|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 26, 2004 7:10:29 GMT -5
I guess the benefit of the threads going kaput after a while is that our discussion can at least start looking like some sort of encylopedia.  From the previous thread ... Pissin, I have to say I agree with Strat-o's comments to you yesterday. When you show a hint of an interest in explaining your views and hearing others, rather than just childishly hurling insults, I'll start listening to you again. I may even respond. |
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 26, 2004 7:33:32 GMT -5
chris, I can't possibly explain my views any simpler. It's like you don't even read my posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 26, 2004 7:35:27 GMT -5
Man, I hate to take issue with Rocky but "disdain" implies that I think I'm better then strat. That is certainly not the case. I don't want gay people having sex on my lawn but I wouldn't mind a cream cheese bagel.
You see now straight people can't marry people someone of the same sex but gay people can marry someone of the oppisite sex. So in that sense they are right however the language used doesn't actually say gay people can't marry either in all actuallity it's closer to let them then to deny them. It's as simple as realising that the way outline in the constitution is the traditional way but not the only way. However to ban it you actually have to change the constitution, you have to put new words in.
I'll come back to this but I'm late for work so I must leave you with an incomplete thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 26, 2004 7:38:07 GMT -5
maybe I'll open up a paintbrush file, and draw you a picture of me eating a cream cheese bagel, and then another picture of people signing a petition saying I can't eat cream cheese bagels, and then another picture of me looking sad and crying because them guys took away my rights that I use to have to eat a cream cheese bagel. Would that help? Keep in mind though, I'm not a very good artist.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 26, 2004 7:44:54 GMT -5
It's as simple as realising that the way outline in the constitution is the traditional way but not the only way. However to ban it you actually have to change the constitution, you have to put new words in. I'm confused in following what nouns the pronouns in this are referring to. What exactly are you referring to in "the way" that is outlined in the constitution? And are you talking about the US Constitution, or a state constitution? |
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Aug 26, 2004 8:04:12 GMT -5
- And for the record, no one's rights were being taken away..
- actually they were. that's what we were talking about, remember? the whole No Gay Marriage Petition thing. I'm pretty sure you brought it up actually. If straights are allowed to do it, and now they don't want the gays to do it, that's where it becomes a right. If it passed, the straights would have the right to get married, and the gays wouldn't have this right. How are you not understanding this? It's like as of right now, I have the right to sit here and eat a cream cheese bagel if I want. But if a bunch of people send a petition in saying everyone named Pissin isn't allowed to eat a cream cheese bagel anymore, then you are taking away my right to eat a cream cheese bagel.
- I know as of now I can eat a cream cheese bagel! That was my whole point! Jeez, I try to break it down into simple words that a gorilla could understand, and you still don't get it.
OK, Pissin, let me break it down into simple words a baboon could understand and maybe you'll finally get it. Please read carefully.
The "right" to marry that you keep on about has legal boundries. All citizens, whether they be gay or straight have the same right to marry, according to, and in compliance with the law. That does not mean that a same-sex couple who co-habitate and want to call themselves "married" will be or have the right to be recognized as married by the state or society at large - presently they are not, nor have they ever been in this country. So nobody's "rights" have been "taken away."
I'd like to add that being against gay "marriage" is in no way equal to bigotry - at least not for me. But we've already discussed this here.
Since you refuse to take my suggestion to check what's already been said, and would rather simply engage in a lot of inflammatory rhetoric and insults, it's clear to me that you really don't want to engage in any kind of meaningful discourse on the matter, but are just trying to stir up trouble for kicks. I'm not going to repeat what I've already said, so I'm not going to continue discussing it with you. If you really care about the issue and would like to further the cause in some way, it would really behoove you to read some of those backposts so you might be able to come up with some arguments that make sense and have some validity. Because while you like to quickly belittle others' opinions on a matter that you don't seem to understand, what you have said up to now is gibberish based on false premises and faulty reasoning.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Aug 26, 2004 8:10:35 GMT -5
Ook ooook?
Where the fuck did today's lesser primate motif come from? Perverts.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 26, 2004 8:29:49 GMT -5
I know this is off the subject of gay marriage and who is or is not as stupid as a primate. But it cracked me up, so I just wanted to share ...
I was just talking to a friend of mine who works in ad sales for a TV station. All year long, they've been going along thinking that because of McCain-Feingold, the political advertising revenue they'd have this year would be different, and that as of Labor Day, it'd be more controlled, with only candidates spending money, due to the soft money bans. But they're discovering now that there is a loophole in the law ... the language only bans unions and corporations from advertising inside of the political window. So all of the groups who'd advertised before (and were supposed to be banned now) have re-organized arms of their groups that are unincorporated, so they can continue to advertise. In other words, McCain Feingold was a big photo op with no teeth.
Just goes to show yet again ... Washington is not the place to look for solutions to problems!
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 26, 2004 8:31:40 GMT -5
yeah, because obviously that's all I'm doing is insulting people.
And I don't need to go back and read others posts from god knows when just so I can talk about something. I was trying to make a simple point and it went waaaaaaay over some of your heads.
And I'm sorry but being against gay marriage basically is bigotry. Otherwise the people in question would be for it, or just wouldn't care. That's like saying "I don't want them blacks to vote. I'm sick of them ramming their ideas down my throat.................but I'm not a bigot." Give me a break.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Aug 26, 2004 8:39:19 GMT -5
pissin, I suppose if it's more about the actual sacrament of marriage rather than a preoccupation with sexual orientation for some people, then it needn't necessarily be bigotry. I dunno, maybe that's just semantic bollocks. I think there's obviously a huge connection between the anti-gay marriage movement and homophobia.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Aug 26, 2004 8:43:57 GMT -5
A guy walked past me earlier with a shaven head and a really tight-fitting T-shirt. If that's not pushing a gay lifestyle in my face, I don't know what is. Two days ago some guy on the bus was whistling the theme from "Yentl". I tell you, the flood is coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 26, 2004 8:47:31 GMT -5
Yeah it's fucked up man. I don't want to see bald guys wearing tight shirts. Who do they think they are going out in public like that?
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Aug 26, 2004 8:51:52 GMT -5
yeah, because obviously that's all I'm doing is insulting people. And I don't need to go back and read others posts from god knows when just so I can talk about something. I was trying to make a simple point and it went waaaaaaay over some of your heads. And I'm sorry but being against gay marriage basically is bigotry. Otherwise the people in question would be for it, or just wouldn't care. That's like saying "I don't want them blacks to vote. I'm sick of them ramming their ideas down my throat.................but I'm not a bigot." Give me a break. Moving on down the food chain - shall we try for rhesus monkey? Read post number 9. |
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on Aug 26, 2004 9:02:30 GMT -5
I wrote post number 9.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 26, 2004 9:18:44 GMT -5
Just voicing another rant here ... I just heard a DNC ad for John Kerry defending Kerry against the attacks from Bush that he's weak on terrorism. The ad stated that Kerry voted for the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security, while Bush objected to it for a year before signing it. John Kerry has gone off for a long time about the supposed declaration of Max Cleland being unpatriotic durng his run for re-electoin. Teresa even says that it was the treatment of Cleland that led her to leavethe Republican party. And Terry McAuliffe (who sponsored the ad) has gone off on the subject more than anyone. But what was the issue in question that brought about the "unpatriotic" charges? Cleland's vote AGAINST the creation of the dept of homeland security. So is it right or not right to question someone's stand on that issue? Ah, the hypocrisy of politics ... gotta love it.  |
|
