumes.
Smiley: oyvey I think it's pretty unreasonable to assume that. From what I've seen the case is in fact the opposite, I remember the comments wedding organizers made about prop 8 and the loss of business back in the day.

Having ties to the wedding & events industry via a part-time job for the last ten years, I can pretty much guarantee you that Gbaji is wrong. You will actually have a rush of cheapo civil ceremonies from people who have waited ten years to be able to get married and don't want to wait an extra six or eight months to plan a "real" wedding but, after that, they'll be deciding between beef or fish just like all the hetero couples at the reception hall sales office.

Edited, Mar 9th 2010 5:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Mar 09 2010 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
*****
14,174 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Oh for Christ's sake, let's not get Gbaji started on his inane reasons for not allowing *** marriage yet again.


Well said.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#95gbaji, Posted: Mar 09 2010 at 6:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Sure. And you're making a wonderful case for the creation of a new legal status designed specifically to recognize relationships not traditionally associated with child production. Which is exactly what the state of California passed. But instead of being happy, the *** rights folks pushed to get a ruling that said status was unconstitutional in that it represented a "separate but equal" condition. It was that ruling which forced the state to grant marriage licenses to *** couples and which prompted proposition 8.
#96 Mar 09 2010 at 7:09 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
No. It is exactly like the government deciding it will provide incentives to get people to buy hybrid cars, but not other types of cars. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.


And, obviously, it is perfectly logical and acceptable to consider human beings the same way we consider commodities. Yeah, that's how a government should make decisions. Let's not bother stopping genocides--it's cheaper just to grow new humans AND they last longer.

Yeah, I think we should all think that way. The sad thing is that I'm the one who doesn't believe in souls...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#97 Mar 09 2010 at 7:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Having ties to the wedding & events industry via a part-time job for the last ten years, I can pretty much guarantee you that Gbaji is wrong. You will actually have a rush of cheapo civil ceremonies from people who have waited ten years to be able to get married and don't want to wait an extra six or eight months to plan a "real" wedding but, after that, they'll be deciding between beef or fish just like all the hetero couples at the reception hall sales office.


Sure. But can we please agree that the number quoted earlier does not in any way reflect sustained revenue from *** marriage? Pretty please?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Mar 09 2010 at 7:15 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
gbaji wrote:
2. It further assumes some average marriage-industry revenue per-marriage. While I suppose this is assumption on my part, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the average *** marriage in this case will consist of the two going to city hall and getting their license witnessed and signed. You aren't going to get the same revenue per-marriage that the industry normally assumes.
Smiley: oyvey I think it's pretty unreasonable to assume that. From what I've seen the case is in fact the opposite, I remember the comments wedding organizers made about prop 8 and the loss of business back in the day.

Having ties to the wedding & events industry via a part-time job for the last ten years, I can pretty much guarantee you that Gbaji is wrong. You will actually have a rush of cheapo civil ceremonies from people who have waited ten years to be able to get married and don't want to wait an extra six or eight months to plan a "real" wedding but, after that, they'll be deciding between beef or fish just like all the hetero couples at the reception hall sales office.

Edited, Mar 9th 2010 5:29pm by Jophiel
Or you can go by stereotypes and look up the price for hiring Cher for the day.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#99gbaji, Posted: Mar 09 2010 at 7:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You know what!? Did you know that the government only gives mortgage interest tax breaks to people who own homes? OMG! That's like committing genocide on all the poor people who don't own their own homes! How incredibly cruel! Someone should do something about this right now!!!
#100 Mar 09 2010 at 7:30 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
No, that isn't my argument. I was making fun of you.

Maybe you missed the sarcasm?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#101gbaji, Posted: Mar 09 2010 at 7:48 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The day that the argument for *** marriage doesn't consist almost entirely of similarly sarcastic accusatory exaggerations, I'll stop responding to them as though they were meant seriously.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 95 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (95)