Prop 8 struck down

[drnykterstein]

[OCinBuffalo]

You and your friend are walking through the woods when you come upon a sleeping bear. Your friend decides to deal with that situation by taking a stick and poking the bear, not once, but over and over. When you ask why, he tells you that the bear has been a source of fear for years and "his kind" are responsible for countless deaths, and therefore he has every right to poke the bear, since the bear deserves it.

 

Now the bear has awoken, and as you run away, who are you more pissed at? The bear, or, the idiot who provoked it?

 

This thread is rife with "pokers", who, in their inexplicable need for phony "moral superiority", have "justified" taking out their stick(literal translation for idiots: calling people bigot, and telling them they are haters, when that is simply not true) and insist on poking the bear. What's worse? Now they are trying to tell us that they have no responsibility for the outcome, as everybody "runs away", nothing gets solved, and reasonable resolution of this issue gets set back 10-15 years. And of course, they have to attack those who are simply relating the facts as they are. God forbid anyone hold those responsible for this buffoonery accountable. God forbid that anyone expose this jackass, "we're allowed to call you bigot, because you don't agree with us, and because we said so" attitude.

 

I really have no idea what it will take for these same people to realize that it is their very attitude that is the problem. I really have no idea where in the hell these people get the nerve, after going 1-45 on this issue, to blame anybody else, under any circumstance, for the dismal failure that they started, propagated, continued without any modification, and absolutely f'ed up.

 

The arrogance and affectation that requires is astounding.

[John Adams]

Gay marriage is 100% or 90% about gays finding an issue to attack organized religion! Good **** OC: way to understand the issues. Can you write a 5 page essay about that like the old "How to win in Afghanistan" lecture.

 

Dance for me monkey.

 

You and your friend are walking through the woods when you come upon a sleeping bear. Your friend decides to deal with that situation by taking a stick and poking the bear, not once, but over and over. When you ask why, he tells you that the bear has been a source of fear for years and "his kind" are responsible for countless deaths, and therefore he has every right to poke the bear, since the bear deserves it.

 

Now the bear has awoken, and as you run away, who are you more pissed at? The bear, or, the idiot who provoked it?

 

This thread is rife with "pokers", who, in their inexplicable need for phony "moral superiority", have "justified" taking out their stick(literal translation for idiots: calling people bigot, and telling them they are haters, when that is simply not true) and insist on poking the bear. What's worse? Now they are trying to tell us that they have no responsibility for the outcome, as everybody "runs away", nothing gets solved, and reasonable resolution of this issue gets set back 10-15 years. And of course, they have to attack those who are simply relating the facts as they are. God forbid anyone hold those responsible for this buffoonery accountable. God forbid that anyone expose this jackass, "we're allowed to call you bigot, because you don't agree with us, and because we said so" attitude.

 

I really have no idea what it will take for these same people to realize that it is their very attitude that is the problem. I really have no idea where in the hell these people get the nerve, after going 1-45 on this issue, to blame anybody else, under any circumstance, for the dismal failure that they started, propagated, continued without any modification, and absolutely f'ed up.

 

The arrogance and affectation that requires is astounding.

 

Good monkey. Tomorrow you get to wear the red vest and green cap!

[OCinBuffalo]

Good monkey. Tomorrow you get to wear the red vest and green cap!

You really have a tin ear, huh?

[John Adams]

You really have a tin ear, huh?

 

Banana yum yum?

[OCinBuffalo]

Banana yum yum?

So you are down to babble, eh?

 

In addition to misquoting me, you still can't accept that those who share your views got their ass kicked. And, like a little b_tch, you are still running your mouth after your beating.

 

None of this has anything to do with me. As I have said countless times, I was and continue to be for an equitable solution to the problem.

 

I am not, and never will be, supporting immature little tools who seek to start schit with people, and then cry when they get beaten soundly.

 

Your attitude, and the attitude of gay marriage "enforcers" is the problem, and it's YOUR problem, not mine. If you want gay marriage to be legal, that is problem #1, is up to you to solve, and also has nothing to do with me.

[Booster4324]

In addition to misquoting me, you still can't accept that those who share your views got their ass kicked. And, like a little b_tch, you are still running your mouth after your beating.

 

Danth's Law

[OCinBuffalo]

Danth's Law

Try to pay attention.

 

I am not insisting I won an internet argument.

 

I am insisting that those seeking to enforce gay marriage lost 45 times out of 50 in the real world because they took the worst possible approach, and let their unabashed immaturity run wild.

 

Are you still confused?

[John Adams]

Great work monkey boy.

 

It is novel to attack the pro-gay-marriage movement for using poor political judgment. That's a cool bat! Whatever gets your anger through the day.

 

Remember: Tomorrow green vest, red cap! Dance boy dance!

[OCinBuffalo]

It is novel to attack the pro-gay-marriage movement for using poor political judgment.

Ah, so now you admit it? Christ, we could have saved how many pages of this thread? (Booster: looks like your goofy little link wasn't necessary, huh?)

 

Honestly, it's nice to see that you can at least fess up. Guess they didn't take the upstate NY out of you after all.

 

Well, that's step 1 out of the way, admitting the mistake. Now, let's work on step 2.

 

Spend 1 minute and think about how this could have been done differently.

 

It's called: introspection. And, I assure you, it has nothing to do with talking about me.

[Adam]

I honestly don't understand why it even is an issue. It doesn't affect heterosexual marriage, as the opposition claims. If you are against it, just don't do it.

 

This is just a case of america being america.

[John Adams]

Ah, so now you admit it? Christ, we could have saved how many pages of this thread? (Booster: looks like your goofy little link wasn't necessary, huh?)

 

I admitted it? Bad reading comprehension monkey. No 'nana for you now.

[OCinBuffalo]

I admitted it? Bad reading comprehension monkey. No 'nana for you now.

So did they use good political judgment or bad political judgment? Make up your mind.

 

Personally, I don't want a guy who has a record of 1-45 representing my views that gay people deserve the same rights as everybody else there, counselor.

 

Might be time to get a new advocate. Hell, given this thread, I am beginning to think I could do a far better job representing the rights of gay people than you have.

 

But yeah, keep telling yourself that reasonable people are morally inferior to you because they cling to their logic and reject your emoting based on immature absolute certainty.

[Adam]

So did they use good political judgment or bad political judgment? Make up your mind.

 

Personally, I don't want a guy who has a record of 1-45 representing my views that gay people deserve the same rights as everybody else there, counselor.

 

Might be time to get a new advocate. Hell, given this thread, I am beginning to think I could do a far better job representing the rights of gay people than you have.

 

But yeah, keep telling yourself that reasonable people are morally inferior to you because they cling to their logic and reject your emoting based on immature absolute certainty.

Americans in general use bad political judgment and bad judgment with just about everything.

[OCinBuffalo]

I honestly don't understand why it even is an issue. It doesn't affect heterosexual marriage, as the opposition claims. If you are against it, just don't do it.

 

This is just a case of america being america.

Clearly. And this is also a case of liberals being liberals.

 

Liberals thought they saw an opportunity to attack religious people and the right in general. So, this went from a small civil issue to be solved by a few obscure lawyers in the back rooms of state houses, to an all out war started by cynical, political hacks. They severely miscalculated, if you want to call it that. It seems clear that not a lot of actual, rational calculation went into this. Hmm. Anybody else see a pattern? How much "calculation" went into the stimulus bill? Health Care? The year spent "engaging" Iran?

 

Instead, we had the emoting we see in this thread, and the rush to call everyone, even people that were unsure of the issue, a bigot if they didn't fall into absolute lock step immediately. Look how casually that word has been thrown around in this thread.

 

These fools counted on people being afraid to be called names. The problem is: nobody cares if the name caller is doing so as an obvious political ploy. You don't see me being afraid, because I am not afraid of political hacks, or the fools they have conned into believing their propaganda.

[Adam]

Clearly. And this is also a case of liberals being liberals.

 

Liberals thought they saw an opportunity to attack religious people and the right in general. So, this went from a small civil issue to be solved by a few obscure lawyers in the back rooms of state houses, to an all out war started by cynical, political hacks. They severely miscalculated, if you want to call it that. It seems clear that not a lot of actual, rational calculation went into this. Hmm. Anybody else see a pattern? How much "calculation" went into the stimulus bill? Health Care? The year spend "engaging" Iran?

 

Instead, we had the emoting we see in this thread, and the rush to call everyone, even people that were unsure of the issue, a bigot if they didn't fall into absolute lock step immediately. Look how casually that word has been thrown around in this thread.

 

These fools counted on people being afraid to be called names. The problem is: nobody cares if the name caller is doing so as an obvious political ploy. You don't see me being afraid, because I am not afraid of political hacks, or the fools they have conned into believing their propaganda.

OK, I will play the devils' advocate and say you are tight- wouldn't this be the PERFECT opportunity for the Right to "give ground" and act like they are conceding something? Could make the left look bad later on, when the right is looking to make a compromise- that's what stupid politics are in this stupid country though- one side tries to damage the other side in order to get more power.

[bartshan-83]

Clearly. And this is also a case of liberals being liberals.

 

Liberals thought they saw an opportunity to attack religious people and the right in general. So, this went from a small civil issue to be solved by a few obscure lawyers in the back rooms of state houses, to an all out war started by cynical, political hacks. They severely miscalculated, if you want to call it that. It seems clear that not a lot of actual, rational calculation went into this. Hmm. Anybody else see a pattern? How much "calculation" went into the stimulus bill? Health Care? The year spent "engaging" Iran?

 

Instead, we had the emoting we see in this thread, and the rush to call everyone, even people that were unsure of the issue, a bigot if they didn't fall into absolute lock step immediately. Look how casually that word has been thrown around in this thread.

 

These fools counted on people being afraid to be called names. The problem is: nobody cares if the name caller is doing so as an obvious political ploy. You don't see me being afraid, because I am not afraid of political hacks, or the fools they have conned into believing their propaganda.

I didn't call you a bigot.

 

I asked you three questions

 

You've advanced two separate arguments in this thread:

 

1. It's the "liberals" fault that gay marriage rights aren't picking up traction because they structured the fight in a very bad way.

 

2. That disallowing states from preventing churches from marrying gay people is the same as forcing the churches to marry gay people.

 

I'm addressing #2 (as others have in this thread). Where are you getting this from?

[OCinBuffalo]

OK, I will play the devils' advocate and say you are tight- wouldn't this be the PERFECT opportunity for the Right to "give ground" and act like they are conceding something? Could make the left look bad later on, when the right is looking to make a compromise- that's what stupid politics are in this stupid country though- one side tries to damage the other side in order to get more power.

Absolutely. I would get the same lawyers who did the immigration law in Arizona, which is constitutionally air tight, and who just got done winning the first round on the big issues, and set them to work on this.

 

The left would never see it coming, and if the right went out of their way to be conciliatory, and kept it straightforward...

 

 

.....it would be the right thing to do. Forget the political points. That's what started this mess in the first place. That would be an example of politicians doing what they we pay them for: solving problems as rationally as possible.

 

That in and of itself would be rewarded politically, but still, like I said, the fact that it is the right thing to do outweighs that by miles.

[John Adams]

But yeah, keep telling yourself that reasonable people are morally inferior to you because they cling to their logic and reject your emoting based on immature absolute certainty.

 

Where do you come up with this ****?

 

You are inferior to me. Only you.

[OCinBuffalo]

I didn't call you a bigot.

 

I asked you three questions

 

You've advanced two separate arguments in this thread:

 

1. It's the "liberals" fault that gay marriage rights aren't picking up traction because they structured the fight in a very bad way.

 

2. That disallowing states from preventing churches from marrying gay people is the same as forcing the churches to marry gay people.

 

I'm addressing #2 (as others have in this thread). Where are you getting this from?

Sorry, in all this emotional blustering, I honestly missed your post...and I had a call I had to get on, you know, actual work.

 

Regarding #2, since apparently everyone has now stipulated #1 ....

 

It's not the same, but it is linked and I can prove it using the contrapositive:

if everyone has a right to define marriage individually

then,

no one has a right to deny an individual's definition of marriage.

 

If the first is true, then the second also has to be true, or it's a no go. Logic is a B word, huh?

 

If you decide that a Catholic wedding is defined narrowly as: in a Catholic church only, without all the religious machinations that Catholic priests require, they would be violating your civil rights by denying your definition of marriage. So, as a consequence, they would in fact be forced to allow you get married per your definition....but that violates the 1st Amendment...so...we are still nowhere on this.

 

Marriage is not currently a right. Passing a Federal law(and it has to be Federal), of any kind, that makes it a right changes the status of marriage from an option, to a right, for everybody, in all circumstances, or it fails the "equal protection under the law" thing.

 

Somehow the Feds would have to be able to prove that gay people are inherently gay, and therefore, this is a civil rights issue. But, that's awfully difficult when you have so many bi-sexual people. Ultimately, if you are going to allow one group to do things their way, you have to let every other group do things their way, as opposed to the clearly defined man/woman marriage.

 

This is why I view NEW civil union law as the only rational, legal, and viable option to get this done. You can't get what we are all after without considering the unintended consequences. We have done that far too often, and that is how you end up with things like Medicare.