Prop 8 Announcement

[raphy]

I'm having a hard time imagining why any woman would want to marry someone like that. Sorta like the dumbass above who seems to think that lesbians can't have children.

Well, far be it for me to disparage your entire gender, Cloudy (you know I never would ) .. But the choices some women make for their male partners still completely mystify me... hehe.

No wonder I rarely post here anymore.

If I come back and post more often will that change?

 

[Safe_Bet]

Good thing lesbos can't reproduce...

ummmm, I'll make sure Amy and my kids know that...

 

[Austin8]

ummmm, I'll make sure Amy and my kids know that...

Good, you do that... Oh by the way... I guess you don't use a condom? Huh?

 

[Liar]

I'm an easy person to get along with and try to live by the rules. Apparently, you have to either agree with these people or you're an asshole. So, since I have my own views and am happy with them; I fall in the latter.

Done on this subject.

Again, DG... I'm not here to yell at you. I leave that to other people. It's a personal and emotional issue for those who are directly hit by the legislation. So you gonna hafta understand if anger flares in the issue.

I just don't understand how the position you hold is rationally defendable. You said you're happy with marriage being one man one woman. I asked why. That is all.

I'd ask JBJ the same thing, (since the only reason I've gotten from him so far is "BECAUSE I FUCKIN' WANNA!") but I don't hold much hopes of getting a civilized response.

So I ask you, because you seem like a collected and reasonable person who know how to conduct civil discourse.

Why do you think the unit "heterosexual couple" should be granted legal privilidges, tax benefits and other advantages, that other pairs of consentual adults doesn't get?

 

[raphy]

Good, you do that... Oh by the way... I guess you don't use a condom? Huh?

I'm not sure Safe Bet has any need for a condom...

 

[Austin8]

I'm not sure Safe Bet has any need for a condom...

Ha, raphy, she's got to protect her penis somehow....

 

[Liar]

I'm not so sure. "Lesbos"? More than a tad dismissive, and anyone that uses the confederate flag for their AV automatically places doubt on their intelligence.

I'm not sure Safe Bet has any need for a condom...

This is where I'd post a "don't feed the troll" pic if i had one.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I'm not sure Safe Bet has any need for a condom...

Sure I do!

They are great for making balloon animals!

 

[Vail_Indigo]

I'm an easy person to get along with and try to live by the rules. Apparently, you have to either agree with these people or you're an asshole. So, since I have my own views and am happy with them; I fall in the latter.

Interesting.
You are surprised that people don't like getting discriminated against and that they might consider you an asshole.
Would you be surprised if I thought someone was an asshole for thinking whites and blacks shouldn't be allowed to matter?
Would you be surprised if I thought someone was an asshole for thinking that only people who were going to have children should be allowed to marry?
Would you be surprised if I thought someone was an asshole for thinking that women shouldn't be allowed to work?

 

[cloudy]

If I come back and post more often will that change?

For you, Raphy...anything.

 

[Handley_Page]

Austin; will you stop trying to wind the girls up ?
Picking my way through this very interesting minefield is difficult enough without absurd extensions of logic and attempts at humour (wrong place, wrong time ?).

The reference to "it was good enough for Granddad" are similarly daft. Your antecedents wrote the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and all that. Is that also 'out of date?' I somehow doubt it.

Thanks to an informative message via PM, I think I'm getting my head round this interesting conundrum.

It all hinges on the word "Marriage" and the definitions thereof.
If a scheme where a 'partnership', having the same legal rights, duties, responsibilities and privileges as a 'marriage', could be introduced, I reckon there's be a lot less fervour and heat. The 'established' churches can satisfactorily stand aside and say what the will, because we are not re-defining Marriage.

Does that make sense folks ?

HP

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No. Because the gays wont be happy till the whole world is cheering for their team. They demand unconditional love, and it aint gonna happen.

 

[Handley_Page]

No. Because the gays wont be happy till the whole world is cheering for their team. They demand unconditional love, and it aint gonna happen.

I got the impression that they wanted equality within the Law.
Some of the more vociferous shriekers don't realise they do their cause no good.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Austin; will you stop trying to wind the girls up ?
Picking my way through this very interesting minefield is difficult enough without absurd extensions of logic and attempts at humour (wrong place, wrong time ?).

The reference to "it was good enough for Granddad" are similarly daft. Your antecedents wrote the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and all that. Is that also 'out of date?' I somehow doubt it.

Thanks to an informative message via PM, I think I'm getting my head round this interesting conundrum.

It all hinges on the word "Marriage" and the definitions thereof.
If a scheme where a 'partnership', having the same legal rights, duties, responsibilities and privileges as a 'marriage', could be introduced, I reckon there's be a lot less fervour and heat. The 'established' churches can satisfactorily stand aside and say what the will, because we are not re-defining Marriage.

Does that make sense folks ?

HP

Not a bit. There are a good number of "established churches", my own among them, who will be only too happy to preside over same-sex marriages once the political idiocy is settled. Just because a set of 19th Century groups, formed in reaction to the horror of Darwin's discoveries, don't like it is their own problem. Even though the homophobes in the Vatican are in denial, rituals for such things go back to the Sixth Century so there is excellent precedent. John Boswell demonstrated such things clear back in '94 in Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. The evidence is quite clear. For the Baptists and Mormons to shove their hysteria down everyone else's throats is in clear violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Vail_Indigo]

Austin; will you stop trying to wind the girls up ?
Picking my way through this very interesting minefield is difficult enough without absurd extensions of logic and attempts at humour (wrong place, wrong time ?).

The reference to "it was good enough for Granddad" are similarly daft. Your antecedents wrote the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and all that. Is that also 'out of date?' I somehow doubt it.

Thanks to an informative message via PM, I think I'm getting my head round this interesting conundrum.

It all hinges on the word "Marriage" and the definitions thereof.
If a scheme where a 'partnership', having the same legal rights, duties, responsibilities and privileges as a 'marriage', could be introduced, I reckon there's be a lot less fervour and heat. The 'established' churches can satisfactorily stand aside and say what the will, because we are not re-defining Marriage.

Does that make sense folks ?

HP

Sure, because 'separate but equal' has always worked out so very well.
It has been suggested that the legal entity known as marriage be abolished and changed to civil union for everyone. Churches would perform marriages, but the legal binding would be civil union no matter.
I'm fine with that.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Sure, because 'separate but equal' has always worked out so very well.
It has been suggested that the legal entity known as marriage be abolished and changed to civil union for everyone. Churches would perform marriages, but the legal binding would be civil union no matter.
I'm fine with that.

It's a logical idea but politically unfeasible. The demand for legal marriage is too great. Educated churches know full well that marriage is a civil contract that the church merely blesses but the average voter doesn't see the difference. It will have to be called marriage to get any support.

 

[Vail_Indigo]

It's a logical idea but politically unfeasible. The demand for legal marriage is too great. Educated churches know full well that marriage is a civil contract that the church merely blesses but the average voter doesn't see the difference. It will have to be called marriage to get any support.

I happen to agree that it is unlikely to happen for political reasons. I just approve of the logic.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I happen to agree that it is unlikely to happen for political reasons. I just approve of the logic.

So do I.

 

[Austin8]

What's the new politically correct name for a lesbian?
A Vagitarian!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HP

I disagree. If their hair was really on fire, theyd put it out with whatever was available, but gays like to run around saying their hair is on fire. They like the attention.

If the fire extinguisher isnt sweat from the balls of nubile youths, the gays dont want it.

 

[john-the-author]

I'm having a hard time imagining why any woman would want to marry someone like that. Sorta like the dumbass above who seems to think that lesbians can't have children.

Three women each have married (and divorced) Rush Limbaugh, Bob Barr (former Rep from GA, fundie asshat, and author of the "Defense of Marriage Act" some years ago--other reps would kid him saying "Which of your marriages are you defending, Bob?"), and Newt Gingrich (or is he still married to wife #3?). It does make you wonder about taste.

 

[john-the-author]

Not a bit. There are a good number of "established churches", my own among them, who will be only too happy to preside over same-sex marriages once the political idiocy is settled. Just because a set of 19th Century groups, formed in reaction to the horror of Darwin's discoveries, don't like it is their own problem. Even though the homophobes in the Vatican are in denial, rituals for such things go back to the Sixth Century so there is excellent precedent. John Boswell demonstrated such things clear back in '94 in Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. The evidence is quite clear. For the Baptists and Mormons to shove their hysteria down everyone else's throats is in clear violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

I do so love seeing someone else quoting Boswell, VM! It was a great book, although a bit dry at first, but it got much better as it went on.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I do so love seeing someone else quoting Boswell, VM! It was a great book, although a bit dry at first, but it got much better as it went on.

The first time I read it I got bogged down in the footnotes because I'm a born academic and can't help it. This isn't a good thing when half the page is footnotes and half the footnotes are in Greek! When I went back and read it again without the footnotes I thought it breezed right along.

Have you read any of his other works, like The Kindness of Strangers or Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality? Boswell was the kind of gay male who should have been required by law to father children. The loss of such DNA is unacceptable. He didn't have to get personal about it. AI works for people just as well as for cattle.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Three women each have married (and divorced) Rush Limbaugh, Bob Barr (former Rep from GA, fundie asshat, and author of the "Defense of Marriage Act" some years ago--other reps would kid him saying "Which of your marriages are you defending, Bob?"), and Newt Gingrich (or is he still married to wife #3?). It does make you wonder about taste.

Successful men, even assholes, attract women. Any guy who can get himself elected to Congress or who manages to have a successful radio or TV program can usually get himself all the pussy he wants and, if he feels like marrying one of them, he can do that too. This is an unfortunate fact of life.

 

[Guest]

What's the new politically correct name for a lesbian?
A Vagitarian!

Are you learning impaired?