IDBillzFan Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 But on the plus side, that's you're first official DC Tom "!@#$ing Moron" insult. How does this work? Do I pay a fee? Say a few Hail Marys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 But on the plus side, that's you're first official DC Tom "!@#$ing Moron" insult. Your Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Your !@#$, !@#$, !@#$ !@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!!!!!!! God !@#$ing dammit **** !@#$!!!!! That's hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 !@#$, !@#$, !@#$ !@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!@#$!!!!!!! God !@#$ing dammit **** !@#$!!!!! That's hilarious. I know, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 How does this work? Do I pay a fee? Say a few Hail Marys? Donate $3 to Obama, in the name of Julia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Your Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 Your Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Thats what your missing. This is the first step. The next one will be application of the 14th Amendment, which will rule this measure illegal. Its a long painful process. But it was designed that way. And in the end it works. Its cold confort for those who will be discrimiated against today, though. As I said above, I don't blame anybody for being emotional and calling people names...today, or even this week. However, if they persist, and are still doing it 6 months from now, then I have no pity for them. They will get owned, and it will be THEIR fault. It's a legal argument for a legal issue. You'd think a F'ing lawyer would understand that, wouldn't you? "Remedial Law for Emotion-driven Lawyers Part 1 starts in the Learning Annex in 20 minutes". It's the mob acting within the rules. I think that was RK's point too. A fair point. Still can't convince me it's a reasonable position. News flash: it's no one's job to convince...you. Heh...but I'm the narcissist, right? IF you had said they haven't created a convincing argument.... But you didn't, did you? I'm saying that the world would be a better place if people relied on logic and reason to make public policy decisions. Keeping marriage the same as it always has been....can be defended with both reason....and logic. Simple really: Unintended consequences. You don't know what they are. We change the law solely because of what gay people want, what happens? Now, in NY, because we seem to be a little smarter than the rest of the country...what did we do? We had to go and put a ton of legal provisions in. For example: specifically barring assclown lawyers from suing churches, and forcing them to marry gay people. Why would such measures be necessary...if the pro-SSM people based their thinking solely on logic and reason? They don't. You should be happy with the NYS law, as it attempts to be fair to gay people....while at the same time....keeps the leftist douchebags in line. Ultimately this is about fairness. I don't see this NC law as fair. In fact I see it as a dumb move. An over-reach. A "I'm gonna rub your nose in it" no different than how the "we WILL redefine marriage" clowns approached this issue in the beginning. But, let's also not blame the LGBT for the "rub your nose in it" part as much. They just want to get married and be left alone. No, the original sinners here are the Democrat politicians and operatives who designed the "rub your nose in it" approach. If they hadn't tried that nationally, then we wouldn't have the NC amendment today....or the 34+ other state laws and amendments banning it. Now, where was the "logic and reason" in their using gay marriage as a political wedge issue? Try craven and cynical, instead. For a bunch of supposedly sophisticated people....the pro-SSM crowd has acted like children, and has been just as ignorant and uncompromising as the Bible thumpers they target. Edited May 10, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I can't imagine young people are about to change their minds and be against gay marriage by age 40. That's like saying, in the 60s, you expected young people who were for interracial marriage would grow up and be against it later in life. Younger people are just more tolerant of homosexuality. That's not something older people (generally) ever were. That's the change that's coming. It's just a matter of time before we put this embarrassing chapter behind us. Guess I know different young people then you. Just using the word gay would be a step up in the PC ranks for them. There is a world outside the Berkeley campus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 As I said above, I don't blame anybody for being emotional and calling people names...today, or even this week. However, if they persist, and are still doing it 6 months from now, then I have no pity for them. They will get owned, and it will be THEIR fault. You'd think a F'ing lawyer would understand that, wouldn't you? "Remedial Law for Emotion-driven Lawyers Part 1 starts in the Learning Annex in 20 minutes". News flash: it's no one's job to convince...you. Heh...but I'm the narcissist, right? IF you had said they haven't created a convincing argument.... But you didn't, did you? Keeping marriage the same as it always has been....can be defended with both reason....and logic. Simple really: Unintended consequences. You don't know what they are. We change the law solely because of what gay people want, what happens? Now, in NY, because we seem to be a little smarter than the rest of the country...what did we do? We had to go and put a ton of legal provisions in. For example: specifically barring assclown lawyers from suing churches, and forcing them to marry gay people. Why would such measures be necessary...if the pro-SSM people based their thinking solely on logic and reason? They don't. You should be happy with the NYS law, as it attempts to be fair to gay people....while at the same time....keeps the leftist douchebags in line. Ultimately this is about fairness. I don't see this NC law as fair. In fact I see it as a dumb move. An over-reach. A "I'm gonna rub your nose in it" no different than how the "we WILL redefine marriage" clowns approached this issue in the beginning. But, let's also not blame the LGBT for the "rub your nose in it" part as much. They just want to get married and be left alone. No, the original sinners here are the Democrat politicians and operatives who designed the "rub your nose in it" approach. If they hadn't tried that nationally, then we wouldn't have the NC amendment today....or the 34+ other state laws and amendments banning it. Now, where was the "logic and reason" in their using gay marriage as a political wedge issue? Try craven and cynical, instead. For a bunch of supposedly sophisticated people....the pro-SSM crowd has acted like children, and has been just as ignorant and uncompromising as the Bible thumpers they target. As I said above, I don't blame anybody for being emotional and calling people names...today, or even this week. However, if they persist, and are still doing it 6 months from now, then I have no pity for them. They will get owned, and it will be THEIR fault. You'd think a F'ing lawyer would understand that, wouldn't you? "Remedial Law for Emotion-driven Lawyers Part 1 starts in the Learning Annex in 20 minutes". News flash: it's no one's job to convince...you. Heh...but I'm the narcissist, right? IF you had said they haven't created a convincing argument.... But you didn't, did you? Keeping marriage the same as it always has been....can be defended with both reason....and logic. Simple really: Unintended consequences. You don't know what they are. We change the law solely because of what gay people want, what happens? Now, in NY, because we seem to be a little smarter than the rest of the country...what did we do? We had to go and put a ton of legal provisions in. For example: specifically barring assclown lawyers from suing churches, and forcing them to marry gay people. Why would such measures be necessary...if the pro-SSM people based their thinking solely on logic and reason? They don't. You should be happy with the NYS law, as it attempts to be fair to gay people....while at the same time....keeps the leftist douchebags in line. Ultimately this is about fairness. I don't see this NC law as fair. In fact I see it as a dumb move. An over-reach. A "I'm gonna rub your nose in it" no different than how the "we WILL redefine marriage" clowns approached this issue in the beginning. But, let's also not blame the LGBT for the "rub your nose in it" part as much. They just want to get married and be left alone. No, the original sinners here are the Democrat politicians and operatives who designed the "rub your nose in it" approach. If they hadn't tried that nationally, then we wouldn't have the NC amendment today....or the 34+ other state laws and amendments banning it. Now, where was the "logic and reason" in their using gay marriage as a political wedge issue? Try craven and cynical, instead. For a bunch of supposedly sophisticated people....the pro-SSM crowd has acted like children, and has been just as ignorant and uncompromising as the Bible thumpers they target. I just have to wonder- since our country, like others, sanitizes its history. Is this what it felt like to watch the battle over segregation. Gotta wonder if both sides handled it this poorly. I know this will sort itself out at some point, and they will get their right to marriage (as long as the Mayans aren't right). I just hope they aren't left waiting too long, because of it being a wedge issue, as you said. I know we will hear a number of stories about someone dying the day before the laws are taken care of. Politics just plain sucks and I don't see that situation getting better during my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I just have to wonder- since our country, like others, sanitizes its history. Is this what it felt like to watch the battle over segregation. Gotta wonder if both sides handled it this poorly. I know this will sort itself out at some point, and they will get their right to marriage (as long as the Mayans aren't right). I just hope they aren't left waiting too long, because of it being a wedge issue, as you said. I know we will hear a number of stories about someone dying the day before the laws are taken care of. Politics just plain sucks and I don't see that situation getting better during my lifetime. Well, you can always take comfort in the fact that JA is here, calling everybody bigot and insulting people...while claiming to be morally superior to them....at the same time. Isn't this interesting? It's not boring, that's for sure. Who else insults gays....and then claims to be morally superior? Hmmm. I know, the Bible thumpers do! The faster we free ourselves from JA, and the Bible thumpers, and of anyone who has to claim morality....rather than just live it, QUIETLY,...the better off we will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 I just have to wonder- since our country, like others, sanitizes its history. Is this what it felt like to watch the battle over segregation. Gotta wonder if both sides handled it this poorly. Worse, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) 1336622663[/url]' post='2462935']Well, you can always take comfort in the fact that JA is here, calling everybody bigot and insulting people...while claiming to be morally superior to them....at the same time. It's just so ridiculous! Isn't this interesting? It's not boring, that's for sure. Who else insults gays....and then claims to be morally superior? Hmmm. I know, the Bible thumpers do! The faster we free ourselves from JA, and the Bible thumpers, and of anyone who has to claim morality....rather than just live it, QUIETLY,...the better off we will be. The difference is that when Jim and Joe marry, it doesn't take away from Steve and Sally the church goers rights. Except for your favorite bogeyman, the church suers. Edited May 10, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoutbox Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 As I said above, I don't blame anybody for being emotional and calling people names...today, or even this week. However, if they persist, and are still doing it 6 months from now, then I have no pity for them. They will get owned, and it will be THEIR fault. You'd think a F'ing lawyer would understand that, wouldn't you? "Remedial Law for Emotion-driven Lawyers Part 1 starts in the Learning Annex in 20 minutes". News flash: it's no one's job to convince...you. Heh...but I'm the narcissist, right? IF you had said they haven't created a convincing argument.... But you didn't, did you? Keeping marriage the same as it always has been....can be defended with both reason....and logic. Simple really: Unintended consequences. You don't know what they are. We change the law solely because of what gay people want, what happens? Now, in NY, because we seem to be a little smarter than the rest of the country...what did we do? We had to go and put a ton of legal provisions in. For example: specifically barring assclown lawyers from suing churches, and forcing them to marry gay people. Why would such measures be necessary...if the pro-SSM people based their thinking solely on logic and reason? They don't. You should be happy with the NYS law, as it attempts to be fair to gay people....while at the same time....keeps the leftist douchebags in line. Ultimately this is about fairness. I don't see this NC law as fair. In fact I see it as a dumb move. An over-reach. A "I'm gonna rub your nose in it" no different than how the "we WILL redefine marriage" clowns approached this issue in the beginning. But, let's also not blame the LGBT for the "rub your nose in it" part as much. They just want to get married and be left alone. No, the original sinners here are the Democrat politicians and operatives who designed the "rub your nose in it" approach. If they hadn't tried that nationally, then we wouldn't have the NC amendment today....or the 34+ other state laws and amendments banning it. Now, where was the "logic and reason" in their using gay marriage as a political wedge issue? Try craven and cynical, instead. For a bunch of supposedly sophisticated people....the pro-SSM crowd has acted like children, and has been just as ignorant and uncompromising as the Bible thumpers they target. Awesome. So in your opinion, gay marriage should be kept illegal because: 1. A small selection of gays will be overly litigious. 2. You don't like the political tactics and all the other policies of the political side that tends to support gay marriage (the Democrats). How persuasive.... Still waiting for the anti-gay marriage crowd to deliver a cogent argument here. Maybe one of you guys can find some time between watching NASCAR races, pulling out your periodontal diseased teeth, and praying to your Invisible Friend in the Sky to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Awesome. So in your opinion, gay marriage should be kept illegal because: 1. A small selection of gays will be overly litigious. 2. You don't like the political tactics and all the other policies of the political side that tends to support gay marriage (the Democrats). How persuasive.... Still waiting for the anti-gay marriage crowd to deliver a cogent argument here. Maybe one of you guys can find some time between watching NASCAR races, pulling out your periodontal diseased teeth, and praying to your Invisible Friend in the Sky to do so. Want to know what could be the real truth? American's who oppose same-sex marriage do not want the institution turned into a joke, eventually defined as any relationship under the sun, ultimately becoming a relic and nonexistent, nonpracticed institution. You can't have same-sex marriage legal and it not eventually lead to letting polygamy become legal. Saying you can is being very nieve. Hollywood has already been setting the stage for this next fight. A 2006 NRO article on the subject… http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz.asp Polygamous marriages are now recognized in the Netherlands which was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. These are incremental changes which many American's have an deep seeded instinctual sense in wondering what comes next. They fear that the far left's goal is to destroy the moral fabric of society. Is it? I have no idea. I'm just throwing this out there as a reason why many American's are opposed to same-sex marriages. Right now, I favor keeping these decisions at the state level. Keeping it at the state level will help prevent the "devolution" of an institution many American's feel is the bedrock that keeps society itself intact. It's a tough issue either way and there are valid arguments on both sides. Demonizing people and their religious beliefs are not the way to go on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Awesome. So in your opinion, gay marriage should be kept illegal because: 1. A small selection of gays will be overly litigious. 2. You don't like the political tactics and all the other policies of the political side that tends to support gay marriage (the Democrats). How persuasive.... Still waiting for the anti-gay marriage crowd to deliver a cogent argument here. Maybe one of you guys can find some time between watching NASCAR races, pulling out your periodontal diseased teeth, and praying to your Invisible Friend in the Sky to do so. So, if someone is against gay marriage they are backward, redneck hicks? You sound just like my little bitchy cousin striking out at anybody who might think that taking a dick up his ass might be less than natural. It's your right to swallow whatever you want and it's the state's right to recognize or not recognize your official status as John's swallowee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Want to know what could be the real truth? American's who oppose same-sex marriage do not want the institution turned into a joke, eventually defined as any relationship under the sun, ultimately becoming a relic and nonexistent, nonpracticed institution. You can't have same-sex marriage legal and it not eventually lead to letting polygamy become legal. Saying you can is being very nieve. Hollywood has already been setting the stage for this next fight. A 2006 NRO article on the subject… http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz.asp Polygamous marriages are now recognized in the Netherlands which was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. These are incremental changes which many American's have an deep seeded instinctual sense in wondering what comes next. They fear that the far left's goal is to destroy the moral fabric of society. Is it? I have no idea. I'm just throwing this out there as a reason why many American's are opposed to same-sex marriages. Right now, I favor keeping these decisions at the state level. Keeping it at the state level will help prevent the "devolution" of an institution many American's feel is the bedrock that keeps society itself intact. It's a tough issue either way and there are valid arguments on both sides. Demonizing people and their religious beliefs are not the way to go on this. So your argument is the slippery slope logical fallacy? If we do ___ it must lead to ___. Anyone that took philosophy 101 can shoot a hole in your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) Awesome. So in your opinion, gay marriage should be kept illegal because: 1. A small selection of gays will be overly litigious. 2. You don't like the political tactics and all the other policies of the political side that tends to support gay marriage (the Democrats). How persuasive.... Still waiting for the anti-gay marriage crowd to deliver a cogent argument here. Maybe one of you guys can find some time between watching NASCAR races, pulling out your periodontal diseased teeth, and praying to your Invisible Friend in the Sky to do so. You really are as much of a dumbass as you showed in those SB YouTube clips...... You'll find hypocrites and disingenuous people on both sides of the political spectrum. And you'll find good people that help others on both sides of the religiosity spectrum. Moving a bit back on topic, I'd like to see someone here who is against gay marriage state their case without invoking any of these 4 arguments: 3. It's just the way things have always been. Thats a perfectly legitimate reason for one being against gay marriage. Marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. And thats the definition that millions of people are comfortalble with and have been forever. Custom and tradition are very powerful aspects of humanity. And thats the hole in the argument of those pushing for gay marriage. They REFUSE to acknowledge that they seek to CHANGE the very definition of what marriage is. They are messing with people's customs, traditions, their religious beliefs, societal norms, the whole thing. They are messing with their core belief structures, pushing for massive changes in those things yet refuse to acknowledge that they are doing so and are expecting and demanding all of society just follow along. Its NOT going to be that easy. The SSM set is the one pushing for these huge changes. And instead of just screaming "BIGOT!!!!!" they need to lay out their case for why this change is the right thing to do. Whether or not refusing to accept that change is "bigoted" or infringing upon others rights can be debated. The fact that we are changing the definition of what marriage is, cannot. Edited May 10, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 The first line of this fundraising letter is priceless: XXXXXXX – Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer: I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. … I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them. If you agree, you can stand up with me here. Thank you, Barack The Washington Post reported earlier this week that one out of six of Obama’s bundlers are gay. Clearly, the campaign is hoping that Obama’s decision to back gay marriage will reap in some new donations. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) So, if someone is against gay marriage they are backward, redneck hicks? You sound just like my little bitchy cousin striking out at anybody who might think that taking a dick up his ass might be less than natural. It's your right to swallow whatever you want and it's the state's right to recognize or not recognize your official status as John's swallowee. No, but I sure can call them a jerk. I have a lot of friends who are backwards redneck hicks. Many of them are in favor of gay marriage. Well, you can always take comfort in the fact that JA is here, calling everybody bigot and insulting people...while claiming to be morally superior to them....at the same time. Isn't this interesting? It's not boring, that's for sure. Who else insults gays....and then claims to be morally superior? Hmmm. I know, the Bible thumpers do! The faster we free ourselves from JA, and the Bible thumpers, and of anyone who has to claim morality....rather than just live it, QUIETLY,...the better off we will be. OC- if I am not mistaken, you are the one who talks about unintended consequences, as far as changing laws. Now I consider that pretty well thought out, but I want to pose a question that may involve things that aren't directly related. Our legal system is known for unintended consequences- the notion of innocent until proven guilty, many times will result in the guilty going free, in order to protect the innocent from a false conviction. So, what do you think about the unintended consequence of the innocent gay community not being able to marry and live like everyone else, because we are worried about when may stem from it (interfamilial marriages, etc...) Edited May 10, 2012 by Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts