...has me balling my eyes out. Jesus I'm a ******* sap.
Nexa
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Courage Campaign video
Courage Campaign videoFollow
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Well put together, but this is a tough sell, legally. I don't think the court can get away with a ruling along the lines of "We said it was illegal because you didn't do this, and now that you've availed yourself of the remedy we provided, we're saying that's illegal also. Sorry we forgot to mention it before."
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Well put together, but this is a tough sell, legally. I don't think the court can get away with a ruling along the lines of "We said it was illegal because you didn't do this, and now that you've availed yourself of the remedy we provided, we're saying that's illegal also. Sorry we forgot to mention it before."
If only the judge back then had granted the motion to hold off authorizing gay marriages until *after* Prop8 was voted on? Man. If only someone had seen this coming...
I'm sorry, I just don't have any sympathy for someone who rushed out to get married during the 3 months that it was legal knowing full well that it would likely be illegal soon. Doubly so when it's really really obvious to anyone with a brain that the only reason those marriages were allowed in the first place was to force exactly this sort of "sad" situation and use it as leverage.
Those people were used, but not by the folks who voted "yes" on Prop8.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
"Bawling". Unless you're doing more with teh gays than I want to know about 
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
"Bawling". Unless you're doing more with teh gays than I want to know about
Oh bite me...you really expect me to spell correctly when I'm a sappy emotional mess? At least I didn't say I was bowling...then you really would think I was a lesbian.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry, I just don't have any sympathy for someone who rushed out to get married during the 3 months that it was legal knowing full well that it would likely be illegal soon. Doubly so when it's really really obvious to anyone with a brain that the only reason those marriages were allowed in the first place was to force exactly this sort of "sad" situation and use it as leverage. homosexual people who wanted to be married and exercised their then legal right to be married knowing they might not have another chance in the near future.
ftfy
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry, I just don't have any sympathy for someone who rushed out to get married during the 3 months that it was legal knowing full well that it would likely be illegal soon. Doubly so when it's really really obvious to anyone with a brain that the only reason those marriages were allowed in the first place was to force exactly this sort of "sad" situation and use it as leverage.
Those people were used, but not by the folks who voted "yes" on Prop8.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry, I just don't have any sympathy for someone who rushed out to get married during the 3 months that it was legal knowing full well that it would likely be illegal soon. Doubly so when it's really really obvious to anyone with a brain that the only reason those marriages were allowed in the first place was to force exactly this sort of "sad" situation and use it as leverage.
Those people were used, but not by the folks who voted "yes" on Prop8.
haha, the funniest thing about gbaji's assertion that they should have known better and not gotten married when it was BOUND to be overturned is that had the couples decided to "wait and make sure it would all be trouble free" the opponents would have been right out there saying, "See! There's no demand for this anyway! They don't even want to get married!"
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
For gbaji, it's always about politics. Sometimes people just want to know that they live in a society that views their relationship as equal to anyone else's.Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
gbaji wrote:
...I just don't have any sympathy...
'Nuff said. For some people, being "right" trumps being human.
Elinda wrote:
Maybe they actually thought this country would see to that the discrimination against them and their families because of gender would end.
I'm sure that's what they were told. The reality is that their plight is being used as leverage to push through a political agenda that the people have overturned, not once, but *twice*.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Maybe they actually thought this country would see to that the discrimination against them and their families because of gender would end.
I'm sure that's what they were told. The reality is that their plight is being used as leverage to push through a political agenda that the people have overturned, not once, but *twice*.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
You mean a political agenda of equality? Those bastards!
It's not about equality though. That's the problem...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I'm going to regret this...
What is it about then?
What is it about then?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
gbaji wrote:
It's not about equality though. That's the problem...
I know you like to pretend that "But gay men can marry women just like any other man!" is some sort of equality but no.
Edited, Feb 20th 2009 6:28pm by Allegory
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not about equality though. That's the problem...
I know you like to pretend that "But gay men can marry women just like any other man!" is some sort of equality but no.
That's not the reason.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
I'm going to regret this...
What is it about then?
What is it about then?
"Equality under the law" does not mean "equal benefit from the government". That's a great starting point.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
That's not the reason.
I have to apologize for the inability to search posts at the moment, but you have made that arguments several times before.
gbaji wrote:
"Equality under the law" does not mean "equal benefit from the government".
You don't honestly believe any of this crap you type do you?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
gbaji wrote:
"Equality under the law" does not mean "equal benefit from the government".
You don't honestly believe any of this crap you type do you?
Complex question. It's not crap, and I do believe it. That's why I wrote it.
Are you arguing that equality under the law *does* mean "equal benefit from the government"? Want to argue this in the context of taxes? Are my rights being infringed because I don't receive foodstamps? I hope you can see how those are *not* the same thing.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
You don't receive foodstamps because you don't meet the criteria to receive them, which starts with your income. Gays don't meet the requirements for equal benefit from the government because the law won't allow them to marry. See the difference?
You want to quit your job and get food stamps? Go for it.
You want to quit your job and get food stamps? Go for it.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Quote:
Are you arguing that equality under the law *does* mean "equal benefit from the government"? Want to argue this in the context of taxes? Are my rights being infringed because I don't receive foodstamps? I hope you can see how those are *not* the same thing.
Seriously?
Just as Planned.
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
You don't receive foodstamps because you don't meet the criteria to receive them, which starts with your income.
Very good. You understand that it's ok to place criteria on benefits and that it doesn't mean that we've violated some kind of equality rule.
Quote:
Gays don't meet the requirements for equal benefit from the government because the law won't allow them to marry.
Nope. Gay marriages don't qualify for benefits. That's really it. Your problem (and almost everyone's, so that's no reflection on you personally) is that your very definition of "marriage" includes "receiving government benefits", so you have a hard time understanding what I'm saying. You don't need the government to get married. All the concepts and ideas of marriage exist outside government.
What is denied to gays is that their marriages don't qualify them for special benefits. That's it. Ergo, there is *zero* difference in terms of rights and equality under the law between this and my example of me being denied foodstamps.
Quote:
See the difference?
No. I don't.
Do you see why they are actually the same? Adjust your definition of marriage and you'll get it...
Quote:
You want to quit your job and get food stamps? Go for it.
Gay guy wants to marry a woman and receive the benefits. Go for it. See! It's the same... Each is a set of benefits, with a set of criteria. You were this close...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Your problem (and almost everyone's, so that's no reflection on you personally) is that your very definition of "marriage" includes "receiving government benefits", so you have a hard time understanding what I'm saying.
Quote:
You don't need the government to get married.
Well, until I practice law. Then I get arrested. Or until I pay my taxes as "married" because I have a same-sex spouse. Then I'm hit with charges from the IRS.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Very good. You understand that it's ok to place criteria on benefits and that it doesn't mean that we've violated some kind of equality rule.
Placing criteria on benefits is not infringing on equality is ok.
Placing criteria that infringe on equality are not ok.
It's not that placing criteria is bad, it's the infringement on basic rights.
Understand yet?
Don't tell me you can't see this, as you have the capacity to understand things that take far less deductive reasoning than this.
Just as Planned.
Quote:
Gay guy wants to marry a woman and receive the benefits. Go for it. See! It's the same... Each is a set of benefits, with a set of criteria. You were this close...
Can't you see why this is not equivalent?
Is the core principle of marriage the fact that two people have different physiological compositions, or is the core principle that two voices want to create a more permanent bond with each other?
Tell me where the logic breaks down for you.
And then let me know if you believe that it should be your decision whether or not those two should be able to do so. Is it your calling to expend your effort in an attempt to prevent those bonds from being created? Are those bonds that dangerous to your existence?
And what would your answer be if you were the one on the other end of the stick.
Answer each of these, and you'll have found out something very interesting. Whether or not it changes your mind in practice is moot.
Just as Planned.
Recent Visitors: 701
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (701)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Courage Campaign video
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC