Anders, secondly, I don't take anything personal from any internet forum. As too many people will willingly and easily say stupid and ignorant things that they would never have the courage to speak in person to said target.
I am happy you feel that way about your post. Then we are in agreement
Quote:
Originally posted by hardhead
Thirdly, you have the gall to say that you have a HUGE database of OVER 2000 women, mostly lesbians... You sir, take yourself just a little too seriously.
Its not my own little black book. Its a file on my clients shiny white iBook
I'm hitting the sack now. Anders, very weak comments from you sir. I look forward to the groverat's responses. I don't see how he can justify the title of this post.
I remember when it was a big deal to be a moderator here at AI a few years ago. Change is inevitable. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse...
I'm hitting the sack now. Anders, very weak comments from you sir. I look forward to the groverat's responses. I don't see how he can justify the title of this post.
I remember when it was a big deal to be a moderator here at AI a few years ago. Change is inevitable. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse...
You said you are not offended by comments on a message board and noone should be. I say I am happy you see that your post can offend people. Whats "weak" about that?
About the title of this thread. Could you please point out what is wrong with it? Its describes excatly what is happening.
EDIT: Oh. Is it the database thing that somehow puts you off?
However what I do find funny, in a sad sort of cynical way, is how bare knuckled many of you are in your political views.
Aren't most of these posters here the same one's who in a different thread were screaming about "state's rights!"
California, as a state, has decided on this issue. The city of San Francisco is acting in opposition to the laws passed by the entire state.
But hey, lets have a win at any cost right?
That is complete bunk, and has serious ramifications when people do not respect the rule of law.
When people are burning down abortion clinics to "win at any cost" or such nonsense, let's see if the same crowd is cheering the lack of respect for acting for the rule of law, while encouraging anarchy.
When it is a mayor cheering on his or her ignoring a law you happen to agree with, let's see if you are declared hateful if you protest.
Oh the old negro/coloured/black/afro-american debate again.
Its clear what Groverats intention is with his post if one reads more than the headline. He is for not against gay marriage
For me queer is a word accepting people as they are (as it is used in "queer theory"). To be offended by that word is a signal to me that one wants to adopt to the hetero-sexual norm, which I don´t subscribe to. To live in a close knitted lifelong relationship is not better or worse than everything else people do with eachother (and the mandatory: with the consensus of each involved over the legal age) IMO. So to be against the word queer is actually the same as to say I live morally wrong. So I should actually be offended by anyone NOT using the word queer.
"Queer" is only a slur if used as such. If I offended any homosexuals (out, latent or closeted) then I am sorry, but toughen up a little and learn to read the actual posts and not just the titles.
Marriage (as a practice or a word) is not the Christians' ball to take home in a huff. The practice existed before Jebsu came to preach and in cultures outside of Christianity's reach. Sorry, lambs, but you can get over it or just pout, watch your churches literally split in half over the issue and pray for armageddon so God can come kill everyone who isn't like you.
As for all the other "it just ain't right, that ain't how we did it in mah daddy's time". Hang on for the ride and please dispose your chewing tobacco in the proper receptacles. Don't spit on the sidewalk.
Jebulum:
tee-hee-hee
I say "fight for all of us" and you laugh because it makes it sound like I am gay.
Unfortunately these judges and mayor are crafting a right where none exists. Unfortunately it's going to backlash on them too.
possibly, but it is making people think about the issue. it's modern civil disobedience, pure and simple. i wonder if we will see the fab five speak "out" on this.
Yeah, trumptman's comments about the "rule of law" issue is interesting in this SF case....when any group defies the law en masse in civil disobedience it's something to be watched by all. I don't think that firebombing abortion clinics can be compared to gays marrying, there's certainly a better comparison out there.
The outcome of this is where the bets should be the hottest. Will SF's actions result in arrests? Lawsuits? Challenges of the law? Probably.
Why has the (activist) homosexual community decided that they must seize the word "Married" though....that's a direct attack at the throat of "flyover country". I agree that this will most certainly result in a whole lot MORE hateful activity in the meantime. I would have advocated that they take a much more surreptitious approach, petitioning for "civil unions" then simply using the word "married" in social situations. To have been "squatters" on the term.
I suppose the argument will be made that they just couldn't wait any longer.
I'll still laugh when I hear it, even from friends.
There is no reason at all to have a carbon copy of marriage called "civil unions" that apply to homosexuals. There is no reason for it. It is illogical.
Not to mention it is improper discriminatory behavior on the government's part.
There is no reason at all to have a carbon copy of marriage called "civil unions" that apply to homosexuals. There is no reason for it. It is illogical.
Not to mention it is improper discriminatory behavior on the government's part.
So you as one person get to decide what is proper and improper discrimation for society as a whole.
My those shoulders must be sore from the burden.
Silly me, I thought this was a government of the people, not a government of the groverats.
Walter Williams makes some very good points about fair play, and the rule of law.
People have been claiming this is a state's rights issue. Well California, as a state, has decided this issue and the municipality of San Francisco has decided to put itself above the law.
Perhaps all I should have to do is convince one city, say Riverside that they shouldn't honor unfair custody agreements granted in other states or cities. It could become a safe haven for father's who are not kidnapping their own children, but just using the city as a safe haven to get their due and true civil rights. The city should refuse to honor any custody agreement that is not joint 50% physical and legal. It should have the right to refuse requests by other entities wanting influence over the children and should ignore the laws, judgements and courts of other cities, counties and states. It's an okay form of civil disobedience allowed to bring about civil rights for dads.
Of course Grove, you would have no trouble with this I'm sure.
Of course you would, but a win at any cost mentality shows the true hypocrisy of those who claim to stand for laws and rights, while running roughshod over both.
is it a states rights issue or is it a civil rights issue? and how exactly does this effect you one way or the other, trump? is the government suddenly taking something away from you?
People have been claiming this is a state's rights issue. Well California, as a state, has decided this issue and the municipality of San Francisco has decided to put itself above the law.
if i may interject
not for or against this issue in particular.
i do believe the law should be equal for everyone &
religion should be a purely personal thing.
that being said what the mayor has done is a very ballsy
move.it takes a lot to stand up for something you believe in.
lest we forget this bastion of freedom had segregation
not all that long ago & interacial marriages were frowned at.heck i still get wierd looks in parts of the country whenever my wife & I travel together (I'm indian, shes caucasian)
sometimes it just takes an event to cause a change
& get the blinkers of peoples eyes
in hindsight in a few years all this wont seems like a big
People have been claiming this is a state's rights issue. Well California, as a state, has decided this issue and the municipality of San Francisco has decided to put itself above the law.
But the whole point of what they're doing is to challenge the law. They can't put it to the test unless people defy it. Perhaps the California Supreme Court, or even the US SC will overturn this law. Damn California Ballot measures.
And yet again conservatives back states' rights, but only when it is a means to reduce individual rights.
There is no reason at all to have a carbon copy of marriage called "civil unions" that apply to homosexuals. There is no reason for it. It is illogical.
Not to mention it is improper discriminatory behavior on the government's part.
Marry me, groverat.
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
And yet again conservatives back states' rights, but only when it is a means to reduce individual rights.
Marry me, BRussell.
Anyway, last week I saw a piece (ABC? CNN?) about how marriage has not been a set-in-granite legal institution. Among the variances, there was the whole Virginia eugenics movement that tried to prevent people with "undesirable traits" from marrying and interracial marriage et al.
The short of it is that Marriage being the union of any adult male with any adult female is actually the result of 200 years of progressive development.
Besides (troll bomb alert), "gay marriages" may decrease the high divorce rate that we heterosexuals are causing.
Comments
Originally posted by hardhead
Anders, secondly, I don't take anything personal from any internet forum. As too many people will willingly and easily say stupid and ignorant things that they would never have the courage to speak in person to said target.
I am happy you feel that way about your post. Then we are in agreement
Originally posted by hardhead
Thirdly, you have the gall to say that you have a HUGE database of OVER 2000 women, mostly lesbians... You sir, take yourself just a little too seriously.
Its not my own little black book. Its a file on my clients shiny white iBook
But like it or not marriage is entangled into our legal status and before that changes you are completly wrong.
And exactly what am I wrong about?
Originally posted by Ganondorf
And exactly what am I wrong about?
Woooops. Reread you post. I am actually saying almost the same as you. Sorry
I read it like you were saying "gays are whining losers" but its clearly not what you are saying.
I remember when it was a big deal to be a moderator here at AI a few years ago. Change is inevitable. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse...
Originally posted by hardhead
I'm hitting the sack now. Anders, very weak comments from you sir. I look forward to the groverat's responses. I don't see how he can justify the title of this post.
I remember when it was a big deal to be a moderator here at AI a few years ago. Change is inevitable. Sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse...
You said you are not offended by comments on a message board and noone should be. I say I am happy you see that your post can offend people. Whats "weak" about that?
About the title of this thread. Could you please point out what is wrong with it? Its describes excatly what is happening.
EDIT: Oh. Is it the database thing that somehow puts you off?
However what I do find funny, in a sad sort of cynical way, is how bare knuckled many of you are in your political views.
Aren't most of these posters here the same one's who in a different thread were screaming about "state's rights!"
California, as a state, has decided on this issue. The city of San Francisco is acting in opposition to the laws passed by the entire state.
But hey, lets have a win at any cost right?
That is complete bunk, and has serious ramifications when people do not respect the rule of law.
When people are burning down abortion clinics to "win at any cost" or such nonsense, let's see if the same crowd is cheering the lack of respect for acting for the rule of law, while encouraging anarchy.
When it is a mayor cheering on his or her ignoring a law you happen to agree with, let's see if you are declared hateful if you protest.
Nick
Originally posted by Anders
About the title of this thread. Could you please point out what is wrong with it? Its describes excatly what is happening.
The word "queer" is not very PC. It implies that gay people are freakishly different.
Its clear what Groverats intention is with his post if one reads more than the headline. He is for not against gay marriage
For me queer is a word accepting people as they are (as it is used in "queer theory"). To be offended by that word is a signal to me that one wants to adopt to the hetero-sexual norm, which I don´t subscribe to. To live in a close knitted lifelong relationship is not better or worse than everything else people do with eachother (and the mandatory: with the consensus of each involved over the legal age) IMO. So to be against the word queer is actually the same as to say I live morally wrong. So I should actually be offended by anyone NOT using the word queer.
Oh how funny word games are
Marriage (as a practice or a word) is not the Christians' ball to take home in a huff. The practice existed before Jebsu came to preach and in cultures outside of Christianity's reach. Sorry, lambs, but you can get over it or just pout, watch your churches literally split in half over the issue and pray for armageddon so God can come kill everyone who isn't like you.
As for all the other "it just ain't right, that ain't how we did it in mah daddy's time". Hang on for the ride and please dispose your chewing tobacco in the proper receptacles. Don't spit on the sidewalk.
Jebulum:
tee-hee-hee
I say "fight for all of us" and you laugh because it makes it sound like I am gay.
tee-hee-hee
Gay boys like other boys.
tee-hee-hee
Unfortunately these judges and mayor are crafting a right where none exists. Unfortunately it's going to backlash on them too.
Originally posted by Scott
None of these SF marriages are legal.
Unfortunately these judges and mayor are crafting a right where none exists. Unfortunately it's going to backlash on them too.
possibly, but it is making people think about the issue. it's modern civil disobedience, pure and simple. i wonder if we will see the fab five speak "out" on this.
queers 1
segregationist 0
you go girl.
The outcome of this is where the bets should be the hottest. Will SF's actions result in arrests? Lawsuits? Challenges of the law? Probably.
Why has the (activist) homosexual community decided that they must seize the word "Married" though....that's a direct attack at the throat of "flyover country". I agree that this will most certainly result in a whole lot MORE hateful activity in the meantime. I would have advocated that they take a much more surreptitious approach, petitioning for "civil unions" then simply using the word "married" in social situations. To have been "squatters" on the term.
I suppose the argument will be made that they just couldn't wait any longer.
I'll still laugh when I hear it, even from friends.
Not to mention it is improper discriminatory behavior on the government's part.
Originally posted by groverat
There is no reason at all to have a carbon copy of marriage called "civil unions" that apply to homosexuals. There is no reason for it. It is illogical.
Not to mention it is improper discriminatory behavior on the government's part.
So you as one person get to decide what is proper and improper discrimation for society as a whole.
My those shoulders must be sore from the burden.
Silly me, I thought this was a government of the people, not a government of the groverats.
Walter Williams makes some very good points about fair play, and the rule of law.
People have been claiming this is a state's rights issue. Well California, as a state, has decided this issue and the municipality of San Francisco has decided to put itself above the law.
Perhaps all I should have to do is convince one city, say Riverside that they shouldn't honor unfair custody agreements granted in other states or cities. It could become a safe haven for father's who are not kidnapping their own children, but just using the city as a safe haven to get their due and true civil rights. The city should refuse to honor any custody agreement that is not joint 50% physical and legal. It should have the right to refuse requests by other entities wanting influence over the children and should ignore the laws, judgements and courts of other cities, counties and states. It's an okay form of civil disobedience allowed to bring about civil rights for dads.
Of course Grove, you would have no trouble with this I'm sure.
Of course you would, but a win at any cost mentality shows the true hypocrisy of those who claim to stand for laws and rights, while running roughshod over both.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
People have been claiming this is a state's rights issue. Well California, as a state, has decided this issue and the municipality of San Francisco has decided to put itself above the law.
if i may interject
not for or against this issue in particular.
i do believe the law should be equal for everyone &
religion should be a purely personal thing.
that being said what the mayor has done is a very ballsy
move.it takes a lot to stand up for something you believe in.
lest we forget this bastion of freedom had segregation
not all that long ago & interacial marriages were frowned at.heck i still get wierd looks in parts of the country whenever my wife & I travel together (I'm indian, shes caucasian)
sometimes it just takes an event to cause a change
& get the blinkers of peoples eyes
in hindsight in a few years all this wont seems like a big
deal.
regards,
pete
Originally posted by trumptman
People have been claiming this is a state's rights issue. Well California, as a state, has decided this issue and the municipality of San Francisco has decided to put itself above the law.
But the whole point of what they're doing is to challenge the law. They can't put it to the test unless people defy it. Perhaps the California Supreme Court, or even the US SC will overturn this law. Damn California Ballot measures.
And yet again conservatives back states' rights, but only when it is a means to reduce individual rights.
Originally posted by groverat
There is no reason at all to have a carbon copy of marriage called "civil unions" that apply to homosexuals. There is no reason for it. It is illogical.
Not to mention it is improper discriminatory behavior on the government's part.
Marry me, groverat.
Originally posted by BRussell
And yet again conservatives back states' rights, but only when it is a means to reduce individual rights.
Marry me, BRussell.
Anyway, last week I saw a piece (ABC? CNN?) about how marriage has not been a set-in-granite legal institution. Among the variances, there was the whole Virginia eugenics movement that tried to prevent people with "undesirable traits" from marrying and interracial marriage et al.
The short of it is that Marriage being the union of any adult male with any adult female is actually the result of 200 years of progressive development.
Besides (troll bomb alert), "gay marriages" may decrease the high divorce rate that we heterosexuals are causing.
Screed