If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Gay groups vow to reach around Maine defeat and plow forward with new strategies   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 975
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

3989 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Nov 2009 at 11:11 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



975 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-11-05 01:39:03 PM
Dughan: In final, stop with the Gay Pride marches that focus on sexual kinks.

They don't. Have you actually been to a pride parade?
 
2009-11-05 01:39:13 PM
Cthulhu Theory: ursomniac: Joe Blowme: ursomniac: Joe Blowme:

Do you have a wise-ass response to that? Or can you simply admit that you don't really understand the issue and how it affects real people?

Sorry for your loss, however the problem is that civil unions are recognized by the state. Hospitals and dealerships are not government owned so they currently don't HAVE to recognize it. The real problem here isn't what you call it, but the rights available. The quicker the gay community realizes this and changes their tactic the quicker you will have your rights.


If we're equal then why do "my" rights have to be conferred separately from yours. Aren't they "our" rights?

First you have to demonstrate how and why the inequality that requires any action at all to be necessary actually exists.
 
2009-11-05 01:39:13 PM
Theaetetus: Damnhippyfreak: something you don't see all that often because most people intuitively grasp it's circular nature.

Pff, if he could figure out logic fallacies, he would've done well enough on his LSATs to go to an accredited law school instead of having to get a GED in Law.



The thing is it's not all that hard of a fallacy to see. As I said, most people seem to intuit that a circular argument isn't a good thing - no knowledge of fallacies needed.

What this says to me is that our favorite GED-in-law-holder beleives in something so very fervently that he's willing to throw away much of his critical faculties and rational thought in service to it.
 
2009-11-05 01:39:16 PM
Cthulhu Theory: Sorry for your loss, however the problem is that civil unions are recognized by the state. Hospitals and dealerships are not government owned so they currently don't HAVE to recognize it. The real problem here isn't what you call it, but the rights available. The quicker the gay community realizes this and changes their tactic the quicker you will have your rights.

Except not really. The number of people who are cool with gays and are just genuinely worried about religious freedoms, preservation of traditions, and so forth, is extremely small -- witness R71 in Washington state. Marriage isn't the issue, just the rights, and it's barely squeezing a simply majority, just a few percentage points higher than a ballot for outright marriage would get.

Caving to a separate-but-equal discriminatory regime is hardly worth it to pick up a few more points in the polls, especially with substantial momentum on the pro-gay side (CA anti-SSM vote declined from 61% to 52% in 8 years). Fark that.
 
2009-11-05 01:39:32 PM
Dughan: Gay Pride marches that focus on sexual kinks

I feel the same way about Halloween, St. Patty's Day, and football games.
 
2009-11-05 01:39:48 PM
Vash's Apprentice: Prank Call of Cthulhu: stewmadness: I didn't know that you can choose your skin color.

Sometimes you can.


He didn't chose vitiglio (or however its spelled).
 
2009-11-05 01:39:59 PM
SkinnyHead: What, exactly, constitutes the value of the tradition of marriage, and how would letting gays get married diminish its value?

When a man and woman get married today, that continues a tradition that has gone on for centuries. Traditionalists see value in continuing that tradition.

When you say that homosexuals should be permitted to participate in that tradition, what you mean to say is that homosexuals should be permitted to pretend (and others should be forced to pretend) that a non-traditional same-sex union has all the tradition, dignity and acceptance as a real marriage. Why pretend?


In what way does a committed, decades long, monogamous gay relationship not have at least the same dignity as a whirlwind Vegas romance and Elvis-impersonator marriage? Yet, one is allowed, one is not, just because of the body parts of the couple in question.

Marriage is a civil thing. There's an enormous variety of couples, relationships and marriages. What's one more, when it makes people happy?

Happy is a good thing.
 
2009-11-05 01:40:01 PM
SkinnyHead: When a man and woman get married today, that continues a tradition that has gone on for centuries. Traditionalists see value in continuing that tradition.

When you say that homosexuals should be permitted to participate in that tradition, what you mean to say is that homosexuals should be permitted to pretend (and others should be forced to pretend) that a non-traditional same-sex union has all the tradition, dignity and acceptance as a real marriage. Why pretend?


Because the value of a tradition does not lie in the fact that it is, in fact, a tradition. Lots of traditions are immoral and are abandoned. There is no moral imperative to continue traditions for their own sake. If there were, then we should all still be serfs living under Kings and writing on scrolls.

The value in the tradition of marriage is not in the fact that men and women have gotten married for centuries. The positive value in the tradition is the social import of the commitment it expresses between loving individuals. That, at least, is something we can all appreciate. Homosexuals aren't pretending to love each other. They're not faking commitment. To deny them access to marriage is to exclude them from something important that other people who are in no way superior have access to. The grounds for excluding homosexuals does not involve any relevant difference between them and heterosexuals. In fact I would argue that the tradition of marriage will be enriched and strengthened by allowing all loving, committed couples to participate in it, instead of just some.
 
2009-11-05 01:40:17 PM
RussianPooper: Any tradition and dignity that ever existed in marriage has been thoroughly detroyed by heterosexuals. Why act as if it's still the case? The homosexuals I know who are married or interested in marriage have more commitment than most straight people I know.

Well then why do homosexuals want to participate in such a tired-old, discredited institution that has been ruined by heterosexuals? Why don't they start a brand new tradition for homosexual relationships with an entirely new name?
 
2009-11-05 01:40:25 PM
Mnemia: truly believe that's what it's about.

well yeah I know, but I was hoping for a less articulate response ;)

Dughan: stop with the Gay Pride marches that focus on sexual kinks.

You'd be amazed if you saw a Gay Pride parade. In most cities you wouldn't see anything close to what you just said they feature.
 
2009-11-05 01:40:49 PM
Mnemia: Black people were far from the only ones involved with repealing discriminatory laws during the civil rights marches. Ultimately, a white majority in Congress and the courts carried that out.


Indeed. But you and I know that weaver was not referring to congress when he asked that question. We also know that when you stated "no" you weren't referring to congress either.

Now back to the original question--> Weaver had asked if some of the people involved in repealing the discriminatory practices in the 60s are currently against rights for homosexuals. You stated no. I stated that that's debatable since many of those (70% in some cases) who are for civil rights for themselves aren't necessarily supportive in rights for others. In summary, just because a person may have been (in the 60s) or is currently supportive of civil rights issues against one group does not mean they supportive in equal rights across the board.
 
2009-11-05 01:41:03 PM
JudgeReinhold: I feel the same way about Halloween, St. Patty's Day, and football games.

mardi gras was just a religious thing before the gays got ahold of it, too.

just how the gays made those women take their tops off for plastic beads hasn't been determined yet, but we can be fairly sure it's their fault.
 
2009-11-05 01:41:17 PM
Wytchone: Joe Blowme: Just admit it, if you really wanted equal rights you could have had them long ago but you keep insiting on calling it marriage. Civil unions is the way to go to get you rights.

Wonder why more people don't see this. Honestly I think this would have passed years ago if it was done with no fuss (ok some).


So long as the government recognizes straight marriage and licenses it, it's NOT equal to grant only civil unions to gay couples.
 
2009-11-05 01:41:25 PM
SkinnyHead: RussianPooper: Any tradition and dignity that ever existed in marriage has been thoroughly detroyed by heterosexuals. Why act as if it's still the case? The homosexuals I know who are married or interested in marriage have more commitment than most straight people I know.

Well then why do homosexuals want to participate in such a tired-old, discredited institution that has been ruined by heterosexuals? Why don't they start a brand new tradition for homosexual relationships with an entirely new name?


Oddly enough, because this is about equal rights, not special rights. Sorry if that drives a stake through the heart of your rhetoric.
 
2009-11-05 01:41:54 PM
Wytchone: Joe Blowme: Just admit it, if you really wanted equal rights you could have had them long ago but you keep insiting on calling it marriage. Civil unions is the way to go to get you rights.

Wonder why more people don't see this. Honestly I think this would have passed years ago if it was done with no fuss (ok some).


ORLY?

Please explain this from the historical record. Explain how this fits in with the fights that have come for everything between actual marriage and say - equal opportunity in hiring and housing.

For example, take the record of the NY gay rights bill as an example.


I'm dying to see the analysis you produce that in any supports your claim.
 
2009-11-05 01:42:07 PM
Mnemia: WhyteRaven74: Quite a few churches don't care about that tradition. Also the law has no place upholding traditions. If a tradition can not stand on its own, then it's done for. Ohh and gay marriages have been around before, in a few places.

I've said this many times before, but I think it might be a very effective challenge to the laws for some church that is pro-gay to sue over the fact that other churches' religious viewpoint is being favored by the state over their own in this matter.


Well that's some mighty fine flawed reasoning ya got there, Bub.
 
2009-11-05 01:42:10 PM
Cthulhu Theory: It's not bigotry, I just believe that EVERYONE has the right to pursue happiness and do things that make them happy as long as it's not to the detriment of other people. Obviously people are not happy that a group of people are attacking their traditional values, which means, to me, that it goes against what our country stands for. We're not a nation of "one-way or the other" we're a democracy that should pride itself on achieving a middle ground.

So your definition of "as long as it's not to the detriment of other people" means "as long as it doesn't make anyone unhappy"?
Fine. It makes me unhappy that you post. Please relinquish your freedom of speech. That's fair, right?
Or tell you what, we'll even compromise, because we're a democracy that prides itself on achieving a middle ground: you can only post between the hours of 12AM and 3AM. That way, I won't have to see it. That's fair, right?
 
2009-11-05 01:42:12 PM
bulldg4life: So, the same group of people that listens to commentators that talk about taking to the streets because healthcare reform is coming and engage in protests designed to show the evils of government spending feel that a group of people that are having basic human privileges restricted based on sexual orientation should sit down and shut up about it?

Really?


Freaking out about it seems to be working out great so far... what are there, 40+ state gay marriage bans where ten years ago there were zero? The modern gay rights movement is an abject failure.

My theory is that gays are primarily seeking acceptance, not equal rights. Well, too bad, a bunch of people who are not dead yet think dudes screwing other dudes is gross and will not accept you or your lifestyle. Figure out a way to get past it and work quietly and diligently on securing the benefits of marriage for you and your partner.
 
2009-11-05 01:42:37 PM
Cthulhu Theory: I don't see anything wrong with improving on the concept and application of a civil union.

Neither did the people who came up with the whole "separate but equal" thing back in the day for black people. Many of them actually thought they were being progressive and benevolent. The fact is, there is no reason for a separate but equal institution, because there is no practical distinction between gay and straight marriage, as far as the government needs to be concerned. Thus, the only purpose of a separate institution is to try to ensure that it's NOT really equal treatment that gay people receive.
 
2009-11-05 01:42:54 PM
Damnhippyfreak: Theaetetus: Damnhippyfreak: something you don't see all that often because most people intuitively grasp it's circular nature.

Pff, if he could figure out logic fallacies, he would've done well enough on his LSATs to go to an accredited law school instead of having to get a GED in Law.


The thing is it's not all that hard of a fallacy to see. As I said, most people seem to intuit that a circular argument isn't a good thing - no knowledge of fallacies needed.

What this says to me is that our favorite GED-in-law-holder beleives in something so very fervently that he's willing to throw away much of his critical faculties and rational thought in service to it.


SkinnyHead is also a birther, you realize.
 
2009-11-05 01:43:01 PM
Joe Blowme: I didnt choose to be black, apples N oranges.

I'm guessing you didn't choose to be ignorant or stupid, but apparantly you are.
 
2009-11-05 01:43:24 PM
sadistic-savior: kukukupo: Someday we will be able to cure homosexuality genetically and this won't be an issue.

Hey, maybe we can do the same thing with black people, and end racism as well. Thats a great idea.


But do we turn them into honkies or chinks? (I'm assuming no one wants more spics.)
 
2009-11-05 01:43:39 PM
ursomniac: Joe Blowme: ursomniac: Joe Blowme: ursomniac: Joe Blowme: Not having parades of gay men in assless chaps marching in the streets for all the world to see would be helpfull to the cause as well. Gays are like the palistinians, they say they want it but then do everything to make it harder to get. You dont like religions pushed on you just like some dont want homosexuality pushed on them or their kids. Why allow GLBT clubs in schools and outlaw prayer groups if you really want equal right you could have them with civil unions but you want to rubb all the religious peeps raw by insting on calling it marriage. Redefining marriage would then require us to look at polygamy as well as being between consenting adults as well.

I'm sorry - but nowhere in your argument did you address that equality is unalienable, and therefore isn't up for discussion.

You're working from the incorrect premise that for some reason we have to "convince" you or anyone to extend the equality that we were always supposed to have.

It's YOU who has to convince us that there is any justification for the existence of a second-class tier of society, and rewrite all of the founding documents of the nation to reflect that. It was tried in the 19th century for race and found to be incompatible with our values. Why do you feel that there's any exception now?

So why are you against civil unions? Why do you hate gay people?
Dont forget, some people are more equal than others

I'm against civil unions because my personal experience with one has taught me that they are useless. When my partner died last year, I discovered that DESPITE having a civil union, a will, and a power of attorney, EVERY AGENCY I dealt with could ONLY work with a marriage certificate. This happened with everything from getting the car's title changed, to getting his clothes from the ER where he died.

In the end I had to retain an attorney to handle everything because none of the paperwork we had on hand was sufficient on its own to require anyone to recognize the relationship.

Do you have a wise-ass response to that? Or can you simply admit that you don't really understand the issue and how it affects real people?

I said have a ballot initiative that has civil unions defined with all the rights of marriage, crying solved... unless your intent is not really equal rights under the law but equal in name only.

The existence of ANY ballot on the matter pre-supposes that I'm already NOT equal. According to the founding documents, I am equal.

You still haven't successfully made a coherent argument that justifies any ballot initiative on the subject.

First you have to justify that I'm not equal and therefore requiring a ballot to establish the degree of equality that I'm allowed. In doing THAT you also have to demonstrate how equality can be qualified at all.

This isn't a chicken and egg situation. Either equality means something or it doesn't.


And this is why you FAIL. Not arguing right or wrong of ballot initiatives just trying to tell you how to get it done, but you obviously need someting to be unhappy about so sit back and do nothing but cry "i shouldnt have to" which may be correct just not real life.
 
2009-11-05 01:43:41 PM
WhyteRaven74: Cthulhu Theory: The quicker the gay community realizes this and changes their tactic the quicker you will have your rights.

Why is it up to gays to please other people? Why not stop being assholes and just let gays have the same benefits as other people get?


Because just like Blacks before you, you must grovel to the White straight man properly and then maybe, just maybe, we might let you have the same rights as we do. I'm betting that there are quite a few closeted conservative gay guys in this thread, so I'd suggest you start with free blowjobs.
 
2009-11-05 01:44:07 PM
So many of you are going to light up green for me from now on.
 
2009-11-05 01:44:18 PM
The last gay pride march in Dubai was one guy long.
 
2009-11-05 01:44:33 PM
Theaetetus: Joe Blowme: I never said i was against it i was just stating if you wanted equallity you could have had it but for a word.

Here we see Winston Churchill, the appeaser, reborn.

Sorry, bub, this is America. We don't negotiate with terrorists, bigots, or retailers.


Neville Chamberlain?
 
2009-11-05 01:44:52 PM
SkinnyHead: RussianPooper: Any tradition and dignity that ever existed in marriage has been thoroughly detroyed by heterosexuals. Why act as if it's still the case? The homosexuals I know who are married or interested in marriage have more commitment than most straight people I know.

Well then why do homosexuals want to participate in such a tired-old, discredited institution that has been ruined by heterosexuals? Why don't they start a brand new tradition for homosexual relationships with an entirely new name?


You'll have to ask them. I'm single and I'm wondering the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, they can have marriage all they want, what do I care?
 
2009-11-05 01:44:56 PM
Davey Croquette: The British common law that US marriage, inheritance and estate law is based on.

So the British common law is a tradition?
 
2009-11-05 01:45:00 PM
Actually, the neat thing is that SkinnyHead is so over the top that he probably helps people open their minds to previous flaws in their beliefs that they've overlooked. Sort of a "I agree with SkinnyHead? This can't be right."
 
2009-11-05 01:45:01 PM
Cthulhu Theory: RevMercutio: Cthulhu Theory: Joe Blowme: Just admit it, if you really wanted equal rights you could have had them long ago but you keep insiting on calling it marriage. Civil unions is the way to go to get you rights.

THIS!!! A million times THIS!

So you idiots are simply opposed to it due to a word? That's the excuse for your bigotry?

It's not bigotry, I just believe that EVERYONE has the right to pursue happiness and do things that make them happy as long as it's not to the detriment of other people. Obviously people are not happy that a group of people are attacking their traditional values, which means, to me, that it goes against what our country stands for.


Their traditional values aren't being attacked. They're not even being affected. This is blatantly dishonest and should be announced as such.
 
2009-11-05 01:45:04 PM
Cthulhu Theory: Obviously people are not happy that a group of people are attacking their traditional values, which means, to me, that it goes against what our country stands for. We're not a nation of "one-way or the other" we're a democracy that should pride itself on achieving a middle ground.

Trampling on people's rights is a middle ground now?

And if two guys or gals getting married is going to destroy your values, then your values ain't worth shiat.
 
2009-11-05 01:45:28 PM
RussianPooper: I'm guessing you didn't choose to be ignorant or stupid, but apparantly you are.

Seems to be working pretty hard at it, actually.
 
2009-11-05 01:45:37 PM
Dughan: In debate, it is the duty of the speaker to frame their argument in such a fashion so as to convince his audience. You are engaging in public debate. Do you begin to see the point that is being made here? You, the gay community and gay activists, have to frame your arguments in such a way so as to be appealing to those people you need to reach. Attempting to label them all as close minded, bigoted, fanatical rednecks is NOT helping your cause, no matter how justified you might feel.

And no matter how you feel, civil rights aren't supposed to be up for a public vote. The government has a duty to protect people and treat them equally - and not just when the public agrees with it. Your entire argument is invalid simply because they don't have to convince anyone. Equal rights aren't supposed to be a popularity issue. They're supposed to be guaranteed.
 
2009-11-05 01:45:56 PM
keypusher: Theaetetus: Joe Blowme: I never said i was against it i was just stating if you wanted equallity you could have had it but for a word.

Here we see Winston Churchill, the appeaser, reborn.

Sorry, bub, this is America. We don't negotiate with terrorists, bigots, or retailers.

Neville Chamberlain?


That would've made more sense, I suppose.
 
2009-11-05 01:45:59 PM
mccallcl: Freaking out about it seems to be working out great so far... what are there, 40+ state gay marriage bans where ten years ago there were zero? The modern gay rights movement is an abject failure.

There are five states where gay marriage is legal, whereas ten years ago there none.
 
2009-11-05 01:46:02 PM
Cthulhu Theory: RevMercutio: Cthulhu Theory: Joe Blowme: Just admit it, if you really wanted equal rights you could have had them long ago but you keep insiting on calling it marriage. Civil unions is the way to go to get you rights.

THIS!!! A million times THIS!

So you idiots are simply opposed to it due to a word? That's the excuse for your bigotry?

It's not bigotry, I just believe that EVERYONE has the right to pursue happiness and do things that make them happy as long as it's not to the detriment of other people. Obviously people are not happy that a group of people are attacking their traditional values, which means, to me, that it goes against what our country stands for. We're not a nation of "one-way or the other" we're a democracy that should pride itself on achieving a middle ground.

I believe that instead of concentrating on redefining a term that goes back before written history, we instead broaden our horizons and utilize a new term that suits the situation better. I don't see anything wrong with improving on the concept and application of a civil union.

If you give one kid a gumball, and the other kid a bazooka joe bubblegum, and the first kid wants the bazooka joe because it's bazooka joe, what are you going to tell the child? IT'S THE SAME THING.



All that being said, there are some aspects of a liberal democracy that aren't conditional, are not compromise-driven, and do not lend well to a "middle ground". Rights of this sort can be considered one of those aspects.

In addition, "goes against what our country stands for" is a very weak trope to rely on. You've got the beginning of a cogent argument in there somewhere. Don't ruin it for yourself.
 
2009-11-05 01:46:05 PM
SkinnyHead: RussianPooper: Any tradition and dignity that ever existed in marriage has been thoroughly detroyed by heterosexuals. Why act as if it's still the case? The homosexuals I know who are married or interested in marriage have more commitment than most straight people I know.

Well then why do homosexuals want to participate in such a tired-old, discredited institution that has been ruined by heterosexuals? Why don't they start a brand new tradition for homosexual relationships with an entirely new name?


B/C right now heterosexuals have more legal protection with their marriage certificate than homosexuals do with their civil union certificate.
 
2009-11-05 01:46:07 PM
Anyone notice how appropriate the Followup tag colors are for this story?
 
2009-11-05 01:46:15 PM
Weaver95: Mnemia: Weaver95: 31 times this legislation has failed. obviously something with the approach taken is deeply flawed.

What's "deeply flawed" is the idea that it's fair to put a minority group's rights to a popular referendum. The courts should outlaw this practice.

and that attitude right there is why you fail.


Why is that fail? Why should anyone be able to vote on whether or not someone should get basic civil rights? Just because a majority of people want to deny someone their civil rights, doesn't mean we should accept it as the rule of law. So if a majority of people wanted to discriminate against Muslims and Jews, we'd say it's okay because "that's the will of the people?"

What. The. fark?
 
2009-11-05 01:47:15 PM
turtle-tracks: Now back to the original question--> Weaver had asked if some of the people involved in repealing the discriminatory practices in the 60s are currently against rights for homosexuals. You stated no. I stated that that's debatable since many of those (70% in some cases) who are for civil rights for themselves aren't necessarily supportive in rights for others. In summary, just because a person may have been (in the 60s) or is currently supportive of civil rights issues against one group does not mean they supportive in equal rights across the board.

I don't think we really disagree. I agree that what you're saying is probably true in some cases, so I'll concede the point that my statement was probably too categorical. However, I was thinking more along the lines of the LEADERS of the anti-gay movement. I really don't think that's mainly the people who fought for civil rights for black people. I think it's mainly old, pasty, religious, white guys.
 
2009-11-05 01:47:59 PM
Cthulhu Theory: If you give one kid a gumball, and the other kid a bazooka joe bubblegum, and the first kid wants the bazooka joe because it's bazooka joe, what are you going to tell the child? IT'S THE SAME THING.

It's more like giving someone a glass of 30 year old single malt scotch and someone else a glass of Old Mull and saying they're identical because they're both forty percent alcohol.
 
2009-11-05 01:48:26 PM
raerae1980: SkinnyHead: RussianPooper: Any tradition and dignity that ever existed in marriage has been thoroughly detroyed by heterosexuals. Why act as if it's still the case? The homosexuals I know who are married or interested in marriage have more commitment than most straight people I know.

Well then why do homosexuals want to participate in such a tired-old, discredited institution that has been ruined by heterosexuals? Why don't they start a brand new tradition for homosexual relationships with an entirely new name?

B/C right now heterosexuals have more legal protection with their marriage certificate than homosexuals do with their civil union certificate.


Although, in truth, many homosexuals do start a brand new tradition - their weddings don't tend to be filled with fire-and-brimstone preaching, requirements that one of them obey the other, and the funky chicken dance.
 
2009-11-05 01:48:33 PM
refrigeratorelf: Dughan: In debate, it is the duty of the speaker to frame their argument in such a fashion so as to convince his audience. You are engaging in public debate. Do you begin to see the point that is being made here? You, the gay community and gay activists, have to frame your arguments in such a way so as to be appealing to those people you need to reach. Attempting to label them all as close minded, bigoted, fanatical rednecks is NOT helping your cause, no matter how justified you might feel.

And no matter how you feel, civil rights aren't supposed to be up for a public vote. The government has a duty to protect people and treat them equally - and not just when the public agrees with it. Your entire argument is invalid simply because they don't have to convince anyone. Equal rights aren't supposed to be a popularity issue. They're supposed to be guaranteed.


Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Come collect your prize

travisspalding.com
 
2009-11-05 01:48:34 PM
mccallcl: what are there, 40+ state gay marriage bans where ten years ago there were zero?

And in Iowa gays can get married. Iowa. Let that sink in a second.
 
2009-11-05 01:48:57 PM
Dughan: Wow, lots of hate for Weaver95 in this thread...

Say what you will about him but this:

Weaver95: If someone finds a way to 'cure' homosexuality with stem cells, that is proof enough to me that not only does God exist but that he's also got one wickedly evil sense of humor.

...made me LOL. I'd like to see this actually happen at an anti-gay rally:

"I've got good news and bad news. First the good news. Scientists found a way to 'cure' homos."

"YAAAAAY!"

"The bad news, they need stem cells to do it."

Sound of heads exploding.
 
2009-11-05 01:49:02 PM
Theaetetus: Joe Blowme: I never said i was against it i was just stating if you wanted equallity you could have had it but for a word.

Here we see Winston Churchill, the appeaser, reborn.

Sorry, bub, this is America. We don't negotiate with terrorists, bigots, or retailers.


That explains the clothes, now what about the lisp?
 
2009-11-05 01:49:47 PM
I love the people in here saying, "It's cool your gay, and I'm with your cause, but can you not act so gay?"

So be gay, just don't be yourself. Then maybe we'll let you get married.

Can you guys not act so straight? I mean really, it's disgusting.

Also - traditions change, evolve, end, etc. That argument is garbage.

Finally - If you resort to using the words 'normal' and 'abnormal' in this argument go shoot yourself in the face.
 
2009-11-05 01:49:56 PM
JudgeReinhold: Cthulhu Theory: Joe Blowme: Just admit it, if you really wanted equal rights you could have had them long ago but you keep insiting on calling it marriage. Civil unions is the way to go to get you rights.

THIS!!! A million times THIS!

So are you saying civil union = marriage? If so, then the words are interchangeable. If not, then there is no equality. And in terms of language, who cares what phrase is used? Why are you defending the use of marriage for straights anyways?

Is it your belief that two gay people getting "married" or unioned (insert whatever funky verb you want for civil union), discounts your own marriage? Isn't that childish?

That is like saying someone else's likes and dislikes have a direct effect on your own likes or dislikes. Isn't that the same childish behavior exhibited in that Venn diagram about music?

(Music I like {Music I used to like) Music you like)


If it is interchangable then many terms should apply equally to both, however they don't. It's the same concept, however we're talking about redefining a concept that has been around in every society since the dawn of man. A fundamental building block of many of our cultures. I'm not saying they can't be ultimately interchangable, I'm saying they should remane separate. And if they are interchangable, then there should be no problem adopting another term to appease the general population.
 
2009-11-05 01:50:01 PM
ryant123: Cthulhu Theory: If you give one kid a gumball, and the other kid a bazooka joe bubblegum, and the first kid wants the bazooka joe because it's bazooka joe, what are you going to tell the child? IT'S THE SAME THING.

It's more like giving someone a glass of 30 year old single malt scotch and someone else a glass of Old Mull and saying they're identical because they're both forty percent alcohol.


It's like letting the white folks ride up in the first class lounge of the train and letting the coloreds have their own car at the back, downwind of the horse trailer, and saying they're identical because they all arrive at the same destination.
 
Displayed 50 of 975 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report