NYS vote on Gay 'Marriage' tonight

[....lybob]

Sure- people of different color are not different races. Blacks were referred to as being of a different race to degrade them. The term has been passed down and has lost some of its meaning, but its negative origins still remain.

Race is a social construct- there is no three or four races- features and skin colors change only in almost imperceptible amounts as you slowly travel and it's only when you compare people of distant locations to one another do you perceive them as different races as you ignore all the intermediaries and focus on extremes.

 

 

 

 

Of course matter is suppose to be mostly empty space yet it still hurts to be hit with it.

Edited June 23, 2011 by ....lybob

[DC Tom]

Race is a social construct- there is no three or four races- features and skin colors change only in almost imperceptible amounts as you slowly travel and it's only when you compare people of distant locations to one another do you perceive them as different races as you ignore all the intermediaries and focus on extremes.

 

It's also a biological term...but most people us it in the sociological sense, in which case you're partially right. A "race", sociologlcally, is a usually self-identifying interbreeding group of people, usually developing in some form of isolation (cultural - like the Jews historically, or geographical, like Native Americans or Maori.)

 

The reason "race" is starting to be considered archaic is because isolation and interbreeding are becoming far less prevalent in the Western world. But ask Koreans and Japanese, or Serbs and Croats, how archaic a concept it is.

[3rdnlng]

Species is the word you're looking for when talking about ostriches. Races refer to subspecies, or groupings of the same species with certain common characteristics.

 

Golden Retriever is a different race/sub-species than pit bull, for example.

 

For whatever reason, we tend to reserve race to discuss humans and subspecies to discuss animals but they are the same thing. Maybe some biologist or person who cares to google me can verify that.

 

Humans are not one race.

 

So, I could call Blacks Whites a subspecies and it would be ok here on PPP?

Edited June 23, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[Adam]

It's also a biological term...but most people us it in the sociological sense, in which case you're partially right. A "race", sociologlcally, is a usually self-identifying interbreeding group of people, usually developing in some form of isolation (cultural - like the Jews historically, or geographical, like Native Americans or Maori.)

 

The reason "race" is starting to be considered archaic is because isolation and interbreeding are becoming far less prevalent in the Western world. But ask Koreans and Japanese, or Serbs and Croats, how archaic a concept it is.

I blame my Buffalo, NY schooling then

Where else are you also taught that Nixon was the first president to be impeached!

[OCinBuffalo]

You really are a POS! I see only one (ok, maybe 2 or 3 other) "intellectual poseurs" around here...and you are one of them. Simply saying you are not something, doesn't prove anything to me. I have a brother who is just an out and racist, and makes no bones about it. I put up with listening to his bs for years, and finally, just said, "enough". I am not going to accept it, or listen to it anymore. So now, I rarely talk to him. I put you on the same list as my brother... this has nothing to do with left or right politics, just human decency. You don't have it. And, you are full of ****. Take your self-loving nonsense, and enjoy yourself...

Moron. Merely calling me a racist doesn't make me one either. Projecting your racist, arrogant views and/or transferring your anger with your brother, onto me does not make me a racist either.

 

You cannot prove what you are saying. It is not for me to prove a negative. Told you I would prove you are full of schit...and I just did.

 

I feel sorry for you for the following reasons:

 

1. It's too bad that you can't suppress your emotions long enough to see things accurately, and seem doomed to eternally emote your way through life

2. Nobody should have a bad relationship with their siblings

3. Given #1, I have doubts that your characterizations of your brother are even accurate, but worse, I don't ever expect you to be able to make an objective decision about that

4. So basically it's all bad, all the time

 

In fact, the right way to say it is: I pity you. EDIT: Not contempt...just pity.

Edited June 24, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

Two things... how does Health Care Reform screw the unions out of members? AND.. I do find it funny how you make it sound like voting for those who you believe best fits your beliefs is bad thing. Even if it is mainly directed towards one party. Do Conservatives vote for anybody other than Republicans? Come on.

Fist thing: The fact is that health insurance for union members, and workers compensation, and safer working conditions, and union stewards, etc. are things the unions have spent their entire history fighting to get. Now, Bob the non-union member, who has not spent a nickel in dues, will get the same benefits as Steve, the union member. So...why in hell would Bob ever decide to join a union? Why would he ever pay a single $ in dues?

 

The whole point of having a union in the first place was so that the best skilled laborers could get a better deal as a group, rather than trying to negotiate individually. Notice that there's nothing in there about EVERYONE joining the union. The socialists union bosses desire for power and dues has overtaken their responsibilities to their members. So much so that they can't even see that Obamacare is a direct challenge to their authority and the entire premise of a union.

 

Look, the labor unions had to purge the communists once already. They will have to purge the socialists now, or face extinction. The only difference is that now the socialists will be politely asked to leave, rather than beaten out with axe handles.

 

Second thing: I don't make it sound like anything. He was playing the "I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Progressive" game...and I am saying to that. I agree with you: it's awfully rare for a conservative to not vote Republican. Just as rare as a Progressive not voting Democrat. So, I have no idea what you are talking about on this one.

Edited June 24, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

Gays marry, the sky is falling is your argument?

No, that is not my argument, way to mischaracterize it. My argument is: I have no idea what the consequences will be, and, more importantly neither do you. Given the history of far-left "thought", we can expect that they will be both massive and unintended. I..want...a...PLAN. Let's try it this way: Chicken little is irrational. I am the exact opposite. I want a rational approach to solving the ENTIRE problem, and I don't want to be told "don't worry about it" by the same people who keep saying that and then keep failing.

Whenever laws change, there are lawsuits. "Clogging up the system for decades" seems highly unlikely. There are not going to be wave after wave of lawsuit trying to get priests to marry gays in Catholic churches. A few douches, maybe. But no more.

Yes, and I am sure that the concept of insurrection in a newly freed Iraq seemed highly unlikely to the dopes that planned that escapade. Or, do you think that the government's record is good when it comes to planning? (um, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, etc.) And, I am sure that the very same dopes said "there may be a few problems, maybe, but no more" as well. Poor planning is endemic to emotional arguments, like yours. Stop talking about having your Hallmark moment, start talking about how we solve the whole problem.

As to whether they will be recognized in other states, yes, that will be an issue. But of course, that issue was addressed when states started recognizing interracial marriages while others didn't. I suspect states will easily follow the precedent set by those cases. If not, the states will figure that out too. It's not rocket science and the "unintended consequences" that make you tremble are what...that John and Steve will not have survivor rights in Ohio after getting married in New York? Hardly the stuff of collapsing societies and it will be sorted out in short order.

 

Remove the veil from your weak objection. Some other bias has you arguing so illogically and nonsensically.

Yes, my objection is so weak that your only answer is: "they will figure it out".

 

Hysterical. Sorted out how? How does this not end up as a legal quagmire, if there is no legal codification? Judges don't create law, they only strike it down. I want the legislative branch to create a comprehensive Federal law that solves this problem once and for all, put it in front of the Supreme Court, have them find for it, and be done with it.

 

Instead of that: the left wants to keep trying, and failing miserably(35 anti-gay marriage laws), to score political points with this issue...which does nothing for gay people. The worst part is: rubes like you have fallen for the con here, and as such you are directly contributing to gay people continuing to get screwed. It is shameful that instead of actually working in the interest of the rights of gay people, the left is simply using them, and you, as pawns. This whole thing has been applied as a wedge issue, that by definition, polarizes us rather than bringing us together and actually solving the WHOLE problem. The left's entire intention has been to use this issue to stick it to social conservatives, and that simply has not changed, and will not change, which is why we can expect a large volume, not small, of lawsuits from these hateful pricks.

 

The fact is the left got it's bluff called on this, but, since they are playing with gay people's chips, gay people are the only real losers.

Edited June 24, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Andrew in CA]

 

Hysterical. Sorted out how? How does this not end up as a legal quagmire, if there is no legal codification? Judges don't create law, they only strike it down. I want the legislative branch to create a comprehensive Federal law that solves this problem once and for all, put it in front of the Supreme Court, have them find for it, and be done with it.

 

Judges make law almost as much as legislators do. Title VII Employment Discrimination doctrine is almost entirely judge-made law, just as an example off the top of my head. It's pretty clear that Congress doesn't want to touch this issue right now, so why not let the States attempt to sort it out? I think you're putting too high a standard on lawmakers if you demand perfection (ie, a law so well-written it's bullet-proof), especially on an issue as divisive as gay marriage.

[Buftex]

Moron. Merely calling me a racist doesn't make me one either. Projecting your racist, arrogant views and/or transferring your anger with your brother, onto me does not make me a racist either.

 

You cannot prove what you are saying. It is not for me to prove a negative. Told you I would prove you are full of schit...and I just did.

 

I feel sorry for you for the following reasons:

 

1. It's too bad that you can't suppress your emotions long enough to see things accurately, and seem doomed to eternally emote your way through life

2. Nobody should have a bad relationship with their siblings

3. Given #1, I have doubts that your characterizations of your brother are even accurate, but worse, I don't ever expect you to be able to make an objective decision about that

4. So basically it's all bad, all the time

 

In fact, the right way to say it is: I pity you. EDIT: Not contempt...just pity.

 

 

I get a kick out the way you spew a bunch of BS, and then inform everyone that you just "proved it". Apparently, you feel like you had some back and forth argument with me about the military surge...you didn't...but I see, over and over again, your need to let everyone know you got them...enjoy your imaginary life... Think back to the days when you were just "OCinPhilly"...

 

I think you are an ass...its' not up to me to prove a negative...see, I just proved it!

[OCinBuffalo]

Judges make law almost as much as legislators do. Title VII Employment Discrimination doctrine is almost entirely judge-made law, just as an example off the top of my head. It's pretty clear that Congress doesn't want to touch this issue right now, so why not let the States attempt to sort it out? I think you're putting too high a standard on lawmakers if you demand perfection (ie, a law so well-written it's bullet-proof), especially on an issue as divisive as gay marriage.

See, that's a reasonable response. Perhaps I am expecting too much...but I haven't even seen anybody even TRY to put something together. I blame that 100% on the approach taken by the left. You don't begin a conversation by spewing expletives and character assassinations, unless you are Buftex.

 

The left poisoned the well on this before it even started, and I am simply holding them accountable for doing so. Why would any Republican attempt to engage on this issue, just so they can be called names and lied about from the very beginning? The difference on this board is: I can engage on this issue because nobody gives a F if Buftex calls me names.

 

I am a huge believer in bottom-up solutions in general, so normally I would support a "states first" approach. But, not when it comes to civil rights, precisely because I don't see the usual socially conservative states doing anything on this. Hell, we had to go through war and other hell, just for black people to vote. So, I don't see why we should expect states to lead the way on this.

 

Rather, I think that should Republicans end up with the House, Senate and Presidency, they should take the lead on this and play the wedge right back at the left = come up with an equitable solution that completely solves the problem, yet doesn't call it "marriage". This would split the Democrats, and has the added benefit of being the right thing to do, so...it's smart and it punishes the people who are responsible for making this an irrational mess in the first place.

 

I get a kick out the way you spew a bunch of BS, and then inform everyone that you just "proved it". Apparently, you feel like you had some back and forth argument with me about the military surge...you didn't...but I see, over and over again, your need to let everyone know you got them...enjoy your imaginary life... Think back to the days when you were just "OCinPhilly"...

 

I think you are an ass...its' not up to me to prove a negative...see, I just proved it!

Yes, when asked for evidence, you obfuscate. You are the one making the charges here. You need to prove them. Otherwise, you are simply embarrassing yourself further.

 

You are free to think whatever you want. But, don't expect others to share your views, especially when you fail consistently to back them up.

 

Like I said: pitiful.

Edited June 24, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Jim in Anchorage]

It never fails to amaze me to see how much attention queer marriage gets here, Who cares?

Edited June 24, 2011 by Jim in Anchorage

[Peace]

No, that is not my argument, way to mischaracterize it. My argument is: I have no idea what the consequences will be, and, more importantly neither do you. Given the history of far-left "thought", we can expect that they will be both massive and unintended.

I..want...a...PLAN.

 

Yeah, the massive and unintended consequences of letting you marry ..illybob. Please. Stop it chicken little. This Bill doesn't need 80,000 pages of paper with it. It's not that complicated.

 

Let's try it this way: Chicken little is irrational. I am the exact opposite. I want a rational approach to solving the ENTIRE problem, and I don't want to be told "don't worry about it" by the same people who keep saying that and then keep failing.

 

Rational people don't need to keep saying how rational they are. The least rational and logical people are the ones who constantly say how rational and logical they are. Sound familiar Mr. Spock?

 

Yes, and I am sure that the concept of insurrection in a newly freed Iraq seemed highly unlikely to the dopes that planned that escapade. Or, do you think that the government's record is good when it comes to planning? (um, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, etc.) And, I am sure that the very same dopes said "there may be a few problems, maybe, but no more" as well. Poor planning is endemic to emotional arguments, like yours. Stop talking about having your Hallmark moment, start talking about how we solve the whole problem.

 

So allowing you and ...lybob to marry is like the War in Iraq? Or like SSI? Those are no doubt obvious extensions of your logical brain. Maybe you can also compare gay marriage to the draft or perestroika. But no, you're not chicken little.

 

I compared it to interracial marriage laws when those were enacted. There might be more similarities there but maybe you're right to compare it with Iraq.

 

Yes, my objection is so weak that your only answer is: "they will figure it out".

 

They will. Or courts will struggle and strike it. It is thus with every law. This is a minor one. But one that tweeks your nipples for some reason. Shouldn't you be more concerned with putting off the budget woes for two years? Might that not have a few more "massive and unintended consequences?"

 

Hysterical. Sorted out how? How does this not end up as a legal quagmire, if there is no legal codification? Judges don't create law, they only strike it down. I want the legislative branch to create a comprehensive Federal law that solves this problem once and for all, put it in front of the Supreme Court, have them find for it, and be done with it.

 

Quagmire? You think that when two dudes sue to marry in a Catholic Church, it's going to be a "quagmire?" I mean, you're logical and all but that's some choice of words. Makes it sound really dire, massively expensive, and liable to tear apart the fabric of society...when in fact it will be a few lawsuits that get the media in a tizzy and have little actual effect on much else. Spock, are you in that mating season thing where you get all emotional right now?

 

Instead of that: the left wants to keep trying, and failing miserably(35 anti-gay marriage laws), to score political points with this issue...which does nothing for gay people. The worst part is: rubes like you have fallen for the con here, and as such you are directly contributing to gay people continuing to get screwed. It is shameful that instead of actually working in the interest of the rights of gay people, the left is simply using them, and you, as pawns. This whole thing has been applied as a wedge issue, that by definition, polarizes us rather than bringing us together and actually solving the WHOLE problem. The left's entire intention has been to use this issue to stick it to social conservatives, and that simply has not changed, and will not change, which is why we can expect a large volume, not small, of lawsuits from these hateful pricks.

 

The fact is the left got it's bluff called on this, but, since they are playing with gay people's chips, gay people are the only real losers.

 

I'm sorry: In how many states could gays get married/unioned before 1993? Oh yeah. None. So that 35 states codify "marriage" as between a man and a woman is a losing statistic that overlooks the union rights that have been codified in many of those states, not a winning one Commander Data.

 

Kirk out.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Peace

[Buftex]

See, that's a reasonable response. Perhaps I am expecting too much...but I haven't even seen anybody even TRY to put something together. I blame that 100% on the approach taken by the left. You don't begin a conversation by spewing expletives and character assassinations, unless you are Buftex.

 

The left poisoned the well on this before it even started, and I am simply holding them accountable for doing so. Why would any Republican attempt to engage on this issue, just so they can be called names and lied about from the very beginning? The difference on this board is: I can engage on this issue because nobody gives a F if Buftex calls me names.

 

I am a huge believer in bottom-up solutions in general, so normally I would support a "states first" approach. But, not when it comes to civil rights, precisely because I don't see the usual socially conservative states doing anything on this. Hell, we had to go through war and other hell, just for black people to vote. So, I don't see why we should expect states to lead the way on this.

 

Rather, I think that should Republicans end up with the House, Senate and Presidency, they should take the lead on this and play the wedge right back at the left = come up with an equitable solution that completely solves the problem, yet doesn't call it "marriage". This would split the Democrats, and has the added benefit of being the right thing to do, so...it's smart and it punishes the people who are responsible for making this an irrational mess in the first place.

 

 

Yes, when asked for evidence, you obfuscate. You are the one making the charges here. You need to prove them. Otherwise, you are simply embarrassing yourself further.

 

You are free to think whatever you want. But, don't expect others to share your views, especially when you fail consistently to back them up.

 

Like I said: pitiful.

 

My apologies, OC...you really didn't do anything, specifically, in this thread to provoke this...just your usual, delusional ("I am always right") nonsense...but there are times when people let their "true colors" show, and you had a doozy of a thread, a few years ago(when you were still "OCinPhilly"), which made me really wonder about some of the folks that hang out here...I am sure you remember your posting about your experiences with segregated education...it was some pretty offensive stuff. It really didn't have anything to do with left or right politics (the way most on TSW feel about liberals is well established here), but people, plain and simple.

 

So, whenever I see you going on some sort of "victory tour", concerning how you called someone out, or how you "proved it" by simply saying something (offering no "proof" whatesoever) I can't help but recall the source. Oh yeah, it is that guy again...OC...

[OCinBuffalo]

Yeah, the massive and unintended consequences of letting you marry ..illybob. Please. Stop it chicken little. This Bill doesn't need 80,000 pages of paper with it. It's not that complicated.

 

Rational people don't need to keep saying how rational they are. The least rational and logical people are the ones who constantly say how rational and logical they are. Sound familiar Mr. Spock?

 

So allowing you and ...lybob to marry is like the War in Iraq? Or like SSI? Those are no doubt obvious extensions of your logical brain. Maybe you can also compare gay marriage to the draft or perestroika. But no, you're not chicken little.

 

I compared it to interracial marriage laws when those were enacted. There might be more similarities there but maybe you're right to compare it with Iraq.

 

They will. Or courts will struggle and strike it. It is thus with every law. This is a minor one. But one that tweeks your nipples for some reason. Shouldn't you be more concerned with putting off the budget woes for two years? Might that not have a few more "massive and unintended consequences?"

 

Quagmire? You think that when two dudes sue to marry in a Catholic Church, it's going to be a "quagmire?" I mean, you're logical and all but that's some choice of words. Makes it sound really dire, massively expensive, and liable to tear apart the fabric of society...when in fact it will be a few lawsuits that get the media in a tizzy and have little actual effect on much else. Spock, are you in that mating season thing where you get all emotional right now?

 

I'm sorry: In how many states could gays get married/unioned before 1993? Oh yeah. None. So that 35 states codify "marriage" as between a man and a woman is a losing statistic that overlooks the union rights that have been codified in many of those states, not a winning one Commander Data.

 

Kirk out.

An entire post and nothing even coming close to resembling a plan.

 

Yeah, that's rational. You really prove beyond that shadow of a doubt that you have nothing but an emotional argument with this one.

 

If I am Mr Spock, then you are the lady in the red mini-dress that does the screaming...and solves nothing.

 

How many states had specific anti-gay marriage laws...before you and your idiot friends decided to "take up the cause of gay people"(read: tried and failed to force a political wedge on the American people, cause you thought you'd get votes with it)? Answer: also 0. You set out to piss off and then marginalize the social conservatives...instead you pissed off and motivated the majority of the country.

 

You and your emotional arguments, if not cynical assclownery, are the reason those laws now exist. Nice work.

 

Me and my rational arguments are the only way your craven tactical error gets walked back and we get a law that works for everybody.

Edited June 24, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

My apologies, OC...you really didn't do anything, specifically, in this thread to provoke this...just your usual, delusional ("I am always right") nonsense...but there are times when people let their "true colors" show, and you had a doozy of a thread, a few years ago(when you were still "OCinPhilly"), which made me really wonder about some of the folks that hang out here...I am sure you remember your posting about your experiences with segregated education...it was some pretty offensive stuff. It really didn't have anything to do with left or right politics (the way most on TSW feel about liberals is well established here), but people, plain and simple.

 

So, whenever I see you going on some sort of "victory tour", concerning how you called someone out, or how you "proved it" by simply saying something (offering no "proof" whatesoever) I can't help but recall the source. Oh yeah, it is that guy again...OC...

I proved you are full of it...because for the last 3 posts you cannot back up what you are saying with a single shred of evidence. Do we need a 4th post from you where you obfuscate and dance around and STILL be unable to point to anything specific?

 

Have you considered the fact that you might have me confused with someone else(Hint: who was also posting in one possible thread I think you are talking about)?

 

Have you considered the fact that I all have ever said, on that issue or any other, is the truth? In another thread: I was forced into a 2 white kid-rest black kid class, but I didn't feel forced...I was just doing my thing. However, because I was was white, I was assaulted repeatedly. My patience ran out and I did beat the hell out of the entire class with a chair. Exactly nothing happened to me, because the liberals in charge didn't want the truth of the folly of their "inclusion theory" to get out and they sure as hell didn't want my parents to call a lawyer. This is the truth, tough **** if you don't like it.

 

WTF is racist about standing up for yourself...especially when dealing with the worst case scenario? Is it that you don't like it that a bunch of black kids got their asses kicked by one white kid? Too bad. I was 8, they had it coming, and come on...it was 30-1, WTF did you expect me to do? I'm not some candyass liberal pansy, and I obviously(um, 8 years old) never have been.

 

So, no, you still don't have a single shred of evidence that makes me a racist by any standard. It's simple: there isn't any, because I ain't one.

[IDBillzFan]

It never fails to amaze me to see how much attention queer marriage gets here, Who cares?

I've come to learn that I'm simply not smart enough to be able to tell whether gays getting married will really have that big an impact on life. Christians stick to the word of God that marriage is between a man and a woman, and liberals laugh at that all the time.

 

After a while I suddenly decided that straight people want to argue that gay marriage will degrade or tarnish the meaning of marriage, the first thing they should do is shut up until they stop degrading and tarnishing it amongst themselves. Divorce rates in the US hover in the high 40 percentile. When you suck at something that bad, you have no right to tell other people whether they can do it, too.

Edited June 24, 2011 by LABillzFan

[OCinBuffalo]

I've come to learn that I'm simply not smart enough to be able to tell whether gays getting married will really have that big an impact on life. Christians stick to the word of God that marriage is between a man and a woman, and liberals laugh at that all the time.

 

After a while I suddenly decided that straight people want to argue that gay marriage will degrade or tarnish the meaning of marriage, the first thing they should do is shut up until they stop degrading and tarnishing it amongst themselves. Divorce rates in the US hover in the high 40 percentile. When you suck at something that bad, you have no right to tell other people whether they can do it, too.

I'm not married...and I have every right to demand that liberals put a plan together, and that I get to take a look at it, before they do anything.

 

Have you seen:

1. The economy

2. Obamacare

3. The imminent failures of the LBJ entitlements?

 

On short, medium, and long range activities, these clowns have done NOTHING right. Why in God's name should I trust them to get this right?

 

Why on earth should I "not worry about it"? These people have a serious problem with judgment and prudence...as in, they don't have any of either.

 

So, no, until they can prove that they won't merely F up another thing, they do not get the benefit of my doubt.

[Booster4324]

However, because I was was white, I was assaulted repeatedly. My patience ran out and I did beat the hell out of the entire class with a chair.

 

Did you have a mask and a whip too?

[OCinBuffalo]

Did you have a mask and a whip too?

Is this supposed to be funny, or insightful?

 

It's not. Perhaps you should go back to counting words and posting emoticons.

[Booster4324]

Is this supposed to be funny, or insightful?

 

It's not. Perhaps you should go back to counting words and posting emoticons.

 

Well, since you won't actually address the point, might as well make fun of your narcissistic ass. I love how I get under your skin with just a few words here and there. You are genuinely bad at this sort of thing and yet you think you are some sort of Alexander/Jefferson/genius of the day.

 

You have a palpable need to be wanted for whatever reason. I hope you find validation somewhere, but it will never be here for obvious reasons.