villain Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 The normally calm and level headed seeking, righteous moderator o'er all the lands of channel zero has found something new to complain about with the bush administration every day. If only it were as easy to ban the real Mr_president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 i'm level headed till it comes to situations where there is no rationalizing. there is no 'level headed' way to look at this, because 'level headed' implies that there is both right and wrong to be accepted on both sides. that is not the case here, motherfuckers are just stupid. mams, i wont break down your whole shit, because, well, im being impacient, but... gay men are something like 75% more likely to be married than gay women, due, most believe, to the much harsher view of gay men, and their desire to be accepted by their family and friends. they figure if they live a 'normal' married life, people will overlook the fact that 'eve' is a 'steve'. obviously this isnt the case for all of them, and i dont mean to generalize, but it seems to be the accepted view from the 'gay perspective' if such a thing can exist. anyway, what rights they have or dont have under civil union, vs. 'married' is completely irrelivent. that's like saying 'well, you have the right to vote, but we're still going to refer to you as niggers'. they're equal human beings and should expected to be treated as no less. not that i think you implying otherwise, but i mean, as i see it, nothing else matters. give them equal rights, end of story. to even consider anything lesser than 100% equal, is out of the question. seeks/time to fuck a guy now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteDoggy Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I would usually say "Fuck gay people, let them burn in hell with a dick up their ass". But then when you think about it. It's exactly the same thing the was happening in the 1900's when black people were discriminated. Not allowed to vote and whatever. This is just on a diffrent level. This is just happening because they are a minority, and just like it happened before in history. I'm preatty sure that this will be a whole big argument then some time later everyone will be like "Oh yeah, we were so stupid, this isn't fair. They like their own sex let them be." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBS Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by seeking you make me want to ammend the constitution, stating that you have to walk around 24/7 with your hand shoved up your ass, and when people ask why, you're constitutionally bound to say 'because i'm trying to get my head out'. this is the funniest thing i have seen/heard in a vey long time. i completely agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 i tried to email you homie, but it kicked it back. said it was no longer valid. everybody...@hotmail.com. is it still the same and just messed up, or you got a new one? email me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daze One Million Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by WhiteDoggy I would usually say "Fuck gay people, let them burn in hell with a dick up their ass". But then when you think about it. It's exactly the same thing the was happening in the 1900's when black people were discriminated. Not allowed to vote and whatever. This is just on a diffrent level. This is just happening because they are a minority, and just like it happened before in history. I'm preatty sure that this will be a whole big argument then some time later everyone will be like "Oh yeah, we were so stupid, this isn't fair. They like their own sex let them be." couple years down the road we're gonna have a gay history month im just curious as too whos gonna be the gays leader, martin luther queen or some shit no disrespect to gays or blacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Quickwood Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Daze One Million martin luther queen haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOZACK Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 i <3 boyzz :love3: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Mams - I don't know the answer to your question, but I'll do some investigating today and tomorrow to get a definitive answer. I'm going to post others' responses to Bush's announcement. If you don't feel like reading 'em, scroll on by. But I promise you they're all very articulate, well-written, and thought compelling: From Andrew Sullivan, a gay (former?) Republican: WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens - and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth. NO MORE PROFOUND AN ATTACK: This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States - or on the promise of freedom that America represents. That very tactic is so shocking in its prejudice, so clear in its intent, so extreme in its implications that it leaves people of good will little lee-way. This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance. Gay people will now regard it as their enemy for generations - and rightly so. I knew this was coming, but the way in which it has been delivered and the actual fact of its occurrence is so deeply depressing it is still hard to absorb. But the result is clear, at least for those who care about the Constitution and care about civil rights. We must oppose this extremism with everything we can muster. We must appeal to the fair-minded center of the country that balks at the hatred and fear that much of the religious right feeds on. We must prevent this graffiti from being written on a document every person in this country should be able to regard as their own. This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He's a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans - and their families and their friends - his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will. From Josh Marshall: What does President Bush's announcement today tell you about whether he thinks he can win reelection based on the record he's compiled over the last three years? --- I don't think I really have anything to add to what Andrew Sullivan said with great eloquence and fury this morning about the president's decision to put the full weight of his office behind a constitutional amendment banning not only gay marriage but even the right of states to allow their citizens to enter into civil unions which would provide the legal benefits, protections and obligations of marriage. (Scott McClellan seems to have fudged a bit on the civil unions issue. But my understanding is that the specific amendment the president is backing clearly rules out civil unions too.) I'm a pretty big small-'c' conservative on all matters of amending the constitution. In almost all cases it should be reserved for structural revisions to the architecture of the state, not as a means to hardwire policy changes or litter it with silliness about congressional pay raises. But it really is a sad day when we consider using the amendment process to turn back the widening gyre of equality and emancipation which has always been this document's role in the American state. (The White House will try to say that this is in response to what is happening in San Francisco. But I don't think that will pass close scrutiny since, if recollection serves, they started signalling this before that happened.) We should also note a few things about what this means about the president. The White House didn't want to have the president out last night making a slashing campaign speech in late February. They also didn't want to start hitting the airwaves this early with their campaign commercials. And they definitely did not want the president jumping off the high dive into a gay rights culture war. The strategy was to bank the president's rock solid support from Republicans and spend the year above the political fray with soft sounding proposals aimed at the political middle. But it hasn't worked out that way. The support among conservatives has taken some real hits. The White House has decided that the long-predicted rising economy won't float them through this election. The situation in Iraq looks wobbly and likely to get worse before it gets better. So deprived of the ability to run on his record he's decided to save his political hide by trying to tear the country apart over a charged and divisive social issue which is being hashed out through the political process in the states. It's his dad and the flag burning amendment all over again. Is there really anything that tells you more about a man's character than this? A couple weeks ago I said we should be on the look out for stuff like this -- not just the move on gay marriage, but the whole descent into scurrilous attacks and divisive wedge politics as the president's popularity drifts downward. (Isn't the White House a bit worried that their line about the Democrats being negative and haters will be a little undermined by these tactics on their part?) One might suggest that the idea we should have in mind here is that old line about judging a man's character and mettle by what he does when the seas get stormy rather than what he does when they're calm. But I think the real metaphor to keep in mind is how dangerous and unpredictable an animal becomes when he's cornered. From Atrios: Strom Thurmond Wasn't A Racist Trent Lott isn't either. Nor is Jesse Helms. Really, they are/were nice guys. Not racists at all. I mean, sure, they pandered to racists. But, you know, they weren't really racists themselves. It's just...politics, right? They just always did and said things against the interests of African-Americans to get votes - not because they themselves are bigots. What a load of crap. As is the continued insistence that George Bush isn't anti-gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don't Panic Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by El Mamerro 1) Is there a substantial legal difference between a civil union and a marriage beyond the terminology? I believe there are some differences in terms of having protections at the federal level, not sure. Poop? Civil unions only exist in Vermont and California, so whatever rights do come with them are void in 48 states. Since the federal government doesn't recognize them, the rights that come with CU's concerning whatever federal system a SS couple may find themselves dealing with are kind of in limbo. This is a direct quote that I don't want to research right now about the differences in rights: According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections. If so, why is there no alternate movement to call for the extension of federal protections to civil unions? Wouldn't this in essence also provide the same rights to all? Other than what I just mentioned, I think this boils down to a 'seperate is not equal' issue. All the pro-SS sites I have seen seem to mainly take issue with the 'civil union' having a second rate connotation to it. 2) If not so, is this is just a quest for the dignity, culture, and respect associated with the term "marriage"? This is an element of it, yes. 3-a) If the dignity, culture, and respect associated with the term "marriage" are rooted in religion, and have through the ages become enmeshed into a legal institution, wouldn't it make more sense to follow the secularization process and eliminate "marriage" and its religious baggage from law, and give it back to the community it came from for them to do as they please with it? I really think this is the best approach. We can still give benefits that are packaged with marriage to people, it just won't be 'marriage' anymore. We can just call the new shit a 'domestic partnership'- be it man & man, man & woman, man & women, whatever. 3-B) If the dignity, culture, and respect associated with the term "marriage" are rooted in a particular religion that does not approve of gays, is it unfair to demand that these religious groups allow homosexual couples to appropiate the term as their own? I'm sure they may feel so, but 'marriage' has become a much more functional word since the definition they are adhering was laid down. It has come to really mean nothing more than 'a union'. It's just a problem of confused (and out dated) priorities and semantics that all this 'between a man and a woman' shit is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duh-rye-won Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 are there any people with conservatice right wing views that post on here? i don't but it would make it more interesting instead of having a bunch of liberal fags like ouselves bitching about the man. someone needs to stand up for the man around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Excellent addition, Don't Panic. Thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadawhat Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 where's mapo when you need him??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don't Panic Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Thanks, PMB. You snuck in before me though, I'm still going over your post. *response to iquit- I agree, and it has been addressed before. I think that Kabar or someone might be the only one able to pull his weight (he's kinda conservative, right? It's been awhile since I've seen him anyway). Mapo tried, but it just wasn't happening. Even if there was one, there are some smart folks on here, and I've never seen a conservative actually come out on top of a debate regarding social issues like this. They start saying shit like 'Homosexuality caused the death of the Roman empire! What's next? Marrying animals and children?? What is the difference? Once we give the immoral an inch they'll take a mile! Slippery slope! Slippery slope!', and everyone just laughs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Mask Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 on a lighter note: how the hell do you adress same sex couples in written correspondance? I've actually had to deal with this at work lately. The best I could come up with is using the old term "Messrs" which is literally a plural version of Mr. I'd be stumped if a lesbian couples file came across my desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duh-rye-won Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Don't Panic Thanks, PMB. You snuck in before me though, I'm still going over your post. *response to iquit- I agree, and it has been addressed before. I think that Kabar or someone might be the only one able to pull his weight (he's kinda conservative, right? It's been awhile since I've seen him anyway). Mapo tried, but it just wasn't happening. Even if there was one, there are some smart folks on here, and I've never seen a conservative actually come out on top of a debate regarding social issues like this. They start saying shit like 'Homosexuality caused the death of the Roman empire! What's next? Marrying animals and children?? What is the difference? Once we give the immoral an inch they'll take a mile! Slippery slope! Slippery slope!', and everyone just laughs. yeah, kabar i guess. but i don't think kabar is against gays getting hitched, but i wouldnt want to speak for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poop Man Bob Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by ese on a lighter note: how the hell do you adress same sex couples in written correspondance? I've actually had to deal with this at work lately. The best I could come up with is using the old term "Messrs" which is literally a plural version of Mr. I'd be stumped if a lesbian couples file came across my desk. What about "Dear Sirs"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Mask Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Poop Man Bob What about "Dear Sirs"? too impersonal. the last name has to be included...thats the problem. but thanks anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duh-rye-won Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 to whom it gay concern? ya i know. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don't Panic Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Then what about 'Dear Mr. & Mr. _______' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duh-rye-won Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by E MARTYR wonder if there is any gay congress men, or others who vote for these bills... :lol: definitely a ton of right-wing closet gays in congress. like the type of dude in american beauty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBS Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by seeking i tried to email you homie, but it kicked it back. said it was no longer valid. everybody...@hotmail.com. is it still the same and just messed up, or you got a new one? email me. check your email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaBar2 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Actually, I'm not opposed to gay marriage, straight marriage or any other kind of marriage. I just think that the Government should butt out of "marriage" altogether. Marriage is a contract between two people, according to our laws, but why should that be? Why not polygamy? First-cousin marriages? As long as two people want to form a marriage, what business is it of the Government, or insurance companies, or managed-health-care companies, etc.? The religious conservatives dominate this question poilitically, and will continue to do so until the people who disagree with them band together to outvote them. Personally, I see little or no value in "Government licensed" marriage per se. Other than keeping health records of parentage, why is the Government involved at all? I think people should just marry as they will, and go "common law." Fidelity and sexual monogamy (or, in the case of polyamory, "group fidelity") is a shitload more important than a piece of paper saying the happy couple is legitimate, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duh-rye-won Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by E MARTYR all i know is, this is ghey. :lol: jk. it's actually funny (or maybe not) how we all call each other, fag, gay, ghey, homo, butt-pirate, fancypants etc., in a deragatory way, but actually defend gheys and their right to wed. using these words as disses isn't really a cool thing to do, but i just can't help myself. oh well. knowing is half the battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daze One Million Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 i swear to god that i invented the use of the word gay to describe something, for lack of a better word, not cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Europe Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Ill probaly do a paper on this subject for my American Studies class. Nice info Poops! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 http://www.fuckthebuff.com/tesseract/sam.jpg'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ounceaddict Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Fuck Gay people, let them burn in hell with a dick up their ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caL Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 that uncle sam looks creepy :eek: dear partners ____ or dear mr.'s ____ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldBench Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 it's sad we think so much alike :rolleyes: our society is falling to shit.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.