SCOTUS not enough- prop 8 jerks trying to find another way

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 15:21:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 15:13:25 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

If you want to live in the past you are free to do so.  But life will move on with or without you.

Duly noted.

If you're implying that I believe homosexuals will never "marry" in the US, you're wrong. See Reply #9 for starters.

Oh I know you know it.  I was referring to you referring back to Colonial times. 

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 15:24:50 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

The colonials believed black people were slaves, women were property, gays were an abomination, and brown and yellow skinned humans were inferior beings.  I don't give a shit what they believed because they're all clearly fucking assholes.

Dead fucking assholes to be precise.

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm sure they'd think the world of you gentlemen too.

[kittensaver]

“The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that is wrong with the world.” ― Dr. Paul Farmer

[Sum Dum Gai]

I'm sure they'd think the world of you gentlemen too.

Oh no, the bigoted xenophobes who originally founded this country wouldn't like me.  How am I ever going to live with myself?

[frankq]

Jul 14, 2013 21:08:31 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 14, 2013 21:00:21 GMT -5 frankq said:

The only thing I can think of is the issue of health and pension/retirement benefits accrued. Benefits for couples are calculated based on the actuarial statistics of a man and a woman as the standard couple. Women generally live longer than men by about 7-8 years, and the average gap in age was around 5 years or less last I heard. Same sex couples may not fit those benefit guidelines. That could fuck up some fucked up government pension systems even more and affect private plans. There might be other impacts to health plans. While male same sex couples cannot reproduce and need no maternity benefits, but would female couples be entitled to demand expensive in vitro fertility coverage? I'd bet some attorneys would sue to get it. And you can't discriminate, so everyone will get it. You think health costs are high now? What about kids? We should be entering the time when some of the early same sex couples who had adopted children are bringing those children to adulthood. Just curious to see if being raised in a same sex home has influenced these kids sexually. This isn't a homophobic question, just wondering.

Frankq-males couples can adopt and therefore would be eligible for FMLA. While FMLA is unpaid leave, it is a benefit afforded across the nation. Additionally, one of the two spouses in a male same-sex marriage can use a surrogate to carry his child through artificial insemination.

Agreed, What I am wondering about is the possible unfunded impact to benefit plans that would accrue literally overnight. I'm no actuary, I'm just wondering...

[Deleted]

Heterosexual people have been raising homosexual kids forever. It would stand to reason that homosexuals can raise heterosexual kids, no? 

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 17:19:26 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

Heterosexual people have been raising homosexual kids forever. It would stand to reason that homosexuals can raise heterosexual kids, no? 

And some of those heterosexual raising kids were really homosexuals (hiding (societal pressure) or discovered themselves later in life).

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 14:25:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:16:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you are right, i was not clear there.  what i meant is: what stake does the state have in defining marriage as a heterosexual, religious institution?  to deprive people of estate tax rights and other legal and tax benefits?

Constitutionally I see none.

And if the government wants to marry any two people, or Mr. Lagerfeld and his cat, or whoever, under the term "civil unions", and grant them manifold rights and privileges, be that their right to do so.

ok, thanks.  that is kind of where i end up in this debate, as well.  go marry a bridge, for all i care:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356774/Australian-woman-Jodi-Rose-marries-bridge-France--gets-mayors-blessing.html

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 14:50:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:36:54 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You know Virgil, you pretty much said on another thread Americans are racial busybodies.  I am going to post the following quote you made on the Trayvon Martin thread here.  Hopefully another poster won't jump in and call me "extra low-class" for posting it.


And this:


Maybe all those words should apply to sexual orientation busybodies, especially to some of our Canadian neighbors too.  

 

Americans are race busybodies.

A busybody is a specialist in making a big issue out of a gaffe, or a faux-pas, or a cultural misunderstanding.

The "gay marriage" controversy is none of these things.

edit: neither is racism.  you get a gold star for red herring of the day.

It is a concerted, purposeful, nationwide clash of ideals. I'm not picking on homosexual candidates, or demanding that posters never utter the slur "homosexual", or opining about gay-on-straight violence. Those are petty, ancillary issues. It's the whole point of my rant vis a vis race.

Respect the distinction.

i hope it doesn't bother you too much to hear this, but i can't respect a distinction that i can't perceive.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 14:55:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:47:58 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

:"Why should YOUR religious beliefs be the law of the land?":

======================

Yeah, I'd like this one answered too!

In this case I'll say: because they coincide with the beliefs of over 90% of Americans who ever lived.

i am sure the numbers are even higher among those who have died.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 16:09:46 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I'm sure they'd think the world of you gentlemen too.

Oh no, the bigoted xenophobes who originally founded this country wouldn't like me.  How am I ever going to live with myself?

oxy-contin and whiskey?

[billisonboard]

Jul 15, 2013 17:39:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:25:55 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Constitutionally I see none.

And if the government wants to marry any two people, or Mr. Lagerfeld and his cat, or whoever, under the term "civil unions", and grant them manifold rights and privileges, be that their right to do so.

ok, thanks.  that is kind of where i end up in this debate, as well.  go marry a bridge, for all i care:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356774/Australian-woman-Jodi-Rose-marries-bridge-France--gets-mayors-blessing.html

This is a good deal. Makes the rest of the world, animate and inanimate, safe from this lady marrying anyone or anything else. Thank you Le Pont du Diable Bridge for taking one for the team.

[Tennesseer]

Ms Rose, who says she is completely devoted to her new husband (Le Pont du Diable) have yet to explain how she determined the sex of the bridge.

If the bridge were female it would be named Le Pont du Diabla.

[Virgil Showlion]

edit: neither is racism. you get a gold star for red herring of the day.

I'm not talking about racism. I'm talking what I call "racial busybodying", which I define in two separate tests in the Zimmerman thread.

[mmhmm]

If others want to allow you, Virgil, to define them, that's certainly their prerogative and none of my affair.  I will not, however, allow you to define me; nor, will I allow you to define my motivations.  You don't know beans about me, or my motivations.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 21:34:13 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

If others want to allow you, Virgil, to define them, that's certainly their prerogative and none of my affair.  I will not, however, allow you to define me; nor, will I allow you to define my motivations.  You don't know beans about me, or my motivations.

...which has what to do with... what?

[mmhmm]

Jul 15, 2013 21:55:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 21:34:13 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

If others want to allow you, Virgil, to define them, that's certainly their prerogative and none of my affair.  I will not, however, allow you to define me; nor, will I allow you to define my motivations.  You don't know beans about me, or my motivations.

...which has what to do with... what?

Which has to do with your Reply #135.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 21:58:21 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jul 15, 2013 21:55:37 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...which has what to do with... what?

Which has to do with your Reply #135.

It's directed to DJ. Just ignore it.

[mmhmm]

Jul 15, 2013 22:03:29 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 21:58:21 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Which has to do with your Reply #135.

It's directed to DJ. Just ignore it.

Umm, it didn't have dj's name on it anywhere, so other posters have to take it at face value, as I did, Virgil.  Your "two tests" in the Zimmerman thread weren't targeted specifically, either, if I recall correctly.

[Deleted]

Jul 15, 2013 14:50:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:36:54 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You know Virgil, you pretty much said on another thread Americans are racial busybodies.  I am going to post the following quote you made on the Trayvon Martin thread here.  Hopefully another poster won't jump in and call me "extra low-class" for posting it.


And this:


Maybe all those words should apply to sexual orientation busybodies, especially to some of our Canadian neighbors too.  

 

Americans are race busybodies.

A busybody is a specialist in making a big issue out of a gaffe, or a faux-pas, or a cultural misunderstanding.

The "gay marriage" controversy is none of these things. It is a concerted, purposeful, nationwide clash of ideals. I'm not picking on homosexual candidates, or demanding that posters never utter the slur "homosexual", or opining about gay-on-straight violence. Those are petty, ancillary issues. It's the whole point of my rant vis a vis race.

Respect the distinction.

 They may be "petty, ancillary issues" to you... but those who suffer from abuse usually think it far more significant than their abusers do. 
 "Why, sheriff, it was just a li'l ol' lynching! What's the big fuss?"
 
 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 0:57:58 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:50:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Americans are race busybodies.

A busybody is a specialist in making a big issue out of a gaffe, or a faux-pas, or a cultural misunderstanding.

The "gay marriage" controversy is none of these things. It is a concerted, purposeful, nationwide clash of ideals. I'm not picking on homosexual candidates, or demanding that posters never utter the slur "homosexual", or opining about gay-on-straight violence. Those are petty, ancillary issues. It's the whole point of my rant vis a vis race.

Respect the distinction.

 They may be "petty, ancillary issues" to you... but those who suffer from abuse usually think it far more significant than their abusers do. 
 "Why, sheriff, it was just a li'l ol' lynching! What's the big fuss?"
 
 

Your lack of distinction between an errant statement and cold-blooded murder speaks to my point.

[swamp]

Jul 15, 2013 20:37:00 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Ms Rose, who says she is completely devoted to her new husband (Le Pont du Diable) have yet to explain how she determined the sex of the bridge.

If the bridge were female it would be named Le Pont du Diabla.

See, we're already heading down that slippery slope of allowing gay marriage with bridges. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 11:04:35 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 15, 2013 20:37:00 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

If the bridge were female it would be named Le Pont du Diabla.

See, we're already heading down that slippery slope of allowing gay marriage with bridges. 

Pets.

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2013 11:22:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 16, 2013 11:04:35 GMT -5 swamp said:

See, we're already heading down that slippery slope of allowing gay marriage with bridges. 

Pets.

Gay dogs are going to want to get married?    I am ok with that.  As long as cats don't marry dogs, though.  That is an abomination.

[Deleted]

Catdog wasn't that bad... 

[Tennesseer]

Jul 16, 2013 11:26:31 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jul 16, 2013 11:22:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Pets.

Gay dogs are going to want to get married?    I am ok with that.  As long as cats don't marry dogs, though.  That is an abomination.

Why? We already let mammal from different planets get married: Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 11:26:31 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jul 16, 2013 11:22:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Pets.

Gay dogs are going to want to get married?    I am ok with that.  As long as cats don't marry dogs, though.  That is an abomination.

A dog "marrying" a cat has as much legitimacy in my mind as two men "marrying" each other, hence we've already reached the point of absurdity.

Maybe in a generation when you're old-fashioned, and your views are considered antiquated and irrelevant, "marriage" will have "evolved" enough that even you'll concede the fruitlessness and absurdity of it.

[mmhmm]

I see a difference; primarily, cats and dogs cannot make the decision to get married.  Human beings can.  Gays are just as human as anybody else, and they're fully capable of making decisions.

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2013 11:51:59 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I see a difference; primarily, cats and dogs cannot make the decision to get married.  Human beings can.  Gays are just as human as anybody else, and they're fully capable of making decisions.

If my dog married a cat I would disown it.