Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obama comes out in support of *** marriage...Follow

#52 May 10 2012 at 10:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,362 posts
I can think of at least three or four times in the last 500 years where the "definition" of marriage changed either legally or socially in the western world alone.

Probably my favorite variant is traditional handfasting, where in some Gaelic cultures the marriage was not considered legit until the lady was pregnant.
____________________________
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
#53 May 10 2012 at 10:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No True Gaelic accepted that definition!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 May 10 2012 at 10:59 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,362 posts
Jophiel wrote:
No True Gaelic accepted that definition!


The ones that wanted to have twenty children did.
____________________________
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
#55 May 10 2012 at 11:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No TRUE Gaelic did, and I say "Good day!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 May 10 2012 at 11:20 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Now, I don't know anything about government, but this whole states rights thing confuses me. How can states have laws that contradict each other, and even at the federal level? That seems to weaken the whole national identity and continuity. Like marijuana. How can it be legal in one state, then the Feds come in and bust legal operations? How does it make sense to make SSM legal in some states, but not recognized in others, or even nationally?

Federal law trumps state law which is why the feds can do drug busts even if the state doesn't actively arrest/prosecute for it. There is no overarching federal marriage law that defines it for the states (DOMA only applies to federal benefits and definitions) and states have been broadly left to define definitions, legal age, etc for themselves.

Well, yes I get how it works, but not why. Why give states rights if the Fed is just going to trump it? Why leave somethig as important as a couple's legal status variable and inconsistent? Why stay united if the states can't agree on such things?

You know what, I think it's time for another civil war!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#57 May 10 2012 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
I think it's time for the N-E states to grab the west-coast states and back slowly away.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#58 May 10 2012 at 11:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Quote:
You know what, I think it's time for another civil war!

I've still got mah Rebel flag around here somewhere... let's do this!
#59 May 10 2012 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I think it's time for the N-E states to grab the west-coast states and back slowly away.

We're not ALL backwards down here... Smiley: frown

not all...
#60 May 10 2012 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,362 posts
Before the ubiquitous instant communications of the 20th century, individual regions and states tended to develop much more unique personalities. For a country as large as the US (where a single state's individual counties are often larger than some individual nations in Europe), it made sense to allow locals to tweak laws to their own personal preferences.

These days, with the US a lot more homogeneous within regions than anyone wants to admit, it does seem a bit archaic.

Edited, May 10th 2012 1:54pm by catwho
____________________________
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
#61 May 10 2012 at 11:56 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Not to be the pedant, but all of those marriages were between 1 man and 1 woman. The 1 man simply had several instances saved.

If that's what makes you feel better Smiley: laugh

Not my issue. The only thing that will make me feel better is if the government stays out of it altogether. Since that's not likely to happen because too many knob-gobblers think marriage could define them, I'll resolve myself to too much government in the bedroom, yet again.
____________________________
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]
#62 May 10 2012 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Debalic wrote:
You know what, I think it's time for another civil war!

Careful what you wish for. Rednecks can shoot better than hippies.
____________________________
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 May 10 2012 at 12:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It was funny today listening to Rush backpedal from "a man and a woman" to "males & females". Whatever could this mean for the well worn "...but then polygamy should be legal!!" argument if we've already decided that "males & females" is the 3,000 year old immutable definition of marriage?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 May 10 2012 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It was funny today listening to Rush backpedal from "a man and a woman" to "males & females". Whatever could this mean for the well worn "...but then polygamy should be legal!!" argument if we've already decided that "males & females" is the 3,000 year old immutable definition of marriage?

I fail to see the moral argument against polygamy or same-*** marriage, especially from the Christian right. Their own Christ defines his relationship with the church as a marriage, and there are billions of women and men in there. So how can a man marrying many women, or men, be bad when t3h sabior does 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 May 10 2012 at 12:09 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
It was funny today listening to Rush backpedal from "a man and a woman" to "males & females". Whatever could this mean for the well worn "...but then polygamy should be legal!!" argument if we've already decided that "males & females" is the 3,000 year old immutable definition of marriage?

I fail to see the moral argument against polygamy or same-*** marriage, especially from the Christian right. Their own Christ defines his relationship with the church as a marriage, and there are billions of women and men in there. So how can a man marrying many women, or men, be bad when t3h sabior does it?

Because Jesus never put his **** in anyone?
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#66 May 10 2012 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's not what Tom Hanks taught me!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 May 10 2012 at 12:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,254 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
It was funny today listening to Rush backpedal from "a man and a woman" to "males & females". Whatever could this mean for the well worn "...but then polygamy should be legal!!" argument if we've already decided that "males & females" is the 3,000 year old immutable definition of marriage?

I fail to see the moral argument against polygamy or same-*** marriage, especially from the Christian right. Their own Christ defines his relationship with the church as a marriage, and there are billions of women and men in there. So how can a man marrying many women, or men, be bad when t3h sabior does it?

Because Jesus never put his **** in anyone?


I don't know, the jury is still out on Mary Magdalene.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#68 May 10 2012 at 12:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
See? SEEEEEE?????
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69 May 10 2012 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
I wonder why Romney hates teh gays.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#70 May 10 2012 at 12:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
Because Jesus never put his **** in anyone?
"Take and eat; this is my body."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#71 May 10 2012 at 12:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,756 posts
Wouldn't be a proper cult wandering in the wilderness, advertising miraculous healing powers, and living off of donations if there weren't at least a couple of orgies.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#72 May 10 2012 at 12:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT

That doesn't mean he hates gays. He may have just been a rich, entitled pathetic little asshole of a person.

Gotta give someone the benefit of the doubt, you know.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 May 10 2012 at 12:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,459 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gotta give someone the benefit of the doubt, you know.
You're so evolved. Smiley: inlove
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

#74 May 10 2012 at 12:49 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
I think it's time for the N-E states to grab the west-coast states and back slowly away.

We're not ALL backwards down here... Smiley: frown

not all...

It's ok, we'll want to drop in on you for some mint-julep down-time in the Winter sun.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#75 May 10 2012 at 12:59 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
Because Jesus never put his **** in anyone?
"Take and eat; this is my body."

I will never be able to think of communion the same way again.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#76 May 10 2012 at 2:19 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
Because Jesus never put his **** in anyone?
"Take and eat; this is my body."

I will never be able to think of communion the same way again.

Why do you think they serve wine also? They need to get you good and drunk!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#77 May 10 2012 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I think it's time for the N-E states to grab the west-coast states and back slowly away.

Oh **** no. West Coast can go play with themselves. I'm not even interested in the rest of the Northeast. New York can stand alone as a sovereign nation.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#78 May 10 2012 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,756 posts
Debalic wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
I think it's time for the N-E states to grab the west-coast states and back slowly away.

Oh **** no. West Coast can go play with themselves. I'm not even interested in the rest of the Northeast. New York can stand alone as a sovereign nation.


Ya well who needs you. Canada was right about you! ABOUT EVERYTHING!

Smiley: cry
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#79 May 10 2012 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Canada was right to kick out Tare.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 May 10 2012 at 2:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
I genuinely do not understand why *** marriage is even being debated. Didn't we go through this second-class citizen bullsh*t with black people already? What's to debate? *** citizens are still citizens and shouldn't be treated any differently, yet here we are hashing out issues I thought our country had already resolved decades ago.


The issue isn't about whether *** people are citizens, but whether a relationship between two people of the same *** can qualify for a specific legal status. That's it.


Demea wrote:
My best understanding of the opposition to "*** marriage" is the use of the term "marriage", which has religious meaning in addition to the legal definition.


Wrong. Opposing the use of the word "marriage" in anything other than a legal context is meaningless. No one cares what a *** couple calls their relationship (ok, some people may, but that's their personal opinion and has nothing at all to do with the legal conflict at hand). They care about what legal status the state grants to it.

Quote:
I'll bet that if you asked people if they supported "civil unions" for *** couples, the response would be much more favorable than asking if they supported "*** marriage."


Yeah. Many of those polls that get reported as "what percentage support/oppose *** marriage" actually do ask that question in a way which includes civil unions. For example, the recent Gallup poll, broadly touted in the news as saying that 50% support *** marriage, while 48% oppose it, didn't actually specify "*** marriage" in the question. There's a lot of spin about this issue.

LockeColeMA wrote:
My best understanding of the opposition to "*** marriage" is the "***" part. Some folks just don't like homosexual activity. They'll use any multitude of reasons for it: religion, tradition, word usage, moral decay; but in the end it's usually "I find homosexuality icky and don't want it around or accepted in any way, shape, or form."


Really? Your best understanding of this issue doesn't allow you to notice that while only a teeny tiny percentage of the US population goes around beating up gays on the street, several states have passed laws limiting the legal definition of marriage to exclude same *** couples with 10+ point majority margins. And you honestly can't noodle out that maybe, just maybe there's some reason beyond "*** people are icky" behind that?


Seems like you're deliberately clinging to a simplistic strawman reason. Maybe you should think a bit harder and expand your understanding of the issue?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#81 May 10 2012 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Debalic wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Now, I don't know anything about government, but this whole states rights thing confuses me. How can states have laws that contradict each other, and even at the federal level? That seems to weaken the whole national identity and continuity. Like marijuana. How can it be legal in one state, then the Feds come in and bust legal operations? How does it make sense to make SSM legal in some states, but not recognized in others, or even nationally?

Federal law trumps state law which is why the feds can do drug busts even if the state doesn't actively arrest/prosecute for it. There is no overarching federal marriage law that defines it for the states (DOMA only applies to federal benefits and definitions) and states have been broadly left to define definitions, legal age, etc for themselves.

Well, yes I get how it works, but not why. Why give states rights if the Fed is just going to trump it? Why leave somethig as important as a couple's legal status variable and inconsistent? Why stay united if the states can't agree on such things?

You know what, I think it's time for another civil war!


I don't know about the war part, but I am definitely in favor of splitting up the country into regions and letting each region essentially become its own country. We can still do free trade between regions, and ease of immigration/emigration and tourism, etc. But each region should have its own government and laws. I think most people in the US would be a lot happier in that sort of situation.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#82 May 10 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
My best understanding of the opposition to "*** marriage" is the "***" part. Some folks just don't like homosexual activity. They'll use any multitude of reasons for it: religion, tradition, word usage, moral decay; but in the end it's usually "I find homosexuality icky and don't want it around or accepted in any way, shape, or form."


Really? Your best understanding of this issue doesn't allow you to notice that while only a teeny tiny percentage of the US population goes around beating up gays on the street, several states have passed laws limiting the legal definition of marriage to exclude same *** couples with 10+ point majority margins. And you honestly can't noodle out that maybe, just maybe there's some reason beyond "*** people are icky" behind that?


Seems like you're deliberately clinging to a simplistic strawman reason. Maybe you should think a bit harder and expand your understanding of the issue?


Right, because that's a reasonable measure of whether or not people disapprove of homosexuality: how many of them beat people up in the street in roving gangs.

Seems like you're deliberately clinging to a simplistic overstatement. Maybe you should think a bit harder and expand your understanding of the issue?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#83 May 10 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
For example, the recent Gallup poll, broadly touted in the news as saying that 50% support *** marriage, while 48% oppose it, didn't actually specify "*** marriage" in the question.

Do you think marriages between same-*** couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?

Well! If that's the star you want to hitch your wagon of ideology to... Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 May 10 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
I can verify that at least two people in this country don't want gays getting married because of the word marriage. My parents. My step-dad is perfectly fine with civil unions, but doesn't think they should use "our" word. In his opinion, they should call it something else. My mom is just a bigot in general when it comes to *** people, but she too is a big believer that marriage is between a man and a woman only, and that *** people shouldn't be allowed to get married at all.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#85 May 10 2012 at 2:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For example, the recent Gallup poll, broadly touted in the news as saying that 50% support *** marriage, while 48% oppose it, didn't actually specify "*** marriage" in the question.

Do you think marriages between same-*** couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?

Well! If that's the star you want to hitch your wagon of ideology to... Smiley: laugh


Newsflash gbaji, "marriages between same-*** couples" = "*** marriage." If people are too stupid to figure that out, then I have little hope for our future. The poll may not have used the specific phrase, but it still was quite clearly talking about *** marriage.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#86 May 10 2012 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I can verify that at least two people in this country don't want gays getting married because of the word marriage. My parents. My step-dad is perfectly fine with civil unions, but doesn't think they should use "our" word. In his opinion, they should call it something else. My mom is just a bigot in general when it comes to *** people, but she too is a big believer that marriage is between a man and a woman only, and that *** people shouldn't be allowed to get married at all.


My mom is in the same boat. She's on record as saying, in reference to women kissing in public: "I'm totally fine with homosexuals. I just don't think I should have to see it."

Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#87 May 10 2012 at 2:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I suppose "marriages between same-*** couples" is more accurate since not all same-*** couples are, well, ***.

More to the point, Gbaji was trying to imply that the number included people who only want civil unions which the question doesn't represent at all. I'm sure it sounded like a great talking point when he heard it though since he obviously didn't glean this tidbit from actually, you know, reading the survey question.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 May 10 2012 at 3:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
gbaji wrote:

Demea wrote:
My best understanding of the opposition to "*** marriage" is the use of the term "marriage", which has religious meaning in addition to the legal definition.


Wrong. Opposing the use of the word "marriage" in anything other than a legal context is meaningless. No one cares what a *** couple calls their relationship (ok, some people may, but that's their personal opinion and has nothing at all to do with the legal conflict at hand). They care about what legal status the state grants to it.

See, that just sounds like we're going through the motions of the whole "Separate but Equal" shenanigans all over again. A thing which I had thought we'd already sorted out.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#89 May 10 2012 at 3:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Eske Esquire wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I can verify that at least two people in this country don't want gays getting married because of the word marriage. My parents. My step-dad is perfectly fine with civil unions, but doesn't think they should use "our" word. In his opinion, they should call it something else. My mom is just a bigot in general when it comes to *** people, but she too is a big believer that marriage is between a man and a woman only, and that *** people shouldn't be allowed to get married at all.


My mom is in the same boat. She's on record as saying, in reference to women kissing in public: "I'm totally fine with homosexuals. I just don't think I should have to see it."

Smiley: oyvey


I wish my mom was at least that open. She deals with me and my sister's bisexuality by pretending it doesn't exist. ****, she's more comfortable with me being kinky and polyamorous than she is with me being bisexual. She's weird.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#90 May 10 2012 at 3:22 PM Rating: Excellent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
I might give weight to the Civil Union only argument from the people against same *** marriage if the majority of laws on the books didn't also ban Civil Unions.
#91 May 10 2012 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,362 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I can verify that at least two people in this country don't want gays getting married because of the word marriage. My parents. My step-dad is perfectly fine with civil unions, but doesn't think they should use "our" word. In his opinion, they should call it something else. My mom is just a bigot in general when it comes to *** people, but she too is a big believer that marriage is between a man and a woman only, and that *** people shouldn't be allowed to get married at all.


My mom is in the same boat. She's on record as saying, in reference to women kissing in public: "I'm totally fine with homosexuals. I just don't think I should have to see it."

Smiley: oyvey


I feel that way about furries sometimes.
____________________________
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
#92 May 10 2012 at 3:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,284 posts
This has to be the most confusing statement I've ever read today:

Quote:
Mitt Romney said Thursday that same-*** couples should be allowed to adopt children, but they should not be married because children should be raised by a mother and a father.


Source

Edited, May 10th 2012 2:53pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#93 May 10 2012 at 4:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I suppose "marriages between same-*** couples" is more accurate since not all same-*** couples are, well, ***.

More to the point, Gbaji was trying to imply that the number included people who only want civil unions which the question doesn't represent at all. I'm sure it sounded like a great talking point when he heard it though since he obviously didn't glean this tidbit from actually, you know, reading the survey question.


Nah. That's what I get for not actually checking myself. It was something I heard Medved say on the radio yesterday, and he's usually pretty good at fact checking, so I didn't check it. My bad (or he was talking about a different poll, dunno).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#94 May 10 2012 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As I said, you parroted the talking point without bothering to look.

Good on you for admitting it, though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 May 10 2012 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
cidbahamut wrote:
See, that just sounds like we're going through the motions of the whole "Separate but Equal" shenanigans all over again. A thing which I had thought we'd already sorted out.


That's a strawman though. Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are not intended to be "separate but equal". They're intended to be two separate legal statuses for two different types of couples, and *should* be unequal. In the exact way that hundreds of other legal statuses are not equal either. I don't hate people who aren't poor and I don't hate people who aren't handicapped. Yet, magically, I don't think those groups should qualify for food stamps or be able to park in the blue spaces, respectively.

Do you see how excluding people from a legal status and therefore not giving them some benefit that another group gets isn't wrong? It's at the heart of creating those statuses in the first place. You wouldn't create them if everyone could qualify for the benefits. Same deal here. The legal status of marriage exists to deal with procreation. It's therefore quite logical to restrict the group to which that status applies to those couples who may procreate. In the same way that it makes sense to limit food stamps to those who may not be able to afford food, and handicapped stickers to those who may not be able to easily walk from a more distant parking space.


You're getting caught up in rhetoric and failing to see the issue for what it is. Again, do you honestly believe that 60% of voters in California and North Carolina just hate *** people? Or do you think that maybe there's more to it than that ridiculously simplistic strawman argument?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#96 May 10 2012 at 4:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
N. Carolina? Sure Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 May 10 2012 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
catwho wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
I can verify that at least two people in this country don't want gays getting married because of the word marriage. My parents. My step-dad is perfectly fine with civil unions, but doesn't think they should use "our" word. In his opinion, they should call it something else. My mom is just a bigot in general when it comes to *** people, but she too is a big believer that marriage is between a man and a woman only, and that *** people shouldn't be allowed to get married at all.


My mom is in the same boat. She's on record as saying, in reference to women kissing in public: "I'm totally fine with homosexuals. I just don't think I should have to see it."

Smiley: oyvey


I feel that way about furries sometimes.

I feel that way about ALL people. Get a room, folks. Smiley: mad
#98 May 10 2012 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
See, that just sounds like we're going through the motions of the whole "Separate but Equal" shenanigans all over again. A thing which I had thought we'd already sorted out.


That's a strawman though. Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are not intended to be "separate but equal". They're intended to be two separate legal statuses for two different types of couples, and *should* be unequal.


That's the point... Do you get that the whole "separate but equal" thing stemmed from the segregated schools in the south, because that was what was claimed and later found out to be completely untrue? The "colored" schools had significantly lower quality books, buildings, and resources in general than the white schools did. That was the primary reason people pushed to desegregate schools, because black students were at an extreme disadvantage and a lot of people thought that was wrong.

Those of us who support *** marriage do so because we don't agree that civil unions are enough, specifically because they DON'T offer the same protections and rights that marriage does. Civil unions are better than nothing, but they're just today's version of the "separate but equal" garbage that existed during the civil rights movement.
____________________________
Proudmoore US server:
Popina, 90 Priest
Digits, 86 Shaman
Thelesis, 85 Mage
Willowmei, 85 Druid
Necralita, 85 DK
Shrika, 72 Warlock
Jaquelle, 54 Paladin
Grakine, 32 Hunter
The MMO-Zam's FB group. Please message me first so I know who you are.
#99 May 10 2012 at 4:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I haven't seen, nor looked for, crosstabs but I recall CA's vote was propped up in a notable part by African-Americans. I wouldn't be surprised (but again, haven't looked) if the same was true for NC. In my unresearched and untested opinion, I think it's a fairly safe bet that the (typically very Democratic) African-American vote against *** marriage isn't one born from strident conviction in conservative principles. Rather, there's a dislike of homosexuals in the black community. In other words, many blacks haet teh gheyz. I won't play amateur sociologist and guess at why but it's well enough documented for anyone who wants to pull out the Google-machine.

As I said upthread, I don't think this will affect Obama's share of the black vote in November. But hearing that 60% of the vote in NC was against *** marriage doesn't immediately shock me or make me think "All these people must have reasons that aren't at all related to good ole homophobia".

Edited, May 10th 2012 5:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 May 10 2012 at 4:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Jophiel wrote:
N. Carolina? Sure Smiley: laugh


And the other 40 states that either have constitutions or statues which limit marriage licenses to opposite *** couples? There's a point at which when you have such an overwhelming percentage of the population voting a given way on this issue that simply dismissing their opinions with a simplistic strawman assumption is maybe not helping.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 May 10 2012 at 4:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Coming up with a blanket reason for 40 states would be simplistic and, well, stupid. Especially given that public perceptions on the issue have been rapidly shifting in the last few years so guessing that motives in 2002 apply to 2012 would be even more stupid.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CDT
DSD, someproteinguy, Anonymous Guests (54)