Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates

View Poll Results: What's going down tomorrow?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Obama wins

    1 10.00%
  • Romney wins

    2 20.00%
  • Obama lawyers his way to a win

    0 0%
  • Romney lawyers his way to a win

    0 0%
  • The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man destroys the U.S.

    7 70.00%
Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61213141516171819 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 188
  1. #151
    IncGamers Member LozHinge the Unhinged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tech Support! TECH SUPPORT!!
    BattleTag FTITCTAJ
    Posts
    6,989

    Re: Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

    Merv, have doubled up on your crazy intake ... cos ... ah ... damn, fella.


  2. #152
    IncGamers Member BobCox2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UnderYourDoorMat
    BattleTag What Me Worry?
    Posts
    10,791

    Re: Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

    Popcorn!

    Get your Beer and Popcorn Here!

    Will The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man destroy the U.S. ?

  3. #153
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,928

    Re: Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    Merv, have doubled up on your crazy intake ... cos ... ah ... damn, fella.


    Quote Originally Posted by BobCox2 View Post
    Popcorn!

    Get your Beer and Popcorn Here!




    Quote Originally Posted by BobCox2 View Post
    Will The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man destroy the U.S. ?
    Surveys don't lie. Plus, hasn't Hillary been putting on a few pounds?

  4. #154
    IncGamers Member LozHinge the Unhinged's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Tech Support! TECH SUPPORT!!
    BattleTag FTITCTAJ
    Posts
    6,989

    Re: Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Heh.

    Surveys don't lie. Plus, hasn't Hillary been putting on a few pounds?
    You misspelled putting on a whole nation.

    B'dum*tsh*

  5. #155
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,928

    Re: Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

    Quote Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged View Post
    You misspelled putting on a whole nation.

    B'dum*tsh*
    She's not the only one...


  6. #156
    IncGamers Member Stevinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    chicagoland
    Posts
    5,003

    Re: Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    As it stands, I believe you have it precisely the wrong way.
    So you value foreign leaders over american citizens. interesting.

    Except that it is not and never will be. Queer couples can't have children - perhaps you ought to re-take your biology class. Marriage is the thousands-of-year-old social and religious construct for A) nurturing, raising, and protecting children that are its purpose, and B) acting in lieu of legal documentation for the passing of inheritance. In both cases there are alternate methods freely available, and you already decided those have to do with the insanity of religious people rather than the fact that you hate religious concepts because of the guilt you secretly harbor.
    Straight couples aren't required to have kids either. We don't do fertility checks before allowing people to get married, that's not what it's about. Good try though.

    Also marriage a thousand years ago is NOTHING like marriage today. Also a silly argument. back then, women didn't have a say, and they were treated as property. I'm willing to bet you don't treat Mrs. Jmerv as property.


    You spew so much bullcrap I'm surprised your skin doesn't turn brown. {waits for racist sneer}
    That's a colorful statement, but it doesn't refute that recognizing *** marriage has nothing to do with the protected status of sexual orientation. (which i admit i was mistaken and does not yet exist, and may not ever, even if *** marriage is recognized)

    That's precisely what it is (that is, "queer marriage" is an attempt to define a protected class which does not exist).
    please explain how they are the same. The protected status already exists separately. we could debate the merits of that, if you like, but I was talking about *** marriage--a completely separate issue. I can't be any clearer.

    Info on protected statuses:
    http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
    Note: I have said this before, but i would like to think that at some point these laws would no longer be necessary. ideally, they'd be phased out by the time i have little grand-stevinators. Assuming that happens. I'd like to that one day these types of laws would be considered archaic. That is probably hopium, but still, it's sad that we need them. I don't think we need more statuses.

    I do think we should recognize their marriages. separate issue.


    Homosexuals are not a protected class. This is part of the all-fronts effort to fabricate that status.
    That's interesting, because when we had to do those dumb anti-harassment classes for management at the bank, they acted as if it was. It's not on the list on the link above though (mine or yours). either way, I still don't want more. this is a separate issue from *** marriage. note that your link does not mention the word "marriage" or even "civil unions" anywhere in it.


    False again. It is only because of stupidity such as that you espouse that these lawsuits are being entertained. If I protested someone refusing to bake me a Christian cake, you'd cheer the baker and probably raise funds for his legal fees. Your bigotry and hatred rankles.
    YOU'RE ONE OF THE GREATEST ADVOCATES, YOU FECKIN' HYPOCRITE!
    Actually, I'd like to get to the point where such discrimination is so infrequent that that baker, while legally able to do so, would be hurting their business, because all the other bakers would say, sure we'll make your cake. The reason we needed the civil rights laws is because all the bakers would not make the blacks' cakes. I think we've made a lot of progress in that regard. Once you get over the hump, where discrimination is unprofitable, the market should take care of the rest. Say what you will about the worthless generation behind mine, at least they're a pretty tolerant bunch. Now, if only we could get them to learn math.

    That still has nothing to do with *** marriage. Keep trying!



    Speaking of questionable cake...a few years back at my first bank gig, one of my staff asked a caterer who was a customer to make a "secksy cake" in the shape of a lady, for her boyfriend's birthday. The caterer did not want to make the cake, and started making their deposits on the other side of town. It all happened off work time, so luckily I didn't have to address it. But man, i was worried i'd have to have THAT conversation. whew!

    Anyway, a different caterer customer ended up making it. Then a couple years later, all these cake baking shows started showing up on the food network. i bet tons of people would do it now.

  7. #157
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,928

    Re: Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    So you value foreign leaders over american citizens. interesting.
    That wasn't disagreement. I meant that you stated it precisely the opposite of what seems to be the current state of affairs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Straight couples aren't required to have kids either. We don't do fertility checks before allowing people to get married, that's not what it's about. Good try though.
    That <IS> still what it's about, though you wouldn't understand. What else would it be about? "True Love"? Don't make me laugh - the Japanese didn't even have the cultural concept. It's about duty & social structure, and the Progressives seek to smash that on the altar of trend.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Also marriage a thousand years ago is NOTHING like marriage today. Also a silly argument. back then, women didn't have a say, and they were treated as property. I'm willing to bet you don't treat Mrs. Jmerv as property.


    Mrs. J knows the traditional division of labour in a household, and I REALLY model it after that found in Bushido/medieval Japan - the wife runs the household and all within it, while the husband is the breadwinner and is responsible for all external affairs aside from those involving the household.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    but it doesn't refute that recognizing *** marriage has nothing to do with the protected status of sexual orientation.
    Sigh. It has everything to do with it, and I apparently don't have enough blasting caps and black powder to get that through your skull.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    (which i admit i was mistaken
    I would tease about framing this and selling it on eBay, but someone's ignorance of evil motivations is never really funny. Again, Progressives incessantly seek to destroy the traditional family unit because it is the building block of society - along with religion, you can't get the kids to narc on their parents if they are part of a legitimate family.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    I can't be any clearer.
    Do you mean, 'you can't be any more wrong?' OF COURSE they're not the 'same', just as Obamacare isn't actual socialized medicine. They're both triggers - they're designed to lead to an inevitable conclusion. IF queer marriage is recognized, it means that sexual predilection is no different from freedom of religion. The following result is that either religious freedoms are curtailed and/or debased, or that sexual predilection in all facets is recognized as fully protected to the same degree (greater, actually, since it can be demonstrable - eww).

    Personally, I don't believe that the desire to shove one's pecker into someone in an unnatural fashion deserves the same protections as their belief in the workings of the Universe, while you obviously do. So lets examine that (and for all your mockery of my one-note "Progressive/Commie" tendency, you have a really bad tendency to return to either queer marriage or creeping Papacy). Your side insists that there's no slippery slope, ever, no-way no-how, despite this having already been the case in Holland (and perhaps the U.K.). Your side also insists that America MUST BE THE FECKIN' MODEL no matter that most other countries, while not treating queers as social outcasts, still regard it as a perversion and don't raise it to the level of normalcy which it really has no legitimate grounds to have.

    SO. America MUST recognize the sexual predilection of under 3% of the populace as being equivalent in every fashion to the tradition of thousands of years of social behaviour, regardless of the fact that not only does the perverse behavior have plenty of alternative legal recourse but also infringes on the Freedom of Religion/Belief of the majority, simply because you say it must. Forgive me if I tell you to stick it where the Sun doesn't shine. I, and the majority of queer marriage opponents, don't really give a flying feck what queer people prefer to do with their genitalia - the issue is the demand to be recognized as fully equivalent to thousand-years-old traditions of social structure purely on the basis of whim rather than equality. Queer people can be married just as easily as straight people - marriage is between males and females. Otherwise, it's common-law, and there's nothing stopping THAT either.

    I honestly believe you to have this stance because of your intense hatred and guilt associated with religious belief, not anything to do with equality. Queer marriage can be recognized just as fully as that of straights, if they choose.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    I don't think we need more statuses.
    Yet you bring up your demand for them in pretty much every feckin' thread. Funny that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    I do think we should recognize their marriages. separate issue.
    They can and are recognized. Pointless issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    That's interesting, because when we had to do those dumb anti-harassment classes for management at the bank, they acted as if it was.
    The obvious result of the Progressive effort. Sooner or later, they'll manage to get an unequivocal claim of homosexuality as being equivalent to Freedom of Religion (belief), much as they fabricated the right to kill children out of a the theory of a Right to Privacy, and the ACLU will cackle with glee as they start filing suits to destroy the cultural fabric. Hopefully I don't live that long, which is why I'm having another drink tonight.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Actually, I'd like to get to the point where such discrimination is so infrequent that that baker, while legally able to do so, would be hurting their business, because all the other bakers would say, sure we'll make your cake.
    How would it hurt your business to turn away 2 of 100 customers? I think the markets would drastically improve if the Gov't didn't force commerce to bow to Political Correctness. I'm not even for the Civil Rights aspect, odd as that may seem; the problem is that the anti-minority side seeks privilege rather than just protection from the Oligarchy. Back in the old South, the black bars and similar establishments out-performed their white equivalents, so the whites sought anti-free-market protections through Gov't policy. You can read it for yourself (but I forget precisely where).
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    The reason we needed the civil rights laws is because all the bakers would not make the blacks' cakes.
    False, and the truth is in the book featured in the link. The reason we needed civil rights is that the State, predominately because of the Democrat Party, had prevented blacks from 'getting cakes', and the finesse of pretending that the Civil Rights movement was somehow Democrat in origin is a hoax only second to that of Global Warming or the Population Bomb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    i bet tons of people would do it now.
    While that speaks volumes about the degradation of society, not only do I imagine that is correct but I wonder how you view the initial baker when compared to the priest whose compliance the queers are trying to force?

  8. #158
    IncGamers Member BobCox2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UnderYourDoorMat
    BattleTag What Me Worry?
    Posts
    10,791

    Re: Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

    If you want a reason why the GOP is going to lose the next few elections as well.
    The Filibuster of Chuck Hagel is another example of the GOP not being afraid to show just how dysfunctional they are.

    Yesterday, Senate Republicans blocked a vote on former Sen. Chuck Hagel's nomination to be secretary of defense, marking the first time in American history that any nominee for defense secretary has been filibustered. But don't worry, they had a very good reason to launch their historic act of destructive obstruction. Sen. John McCain, please take it away:
    It goes back to there’s a lot of ill will towards Senator Hagel because when he was a Republican, he attacked President Bush mercilessly and said he was the worst President since Herbert Hoover and said the surge was the worst blunder since the Vietnam War, which was nonsense. He was anti-his own party and people — people don’t forget that.
    In other words, this is about Republicans defending their honor by standing up for George W. Bush and the Iraq War. It would be unbelievable, except these are the same guys who brought you George W. Bush and the Iraq War. And now, unlike Hagel who at least recognized his bad judgment for supporting W. and Iraq, virtually all Republicans are still committed to defending their incredibly damaging record. But, as we'll see below the fold, there appears to be another reason McCain blocked Hagel: he didn't like being cc'd on a letter. He denies this, but take a look at the facts and decide for yourself.

    As BuzzFeed's Rebecca Berg explains, on Thursday morning McCain denied having received a letter he had requested from the White House about Benghazi:

    "I have not received the letter," McCain told CNN Thursday morning. "They sent the letter to Sen. Levin. It was Sen Graham and I and Ayotte that asked for an answer. We haven't received an answer." In the interview, he said the letter's delay was a chief reason he was holding up a vote on Hagel's nomination.
    "I have to receive a letter, I have to receive a letter, see whether I receive a letter or not, and there are other questions that other senators have raised which are not answered as well," McCain told CNN.
    So McCain said he was upset that Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) had received a letter with answers to his questions, but that he hadn't received it. Fair enough, except the thing is, McCain actually had received the letter—the very same letter that had been sent to Sen. Levin. The only catch: McCain had been cc'd. The White House responded to McCain's concern by sending the exact same letter it had already sent to him, but this time it put him on the "To:" line and cc'd Levin. Problem solved, right? Sure, except by Thursday afternoon McCain had decided the reason Republicans were filibustering Hagel is that they are bitter about him saying they were wrong to support George W. Bush and Iraq.
    This is all a dark comedy, really. Actually, more like a tragedy, because all this nonsense could have been avoided if a handful of Democrats hadn't killed filibuster reform last month. That's a mistake they can fix, however. Please sign the petition to tell Harry Reid: Re-open filibuster reform in light of continued Republican obstructionism.

  9. #159
    IncGamers Member Stevinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    chicagoland
    Posts
    5,003

    Re: Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    That wasn't disagreement. I meant that you stated it precisely the opposite of what seems to be the current state of affairs.
    There are several things about the current state of affairs that I don't like.


    That <IS> still what it's about, though you wouldn't understand. What else would it be about? "True Love"?
    Well I'm not married, but none of my friends married to protect their property rights. At least not that they'd admit.

    *funny pic
    I'm not picking on you, I'm trying to relate to you. But if it bugs you, I'll try another way.


    Don't make me laugh - the Japanese didn't even have the cultural concept. It's about duty & social structure, and the Progressives seek to smash that on the altar of trend.
    Mrs. J knows the traditional division of labour in a household, and I REALLY model it after that found in Bushido/medieval Japan - the wife runs the household and all within it, while the husband is the breadwinner and is responsible for all external affairs aside from those involving the household.
    Personally, I don't believe that the desire to shove one's pecker into someone in an unnatural fashion deserves the same protections as their belief in the workings of the Universe, while you obviously do. So lets examine that (and for all your mockery of my one-note "Progressive/Commie" tendency, you have a really bad tendency to return to either queer marriage or creeping Papacy). Your side insists that there's no slippery slope, ever, no-way no-how, despite this having already been the case in Holland (and perhaps the U.K.). Your side also insists that America MUST BE THE FECKIN' MODEL no matter that most other countries, while not treating queers as social outcasts, still regard it as a perversion and don't raise it to the level of normalcy which it really has no legitimate grounds to have.
    I moved that around to highlight that you're basing what we do here (and what you do at home) on what everyone else does. I thought America was exceptional? I am pretty sure you don't want the US to be "more like Japan and Europe".

    Anyway, I this issue, which I imagine that neither of us really votes on, comes up so much because it's mind boggling how people can be wrong on this one. It's so not a big deal to anyone except the people who want to get married, but like 47% of the country is adamant against it. I don't understand. It's a no brainer. All the things you claim will happen just don't. When it became legal here, no one even noticed. No one forced churches to do anything. Literally nothing happened except that now the *** pride parade isn't news anymore, so they show the squirrel waterskiing or something else stupid that day. If anything, people who are so anti-***, actually probably hear less about it. So yes, out on the interwebs, it comes up a lot. I don't get how anyone could really care so much about trying to ruin someone else's life when they literally wouldn't even know.

    You are right. It IS a little issue. But it's also an example of how religious people are illogical, and obstinate about basically nothing. I mean hell ANN COULTER even thinks they should be able to get married. Can't you let that one go?

    Oh, and let us teach evolution in school too. That's another one that drives me nuts.

    Sigh. It has everything to do with it, and I apparently don't have enough blasting caps and black powder to get that through your skull.
    You don't need blasting caps. Just explain how one begets the other. You can't, because it doesn't.

    I would tease about framing this and selling it on eBay, but someone's ignorance of evil motivations is never really funny. Again, Progressives incessantly seek to destroy the traditional family unit because it is the building block of society - along with religion, you can't get the kids to narc on their parents if they are part of a legitimate family.
    How does allowing *** marriage destroy the family? If anything, it grants legal status to an already existing family. It's not like gays don't exist, but suddenly will when its legalized. They're there now, but they have to jump through hoops (or are barred completely) to do normal family things like joint tax returns and visiting each other in the hospital.

    Do you mean, 'you can't be any more wrong?' OF COURSE they're not the 'same', just as Obamacare isn't actual socialized medicine. They're both triggers - they're designed to lead to an inevitable conclusion. IF queer marriage is recognized, it means that sexual predilection is no different from freedom of religion. The following result is that either religious freedoms are curtailed and/or debased, or that sexual predilection in all facets is recognized as fully protected to the same degree (greater, actually, since it can be demonstrable - eww).
    I lost you on the bold. That doesn't follow. You could just recognize the marriages and nothing else changes. I see how sex and religion are related, but i don't see how this issue changes their relationship. If your religion says you're not supposed to "practice homosexuality" but someone elses says they can, then granting legal status of a homosexual marriage shouldn't change anyone's rights save for the practicing couple. The other guy isn't lowered or anything.

    And as for the last sentence, you forget that half of gays are lesbians, and while that superficially sounds better than it probably is in real life. perhaps that vision will carry you through this conversation.

    SO. America MUST recognize the sexual predilection of under 3% of the populace
    The number doesn't really matter. If there's so few of them, why do you care so much?

    as being equivalent in every fashion to the tradition of thousands of years of social behaviour
    ,
    Are you saying that homosexuality is a new thing? Wasn't Alexander the great ***? I think it's been around as long as people have.

    regardless of the fact that not only does the perverse behavior have plenty of alternative legal recourse but also infringes on the Freedom of Religion/Belief of the majority, simply because you say it must.
    You can't say it's part of your religion to deny another group legal status. That's like saying you're going to revoke citizenship from mormons because you don't agree with the whole iowa is eden thing. That's not how rights work. You don't have the right to tell people how to live their lives. If they want to be mormon, even though the religion is clearly silly, then they should be. If girls with short hair want to kiss girls with long hair, that's their thing. But you can't say that either existing defiles your religious freedom, because it doesn't affect it at all.

    Forgive me if I tell you to stick it where the Sun doesn't shine.
    That's punny, and mildly uncomfortable considering the conversation.

    I, and the majority of queer marriage opponents, don't really give a flying feck what queer people prefer to do with their genitalia - the issue is the demand to be recognized as fully equivalent to thousand-years-old traditions of social structure purely on the basis of whim rather than equality. Queer people can be married just as easily as straight people - marriage is between males and females. Otherwise, it's common-law, and there's nothing stopping THAT either.
    The thousand year argument is silly. there were slaves for thousands of years too, and then one day people were like, you know. that's not really fair, so they changed it.

    I honestly believe you to have this stance because of your intense hatred and guilt associated with religious belief, not anything to do with equality.
    I don't really have any intense hatred or guilt. you kinda just made that up. I do think most religions are pretty silly when you learn about them. (so any mormons reading, don't take offense)

    Queer marriage can be recognized just as fully as that of straights, if they choose.
    that you'll have to explain. that's actually exactly what they're asking for, and I don't get why we shouldn't give it to them.


    Yet you bring up your demand for them in pretty much every feckin' thread. Funny that.
    no. I think this is a separate issue. read my last post.

    They can and are recognized.
    If that were true this would not be an issue. because that IS the issue. They want their marriages recognized by the state. In many states they are not. That's the issue. I have no idea what you're on about.

    Aren't you from New Jersey? Cuz, they don't recognize it there (according to a quick google image search of "*** marriage map")

    The obvious result of the Progressive effort. Sooner or later, they'll manage to get an unequivocal claim of homosexuality as being equivalent to Freedom of Religion (belief), much as they fabricated the right to kill children out of a the theory of a Right to Privacy, and the ACLU will cackle with glee as they start filing suits to destroy the cultural fabric. Hopefully I don't live that long, which is why I'm having another drink tonight.
    I think the bank didn't want to spark a lawsuit, also Gays make great banking customers. Most of them are DINKs, so they buy more cars, carry higher balances, etc. etc. DINKs are worth ~5-6 couples with kids.

    How would it hurt your business to turn away 2 of 100 customers?
    Something tells me if I'm selling cakes, that the *** guys would be good customers. Perhaps it's a stereotype but I feel like they would throw more parties with cake.

    Anyway, the point of those laws weren't for the businesses, it was because blacks couldn't get cake because none of the bakers would sell it to them. I don't think there's a problem with that for gays. maybe they run into some nutbar here and there, but someone is going to make that cake, because most people who are against *** marriage wouldn't actively not serve gays. You have to be pretty obstinate to go that far.


    I think the markets would drastically improve if the Gov't didn't force commerce to bow to Political Correctness.
    I don't think the savings would be that much. most corporations would still have a legal department. A lot of that stupid training stuff you do itsn't a law, it's because if they don't show it they can't say they have a culture of not discriminating. It's optional, but a good idea to have done when you get sued.

    I'm not even for the Civil Rights aspect, odd as that may seem; the problem is that the anti-minority side seeks privilege rather than just protection from the Oligarchy. Back in the old South, the black bars and similar establishments out-performed their white equivalents, so the whites sought anti-free-market protections through Gov't policy. You can read it for yourself (but I forget precisely where).
    False, and the truth is in the book featured in the link. The reason we needed civil rights is that the State, predominately because of the Democrat Party, had prevented blacks from 'getting cakes', and the finesse of pretending that the Civil Rights movement was somehow Democrat in origin is a hoax only second to that of Global Warming or the Population Bomb.
    Who's pretending (or cares) which party ran the civil rights movement? Everyone on the forum has heard you tell us that it was the republicans. No one is disputing that. I'm not sure what that has to do with today's politics...but I'm sure you'll have an interesting story for that too.

    While that speaks volumes about the degradation of society, not only do I imagine that is correct but I wonder how you view the initial baker when compared to the priest whose compliance the queers are trying to force?
    What priest? Are you serious? no one is going to force a church to marry gays if they don't want to. Just like no one forced the first baker to make the cake. You're imagining things.

  10. #160
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,928

    Re: Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Well I'm not married, but none of my friends married to protect their property rights. At least not that they'd admit.
    So because your wall-to-wall cavalcade of Progressive Leftist buddies didn't marry for that reason, that reason is invalid? You Lefties always have such incredibly open minds...
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    I'm not picking on you, I'm trying to relate to you. But if it bugs you, I'll try another way.
    Takes a lot more than that, as you hopefully know. I'm pointing out that much of this angsty crap from you on the Left is completely pointless, and really is nothing more than another method of attack against the traditional family unit (one of the most resistant institutions to Progressive dependency). This issue will apply to a fraction of a fraction of under 2% of the population, so let's make it the cornerstone of the 2012 Presidential Campaign! Lady Parts!
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    I am pretty sure you don't want the US to be "more like Japan and Europe".
    Contrasting, not basing. The U.S. could definitely use more Japanese traditional culture; ours has been more than shallow recently - and some of the Nordic states are discovering to their chagrin that their unicultural environment is part & parcel of the success of their Socialist elements.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    I don't get how anyone could really care so much about trying to ruin someone else's life when they literally wouldn't even know.
    First, you compare the passing of a state law to your desire to pass a Federal one. How ignorant are you, again? Second, the passing of state laws allow exactly the sort of asinine situation as the suit against the baker, the one against the church hall, and several others that I can't be bothered to rehash. How DARE you talk about "ruining someone else's life" when these filthy little shytes are trying to destroy religious institutions just to get their name in the paper. I wouldn't be disgusted by their sexual perversity, but I sure as hell am for their litigious viciousness.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    I mean hell ANN COULTER even thinks they should be able to get married. Can't you let that one go?
    YOU'RE THE ONE WHO WON'T LET IT GO! THEY ALREADY CAN GET MARRIED!
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Oh, and let us teach evolution in school too. That's another one that drives me nuts.
    Doubtless we're going to do away with abortion and child labor laws, too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    You don't need blasting caps. Just explain how one begets the other. You can't, because it doesn't.
    Given that you don't believe evolution can be taught in public school, there's very little point in my bothering. Pearls before.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    How does allowing *** marriage destroy the family?
    Well, I certainly am not going to waste my time per the above. Here's a starter - a significant portion of the legal code is dedicated to children that are the direct product of a marriage, so much so that one Left-leaning state (with the cooperation of the lesbian "mom") recently went after a sperm donor for child support. You think it's such a horrible, EEEEEVILLL thing for someone with an abnormal marital desire to go through extra effort to ensure their legal circumstances, but apparently don't give a gawdamn that much of the legal code will be up-ended because of the sudden elimination of a traditional societal point of reference.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    They're there now, but they have to jump through hoops (or are barred completely) to do normal family things like joint tax returns and visiting each other in the hospital.
    Every time I hear this duplicitous and maliciously false argument, I throw up in my mouth just a little bit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    You could just recognize the marriages and nothing else changes.
    Utter B.S. Easily shown to be by examining age laws and bigamy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    And as for the last sentence, you forget that half of gays are lesbians, and while that superficially sounds better than it probably is in real life. perhaps that vision will carry you through this conversation.
    False, as always. Of course, Kinsey was also a blatant fraud, and he's in no small part responsible for your diseased thinking.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    The number doesn't really matter. If there's so few of them, why do you care so much?
    Because you want to change Federal Law, you little fascist. Why else do you think? Would I have been better off talking to my chair?
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Are you saying that homosexuality is a new thing? Wasn't Alexander the great ***? I think it's been around as long as people have.
    Sigh. So much stupid. Tell you what, why don't you look up the history of homosexual marriages as equivalents to normal ones and get back to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    You can't say it's part of your religion to deny another group legal status. That's like saying you're going to revoke citizenship from mormons because you don't agree with the whole iowa is eden thing. That's not how rights work.
    So why deny the rights of pedophiles? Or adulterers? Or anything else? 'You don't have the right to tell people how to live their lives.'

    Don't you ever tire of being SO stupid? I would think it causes physical pain. If at some point our culture becomes so debased that it eliminates the meaning of marriage, so be it. However, there's significant difference between tolerance and what you claim tolerance actually is - the trump of others rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    That's punny, and mildly uncomfortable considering the conversation.
    Why? You ought to be completely comfortable with the concept that someone else plans to take a ride up your Hershey Highway. You're not some kinda bigot, are you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    The thousand year argument is silly. there were slaves for thousands of years too, and then one day people were like, you know. that's not really fair, so they changed it.
    Oddly enough, "they" didn't. America did. Marx kept a sex slave, as it happens.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    I don't really have any intense hatred or guilt. you kinda just made that up.
    Along with your insistence that the Papacy secretly runs the U.S. Gov't, right? Hey, at least you don't think it's da J00z.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    that you'll have to explain. that's actually exactly what they're asking for, and I don't get why we shouldn't give it to them.
    I've done so repeatedly, and you still won't recognize it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    They want their marriages recognized by the state. In many states they are not. That's the issue. I have no idea what you're on about.
    Because you can't get what you want through Democracy, you want it through fascism/Statism. Plus, every time it's on the ballot, the minorities shoot it down in flames - and you Liberals have a hard time not resorting to your traditional bigotry in reaction.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Aren't you from New Jersey? Cuz, they don't recognize it there (according to a quick google image search of "*** marriage map")
    Happily, no.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    also Gays make great banking customers.
    No bigot, you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    maybe they run into some nutbar here and there, but someone is going to make that cake, because most people who are against *** marriage wouldn't actively not serve gays. You have to be pretty obstinate to go that far.
    Nice idiotic-attempt-to-dodge-inadvertently-proving-my-point there, Steve, along with the double negative. Most business wouldn't care. They sought out and attacked the one that did.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    It's optional, but a good idea to have done when you get sued.
    I think I'll leave the brutal fisting you deserve on that claim to someone else, like KillerAim.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    I'm not sure what that has to do with today's politics...but I'm sure you'll have an interesting story for that too.
    So because the Democrats stopped being the party of the KKK in 1964, it means that the GOP is the party of racism now? Such a sad, mysterious world you inhabit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    What priest? Are you serious? no one is going to force a church to marry gays if they don't want to. Just like no one forced the first baker to make the cake. You're imagining things.
    It's happened already, more than once IIRC, and it's not a matter of having someone trap the baker's hand in an iron apparatus and electrocuting him for not using the frosting cone. It's a matter of him being sued into bankruptcy by you and your merry band of fascists. Hey, maybe next you'll be demanding that I wear a cross on my exterior clothing when in public?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •