Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#52 Mar 05 2010 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
28,220 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Wait, hold the phone, if Samira's Science is correct, and Catwho is an Anti-varus, if they touch, we could be rid of Varus forever?

Time for a Road Trip!


That is too icky to contemplate.

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

#53 Mar 05 2010 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
*****
14,174 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Wait, hold the phone, if Samira's Science is correct, and Catwho is an Anti-varus, if they touch, we could be rid of Varus forever?

Time for a Road Trip!


Well, it's the only way Varrus'll ever be bright.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#54 Mar 05 2010 at 9:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Why defend him Gbaji?


It's not so much about defending him, as disagreeing with the yardstick you're using to judge him by in the first place. As Moe points out, there's a double standard to these sorts of things.

Even beyond that though, I simply do not agree with your assumption as to why a republican politician might oppose any of a set of bills labeled as "gay rights bills". You assume he opposes them out of some kind of hatred for homosexuality. Thus, the idea that he might himself be a closet homosexual is followed by accusations of hypocrisy and/or self-hatred.

If you accept that there are other reasons to oppose said legislation which have nothing to do with liking or disliking the group in question, you'll see that your assumption is unfounded, and his own personal life is irrelevant in that context.

Quote:
I don't get it.


I know you don't. Despite the fact that I've explained this dozens of times in a whole slew of various **** marriage threads (among others in which I espouse the same "government shouldn't pick favorites" idea). I hold out hope that one day you might indeed "get it".

Quote:
It just makes you look like a partisan hack. Regardless of how loud he was, he's opposed it, voted against it, and then Real life got in the way.


In what way does his "real life" affect his position on **** marriage? Do you see how you are proceeding from an assumption that everyone makes political decisions based on the same criteria you use? You pick sides. You like certain groups, so you support them and support legislation which benefits them. Conservatives largely don't believe that process should be used at all. Thus, they'll oppose a liberal movement to provide something to a group that the liberals like, not because the conservatives "dislike" that group, but because they believe that is the wrong criteria to use.

The very fact that you assume that someone who is **** (closeted or not) is automatically a hypocrite if he opposes **** marriage shows the degree to which that "pick a side" mentality pervades your political thinking. It just can't occur to you that not everyone makes political decisions that way. thus, you constantly run around ascribing false motives to others, based on why you would do what they are doing, rather than considering that they might do it for a completely different reason...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Mar 05 2010 at 10:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,761 posts
Quote:
If you accept that there are other reasons to oppose said legislation which have nothing to do with liking or disliking the group in question, you'll see that your assumption is unfounded, and his own personal life is irrelevant in that context.


If we were talking about bills that included massive legislature changes, you could POSSIBLY have a point. But are we REALLY supposed to believe that EVERY SINGLE one of those votes was done for reasons that considered the "gay" issue to be a positive, rather than a negative, that just wasn't good enough to outweigh the negatives?

No, we shouldn't. Because that's stupid. No one in their right mind would try and put through a **** marriage prohibition along with OTHER traits that Republicans would dislike. There would be no reason to put the bill out there in the first place--you just eliminate the entire other party, instead of just some (and hopefully, not enough to fail the bill).

Logic tells us that this guy had a very specific grudge against homosexuals. We know this because of the extremely steady rate at which he opposes these bills, along a very wide range of topics--everything from Prop8 to voting to make a certain date a specific holiday.

Add in the fact that he's divorced and was just arrested after leaving a **** bar, and my gaydar is screaming that he's a closet case. The guy was there for a cheap **** with the first guy that would have him. He's, at the very best, bi. And I'd be surprised if it turned out that he had any sexual feelings for women. But, his sexuality isn't what is in question here.

Quote:
I know you don't. Despite the fact that I've explained this dozens of times in a whole slew of various **** marriage threads (among others in which I espouse the same "government shouldn't pick favorites" idea). I hold out hope that one day you might indeed "get it".


Your arguments are consistently stupid. So bad, that most political advocates against **** marriage don't even use them. Because the math tells us the exact opposite. You like to pretend that **** marriage would cost the state, when both predictive analyses AND economic studies done in areas where it has been approved prove the opposite. The economic revenue in Washington D.C. as a result of the recent approval is predicted to be $5 million and is expected to create 700 jobs in the next 3 years. In ONE city. Not one country. Not one state. One city. A city that isn't particularly known for its **** scene nonetheless.

And your "showing special consideration" idea is not only **** but there's plenty basis for the opposite. In terms of anti-discriminatory laws, they are in place for most minorities (as well as at least one majority--women). If we consider marriage, it is not at all a request for special consideration but rather equal consideration, so your argument continues not to apply.

Now, if the gays were asking for tax breaks just for checking the box that says they're a banana crammer, I'd agree with you-- that law shouldn't go through (and I'M gay). If we were talking about getting tax incentives (as women do) for being business owners, I would vote against it. And if I thought gays should get a special weight on their admissions to universities just for wanting to suck the occasional **** I still wouldn't vote for it.

But that's because my definition of equal consideration is just that--equal consideration. I don't think that being a minority should give you greater rights so as to balance the field. I think the government should give you equal rights, and let you try to make up the difference in the social realm yourself (which we have made HUGE strides in during the last four decades).

Quote:
The very fact that you assume that someone who is **** (closeted or not) is automatically a hypocrite if he opposes **** marriage shows the degree to which that "pick a side" mentality pervades your political thinking. It just can't occur to you that not everyone makes political decisions that way. thus, you constantly run around ascribing false motives to others, based on why you would do what they are doing, rather than considering that they might do it for a completely different reason...


Actually, the evidence for him being a hypocrite is overflowing. So much so, that I can label him a reason for MANY reasons.

1. He has been married and has 4 daughters, yet tells the public he's straight and speaks out against gays. Yet he tries to sneak of to **** bars for a one night stand with the first dumb **** that'll have him. I don't care WHAT job you work, that's enough to be a hypocrite.

2. As I said above, he consistently votes against **** rights bills, even if they have no significant legal impact. Hell, even if they have minor legal impact. And contrary to your staunch idea that he MUST be voting for these for reasons having nothing to do with gays, research tells us nothing but the opposite. In his career, he has literally voted on so few (and potentially no) bills regarding **** rights that organizations across the state had considered him one of their main blocks for years.

Charles Moran, spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans, a national **** Republican organization, said it is common for conservatives who are not out about their sexual orientation to vote against expanding **** rights.

"A lot of people who are closeted homosexuals think it will give them cover, but instead it increases the heat," Moran said.


How about, before you spout out crap, YOU do research. You know, before you start screaming at others for not doing theirs.

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

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#56 Mar 06 2010 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,301 posts
I see someone was bored and went on a red arrow spending spree in the thread. Ah well, I deserved it.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#57 Mar 06 2010 at 2:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,220 posts
Eh, you know, it's just the fUCkin' Bettys who feel so impotent they have to act out or die.

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

#58 Mar 06 2010 at 3:16 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,761 posts
Quote:
I see someone was bored and went on a red arrow spending spree in the thread. Ah well, I deserved it.


Let's just hope they can sleep better at night. It will help us get through our own pain.^^
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#59 Mar 06 2010 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
Well, you completely missed my point, for someone who rants about assumptions so much, you certainly make a lot of them. that being said, a good point was brought up.

Quote:
The math tells us the exact opposite. You like to pretend that **** marriage would cost the state, when both predictive analyses AND economic studies done in areas where it has been approved prove the opposite. The economic revenue in Washington D.C. as a result of the recent approval is predicted to be $5 million and is expected to create 700 jobs in the next 3 years. In ONE city. Not one country. Not one state. One city. A city that isn't particularly known for its **** scene nonetheless.
How do you respond to this point Gbaji. If allowing **** marriage creates an industry and the benefits are higher then the "cost" in tax breaks or whatever would you support **** marriage? Maybe you disagree that there is this benefit, if you do, assume for the moment the benefit is there, would you support it then?

Edited, Mar 6th 2010 4:58pm 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
#60 Mar 07 2010 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Revolving Door Inspector
Avatar
*****
12,726 posts
You aren't just gunna let this idiggory guy out word count you, gabji, right? Don't be a punk like that! Step it up.
____________________________
FFXI: Exodus @ San d'Oria since November 19, 2003, Siren Server
FFXIV: Turk Kalahai @ Gridania, Balmung Server
Rift: Kalahai @ Sanctum, Faeblight Server
Exo @ YouTube | Exo @ Tumblr | Exo @ Twitter | Cheese
#61 Mar 08 2010 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
My only comment is that just because Ashburn opposed **** stuff and might or might not be **** himself does not negate what could be his opinion on **** issues. He may well despise what he is (assuming for argument's sake he is gay) and opposes **** rights on principle or recognises he is gay, embraces that lifestyle, but does not believe that his condition/orientation necessitates political action.

But I will agree with Catho that **** sh1t *is* funny-- just as it was back in grade school. Homosexuals are, by their very nature, scatalogically focused, and thus is in the tried-and-true arena of earthy humor, worthy of being the **** of untold numbers of jokes. Ahhhh-hahahah, I crack myself up.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#62 Mar 08 2010 at 10:07 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,245 posts
Quote:
My only comment is that just because Ashburn opposed **** stuff and might or might not be **** himself does not negate what could be his opinion on **** issues. He may well despise what he is (assuming for argument's sake he is gay) and opposes **** rights on principle or recognises he is gay, embraces that lifestyle, but does not believe that his condition/orientation necessitates political action.

Go fly something and leave political implications to people working above your pay grade, cheese pilot.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#63 Mar 08 2010 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
*****
14,174 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
My only comment is that just because Ashburn opposed **** stuff and might or might not be **** himself does not negate what could be his opinion on **** issues. He may well despise what he is (assuming for argument's sake he is gay) and opposes **** rights on principle or recognises he is gay, embraces that lifestyle, but does not believe that his condition/orientation necessitates political action.

Go fly something and leave political implications to people working above your pay grade, cheese pilot.


Not many of those anymore. You wouldn't believe how much a body full of organs fetches on the black market.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#64 Mar 08 2010 at 10:39 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,245 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
My only comment is that just because Ashburn opposed **** stuff and might or might not be **** himself does not negate what could be his opinion on **** issues. He may well despise what he is (assuming for argument's sake he is gay) and opposes **** rights on principle or recognises he is gay, embraces that lifestyle, but does not believe that his condition/orientation necessitates political action.

Go fly something and leave political implications to people working above your pay grade, cheese pilot.


Not many of those anymore. You wouldn't believe how much a body full of organs fetches on the black market.

Pay Grade =/= Pay.

Nice attempt at a funny, though. Mandingo up there probably got at least a good snicker out of it.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#65 Mar 08 2010 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
Totem wrote:
Ahhhh-hahahah, I crack myself up.
I see what you did there.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#66 Mar 08 2010 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
*****
14,174 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Quote:
My only comment is that just because Ashburn opposed **** stuff and might or might not be **** himself does not negate what could be his opinion on **** issues. He may well despise what he is (assuming for argument's sake he is gay) and opposes **** rights on principle or recognises he is gay, embraces that lifestyle, but does not believe that his condition/orientation necessitates political action.

Go fly something and leave political implications to people working above your pay grade, cheese pilot.


Not many of those anymore. You wouldn't believe how much a body full of organs fetches on the black market.

Pay Grade =/= Pay.

Nice attempt at a funny, though. Mandingo up there probably got at least a good snicker out of it.


I bet he laughed so hard he had a heart attack.

Luckily, he's got spares.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#67publiusvarus, Posted: Mar 08 2010 at 11:45 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You Democrats are absolutely 100% right.
#68 Mar 08 2010 at 11:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We did our part!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69 Mar 08 2010 at 3:18 PM Rating: Good
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
You Democrats are absolutely 100% right.

We need to combine our efforts to see to it that a bi-partisan effort to keep closeted homosexual congressmen out of office is achieved.

Lead on.
I want all my leaders to own their fabulousness.

Here I go, here I go, here I go again
Girls, what's my weakness? MEN!
Okay, then.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#70 Mar 08 2010 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
You Democrats are absolutely 100% right.

We need to combine our efforts to see to it that a bi-partisan effort to keep closeted homosexual congressmen out of office is achieved.

Lead on.
I want all my leaders to own their fabulousness.

Here I go, here I go, here I go again
Girls, what's my weakness? MEN!
Okay, then.


salt n pepa?

really?

oh, alright.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#71 Mar 08 2010 at 4:48 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,761 posts
Well, it is a thread about **** hijinks.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#72 Mar 08 2010 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
idiggory wrote:
Well, it is a thread about **** hijinks.
Damn straight.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#73 Mar 08 2010 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,301 posts
Speaking of **** hijinks, Senator Ashburn officially came out today.

Quote:
Republican Sen. Roy Ashburn, who has been on leave from the Senate since his DUI arrest last week, confirmed today that he is gay.

"I'm gay," Ashburn told KERN radio host Inga Barks in an interview this morning. "Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long."

Ashburn's announcement follows reports that Ashburn was leaving a **** club before he was arrested for driving under the influence last week.

The Bakersfield Republican, who has consistently voted against gay-rights measures, said his votes were a reflection of how the majority of voters in his conservative district would have wanted him to vote.

Ashburn, who is divorced, has been on personal leave in the Senate since last week's arrest. He is expected to return today.

Benjamin Lopez, lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition, said, "I don't know why Roy strayed. But he said that the Rev. Louis Sheldon, founder of the coalition, was open to help Ashburn with counseling.

Lopez stood with Ashburn at a rally in Bakersfield in 2005 to support a state proposal to block **** marriage as well as to get rid of domestic partnerships with any benefits of marriage.

"I think it's sad more than hypocritical," Lopez said. "We're not in Roy's head. We don't know what is he thinking. We hope he comes to terms with whatever is making him make a choice to be a **** man."

Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, a **** rights group that sponsors many state bills, called Ashburn's comments about his voting record "a lame excuse."

"He's blaming his constituents," Kors said. "There are legislators in the Central Valley who have voted for LBGT (lesbian, bisexual, **** and transgender) rights."

In a press released midday Monday, Equality California said: "We can empathize with Senator Ashburn's long and difficult journey to admit that he is gay. Equality California looks forward to working with the Senator to use his experience to educate the people in his district on why he deserves the same rights and privileges as a **** man as any other Californian.

Ashburn said on the radio show: "My votes reflect the wishes of the people in my district. I have always felt that my faith and allegiance was to the people, there, in the district, my constituents. And so as each of these individual measures came before the Legislature I cast 'no' votes, usually 'no' votes, because the measures were . . . almost always acknowledging rights or assigning identification to homosexual persons."

Kors said: "People elected him to lead. I would be shocked to see if there is any polling that shows that most people in his district believe that anyone should be fired from their job because of their sexual orientation or kicked out of public accommodations because of their sexual orientation. And yet he voted against bills to prevent that."

Kors said that former Assemblyman Simon Salinas, D-Salinas, voted for a bill to legalize **** marriage "and then was told he could never run for anything again. But he went on to win a county supervisor race by 70 percent of the vote."

Kors said: "It seems that there have been a number of politicians who seem so concerned that it (being gay) will impact their careers that they not only hide, they vote against LBGT rights to squash rumors about their sexual orientation."

Lopez said Ashburn will have to "take a back seat" on the cause against same-sex marriage. But he said if Ashburn continues in the Senate, as he suggested during his radio interview, he should continue to cast votes "consistent with his district."

"We thank Roy for all his votes on social issues," Lopez said.


Well, at least he had the guts to admit it, unlike Larry "Wide Stance" Craig.

And hey, nothing wrong with being gay. Maybe he'll join the Log Cabin Republicans now?
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#74 Mar 08 2010 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
Totem wrote:
My only comment is that just because Ashburn opposed **** stuff and might or might not be **** himself does not negate what could be his opinion on **** issues. He may well despise what he is (assuming for argument's sake he is gay) and opposes **** rights on principle or recognises he is gay, embraces that lifestyle, but does not believe that his condition/orientation necessitates political action.

Well, he came out today and apparently his rationalization is that a pro-gay stance doesn't reflect the majority views of his district, not his "own internal conflict".

I guess I would believe this **** if some of the bills he voted down didn't push 'gay' 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.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#75 Mar 09 2010 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,642 posts
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.
#76 Mar 09 2010 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,220 posts
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.

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

#77 Mar 09 2010 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
******
30,642 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
*****
18,459 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
gbaji wrote:
1. It's a compressed number. You don't get that increase per year. That's the entire number in that city who are estimated to be **** and would marry if only the laws were changed. You only get that increase one time.
that's reasonable, but the link also mentions the jobs that are created. This is an estimation of the prolonged effect, not a single event.

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.

gbaji wrote:
3. As I stated before. This is the revenue generated not by the granting of a marriage license, but the ceremony of marriage. There is no law preventing **** couples from doing that right now. If the argument was really about getting **** people to have marriage ceremonies so as to increase revenue in the industry, why not simply encourage **** couples to hold ceremonies? They do not need a license from the state to have a wedding. It is only their own assumption that a lack of government benefits somehow makes their marriages less valid which prevents **** couples from doing this.
Right, but they're not, and looking elsewhere, it looks like they start. It's nice that you don't see anything holding them back, but that doesn't affect what's actually happening.

Gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Maybe you disagree that there is this benefit, if you do, assume for the moment the benefit is there, would you support it then?


I think my statement above should make my answer clear. But just in case. No. The reasons for our existing marriage laws and benefits do not include "generating the maximum revenue for businesses in the marriage industry". That is a ridiculous rational to apply to legal changes.
The benefit is in increased taxes and more jobs. This is a measurable amount. Your whole argument is about how the cost is not justified. How the cost is only justified because you see a social gain in the current system. What if the industry, between jobs, taxes, etc has a net positive effect? What is your other reason that has nothing to do with money? Is there one?

Edited, Mar 9th 2010 4:15pm 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
#81 Mar 09 2010 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:

I guess I would believe this bullsh*t if some of the bills he voted down didn't push 'gay' 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
******
28,220 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
******
31,548 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
******
31,548 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
Avatar
*****
19,761 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
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
Avatar
*****
19,761 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
******
31,548 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
Avatar
*****
19,761 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: 47 All times are in CDT
Elinda, Kelvyquayo, Samira, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (43)