[osiris]

damn, this thread is getting funnier by the post.

for the record, I couldn't care less who/whom/what you marry. If you want to suffer, be my guest. It's a frickin prison once you're married. And forget about sex as you remember it, oh yeah. I use to nail 2 or 3 chicks a week, and they'd listen to your needs - anything you want. Now, I have to practically drug my wife to get her in the mood for a quickie. Who am I kidding, I do drug my wife to get her in the mood.

So I prefer polygamy, at the very least, but one step at a time, right? So go ahead, get married. I dare you. ha ha ha.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

http://replygif.net/i/333.gif

Am I supposed to know who that is?

]On a serious note, what I gather from that diatribe is that I am a bad person for not being surprised at something that "surprises" you.

No, you're a bad person (a troll) for contributing to the very thing you claim to be decrying.

It's basically theory vs. reality and very much feels like an artificial argument.

Yes, exactly. I'm talking about reality and you're making an artificial argument about a "theory" that "we already know all conservatives toe their party line and are therefore hypocrites, that's just semantics (they're hypocrites by definition)." Meanwhile, the reality is that a lot of conservatives are perfectly consistent and principled, support gay marriage because marriage and commitment are core conservative values, and they don't just blindly follow the religious loudmouths like you think they do. One of them posted just before you, and you ignored him so you could address a strawman that people like him are nowhere to be found. That you've come away from it with the impression that you're representing "reality" in the face of "theory" is hilarious

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"we already know all conservatives toe their party line and are therefore hypocrites, that's just semantics (they're hypocrites by definition)."

I believe this is called putting words in my mouth.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

this strikes me as being semantic and obvious. We all know conservatism ... runs headlong into hypocrisy

How exactly does this differ from the version I wrote?
Is it only semantically different?

The only thing I find surprising is people who claim to be more libertarian than conservative can't seem to endorse it.

And yet when one does (like the post directly prior to yours), you (1) ignore him and (2) double-down on your strawman who says the opposite.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How exactly does this differ from the version I wrote?
Is it only semantically different?

Hey look, you're omitting parts and taking quotes out of context.

Seriously, I'm not interested in defending myself rather than my position on the thread subject. Assuming I have the restraint, this will be my last response on this line of thought. You'll have to find something else to fill your time with.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And yet when one does (like the post directly prior to yours), you (1) ignore him and (2) double-down on your strawman who says the opposite.

Uh huh.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Hey look, you're omitting parts and taking quotes out of context.

Nothing I omitted changed the context. If you disagree, then you have been and still are free to explain how.

Seriously, I'm not interested in defending myself rather than my position on the thread subject. Assuming I have the restraint...

Then you should try harder not to let your biased stereotypes speak louder than your position, which it's still unclear what it is. If you keep throwing backhanded jabs around carelessly, you're going to keep getting called on it. You don't get a free pass on them just because YOU think they're incidental.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm not sure I understand the question. The term "gay marriage" exists purely to differentiate the issue for discussion. In day-to-day life, no refers to Ellen being "gay married" or a straight couple who had a ceremony performed by the JoP as being in a "civil union."

Of course not, but if all we're talking about is how pop-culture references matters, any two people could hang out together for life and call themselves whatever they wanted. We're talking about legislation and with regard to legislation -- I prefer clarity and precision. I am of the belief that the government is too involved in this piece among other matters. I'd like to see an upgrade. Adding more people into a statistically failed institution is only "equality" for the bloc du jour and arbitrarily redefining words and principles is not progress IMO. Call it what it is in context of the only role the government serves in the relationship - civil. A secondary goal of mine would be to use this as an opportunity to remind the remainder of married couples that the government and subsequent paperwork does not create nor validate the relationship -- that's only as strong as the people engaged in it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by osiris 

damn, this thread is getting funnier by the post.

for the record, I couldn't care less who/whom/what you marry. If you want to suffer, be my guest. It's a frickin prison once you're married. And forget about sex as you remember it, oh yeah. I use to nail 2 or 3 chicks a week, and they'd listen to your needs - anything you want. Now, I have to practically drug my wife to get her in the mood for a quickie. Who am I kidding, I do drug my wife to get her in the mood.

So I prefer polygamy, at the very least, but one step at a time, right? So go ahead, get married. I dare you. ha ha ha.

Marriage without sex is having an extraordinarily needy and annoying roommate. And yes, plural marriage is great, when it works, but mine is the only one I personally know of that has functioned on a long-term basis. Basically, if you can't handle being married to one person and remain monogamous (if that's important to you), adding another isn't going to help. It actually makes it more difficult, a lot more difficult.

So campers, marry the right person to begin with or simply never marry at all.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course not, but if all we're talking about is how pop-culture references matters, any two people could hang out together for life and call themselves whatever they wanted. We're talking about legislation and with regard to legislation -- I prefer clarity and precision. I am of the belief that the government is too involved in this piece among other matters. I'd like to see an upgrade. Adding more people into a statistically failed institution is only "equality" for the bloc du jour and arbitrarily redefining words and principles is not progress IMO. Call it what it is in context of the only role the government serves in the relationship - civil.

I feel like we're retreading old discussions here. I'm not sure I grasp what the bolded is saying. And your general perspective feels like quibbling over the pronunciation of a word on principle.

What is accomplished by changing the term marriage to civil union? All I see is douche bags jumping on gay couples telling them they're not married and other semantic nonsense.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A secondary goal of mine would be to use this as an opportunity to remind the remainder of married couples that the government and subsequent paperwork does not create nor validate the relationship -- that's only as strong as the people engaged in it.

Well, part of the impetus is also that it validates their relationships financially and legally (Inheritance, benefits, visitation rights, etc.). That was the reasoning behind the DOMA case, I believe.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So campers, marry the right person to begin with or simply never marry at all.

Sounds like cake.

[osiris]

That's why I believe in living together first. All kidding aside, many people find themselves living with a stranger if they wait until after marriage to shack up. But that's a different topic...

Gay people don't have these problems, do they?

[The Final Dakar]

Looks like they're addressing this without legislation.
Married Gay Veterans to Receive Benefits | Advocate.com

The federal government will no longer enforce language within Title 38 of the U.S. Code, which forbids the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense from recognizing as legal any marriage other than that of one man and one woman.

“Although the Supreme Court did not directly address the constitutionality of the Title 38 provisions in Windsor, the reasoning of the opinion strongly supports the conclusion that those provisions are unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment,” wrote Holder in a letter to congressional leaders obtained by The Advocate. "Like Section 3 [of DOMA], the Title 38 provisions have the effect of placing lawfully married same-sex couples in a 'second tier marriage,' which 'departs from [a] history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.'"

Good for the veterans. I'm not going to post the weird related BS going on in Texas.

[Snow-i]

I'm really hoping that the republicans get their shit together for this next cycle and drop these outdated social positions.

If they can prevent guys like Akin from having a mic put to their faces, we may yet be able to save this country from it's current-path inevitable economic destruction.

Enough is enough, you don't have to support gay-marriage to recognize everyone's right to equality under the law, and I am disappointed with a great many economic conservatives being so short sighted with their platforms and so careless with individuals' rights.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm really hoping that the republicans get their shit together for this next cycle and drop these outdated social positions.

If they can prevent guys like Akin from having a mic put to their faces, we may yet be able to save this country from it's current-path inevitable economic destruction.

Enough is enough, you don't have to support gay-marriage to recognize everyone's right to equality under the law, and I am disappointed with a great many economic conservatives being so short sighted with their platforms and so careless with individuals' rights.

Doesn't seem likely. After the election there was reasonable talk about reevaluating their social positions from several conservative pundits, but it seems the GOP political machine is still decidedly against it, for what I can tell mostly from fear of losing the religious vote. I don't recall any polls recently but while support is rising I'm not sure its worth the gamble for even the mainstream GOP. It's not like people like yourself and libertarians are voting Democrat as the alternative any time soon. It's just not that big an issue. (And politically there's not too much that can be done at this point)

Edit: The problem for a lot of candidates is in the early campaigning and primaries it seems to be that unless you are vocally opposing something, the nutters make a stink that you're tacitly supporting it (See Obamacare funding)

[The Final Dakar]

George H.W. Bush is witness at same-sex marriage in Maine

Former President George H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara served as an official witnesses Saturday at the Maine wedding of Bonnie Clement and Helen Thorgalsen, co-owners of a Kennebunk general store. Thorgalsen posted a photo on Facebook of the 41st commander-in-chief signing a set of documents for them at an outdoor celebration: “Getting our marriage license witnessed!”

New Jersey Gay Marriage: Judge Says Same-Sex Marriages Can Start October 21

Judge Mary Jacobson of the Mercer County Superior Court ruled Friday that gay couples can marry in the Garden State starting October 21.

"This unequal treatment requires that New Jersey extend civil marriage to same-sex couples to satisfy equal protection guarantees of the New Jersy Constitution as interpreted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis," wrote the judge. "Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution."

Jacobson said she made her decision in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on United States v. Windsor, but the ruling is likely to be appealed.

[Shaddim]

Papa Bush was never too far Right of center, so I'm not surprised at all. Ideologically, he and Clinton were extremely similar.

[subego]

Didn't he used to be called "congressman condom" or something?

He only ditched that once Reagan picked him for VP.

[ebuddy]

The good news is with all this heightened concern for Law and the equal protections of it, maybe we can get that delay on Obamacare until they figure out a way to undo all the waivers granted to Congress and aides, States, MLR waiver for mini-med plans, and closed-door Union negotiations.

[subego]

Quick... derail! DERAIL!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Quick... derail! DERAIL!

What do you mean -- "quick"? It's been 13 pages.

[subego]

Quick... derail the derail accusation!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Papa Bush was never too far Right of center, so I'm not surprised at all. Ideologically, he and Clinton were extremely similar.

Yep, both are supporters of Planned Parenthood.

[The Final Dakar]

Yep, that's my douche governor

AP News: Pa. gov: Gay marriage remarks not meant to offend

The Pennsylvania governor was on WHP-TV in Harrisburg speaking about gay marriage when an anchor asked about a statement his lawyers made in a recent court filing, comparing the marriage of gay couples to the marriage of children because neither can legally wed in the state.

"It was an inappropriate analogy, you know," Corbett said. "I think a much better analogy would have been brother and sister, don't you?"

[subego]

Does WHP call itself "the Whip"?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Does WHP call itself "the Whip"?

I have no idea.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Yep, both are supporters of Planned Parenthood.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'll try to remember this little .gif the next time I see (cue menacing orchestral score) the NRA.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Does WHP call itself "the Whip"?

For the same reason KUPD called itself "Cupid" when it was Top 40 back in the '70's

[The Final Dakar]

Utah cites procreation in lawsuit over gay marriage | Breaking News | Wisconsin Gazette - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) News

Attorneys for the state of Utah are defending a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and woman, saying it promotes the state’s interest in “responsible procreation” and the “optimal mode of child-rearing.”

“Same-sex couples, who cannot procreate, do not promote the state’s interests in responsible procreation (regardless of whether they harm it),” the state argues.

The state further argues the case is “really about who decides, not who is right in this important policy debate,” and that Amendment 3 does not discriminate because “neither a man nor a woman may marry a person of the same sex.”

Certainly no new arguments there. This would be huge if it got overturned in Utah, but I'm doubtful. For those of us with a modicum of legal knowledge, could the SCOTUS case from this summer have any effect on the ruling?

[The Final Dakar]

Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) makes progress in the Senate - CBS News

With the support of every member of the Democratic caucus and some Republicans, the Senate on Monday voted to move forward with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would prohibit discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill is now all but sure to pass in the Senate, where a handful of Republicans voted Monday to proceed with the bill -- including one stalwart conservative, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. Still, its fate in the Republican-led House is unclear. A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Monday that the speaker opposes the legislation.

A poll conducted this fall by Republican pollster Alex Lundry and the Americans for Workplace Opportunity campaign showed that more than two-thirds of registered voters, including 56 percent of Republicans, support the protections offered by ENDA. In fact eight out of 10 thought that such federal workplace protections were already in place.

[The Final Dakar]

I didn't see the exact quote yesterday so following up:

The speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs

If Speaker Boehner thought the Civil Rights Act of '64 had the same effects (frivolous litigation, cost jobs, etc.) would he be against that too?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I didn't see the exact quote yesterday so following up:


If Speaker Boehner thought the Civil Rights Act of '64 had the same effects (frivolous litigation, cost jobs, etc.) would he be against that too?

I mean, that's kind of a false premise. A hypothetical that tries to draw an analogy from two completely different political and cultural landscapes 50+ years apart that neglects those 50+ years of America's cultural evolution. The irony is that the civil rights act of 64 found more ardent opposition from democrats than republicans. Do you think Reid, Pelosi et al would have broken that party line and supported the civil rights act of 64? It's an equally ridiculous question (you don't need to answer).

As an elected representative, if you think legislation will end up having a net negative effect on our country, you should oppose it. Isn't that, from a broad view, the only criteria for opposing legislation (shenanigans, lobbies and corruption aside)?

We do have a problem with frivolous legislation in this country. I would like to see tort reform in this area, though ultimately I do support equal opportunity for gender/sexuality minorities irregardless of that reform. I don't have a problem with Boner opposing legislation that exacerbates an extreme drain on our economy, though if/when we get that tort reform I would expect him to support equal opportunity legislation for groups persecuted by our government (and oppose equal outcome legislation).

[Chongo]

What ENDA will do is make open season with lawsuits against churches.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I mean, that's kind of a false premise. A hypothetical that tries to draw an analogy from two completely different political and cultural landscapes 50+ years apart that neglects those 50+ years of America's cultural evolution.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The irony is that the civil rights act of 64 found more ardent opposition from democrats than republicans.

So I'm not allowed to drawn an analogy because of the political landscape from 50 years ago (never mind that my analogy is about rights, not politics) because so much has changed but you're going to equate past democrats to current ones, completely ignoring your own point.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Do you think Reid, Pelosi et al would have broken that party line and supported the civil rights act of 64? It's an equally ridiculous question (you don't need to answer).

I don't think they would have if they'd been Dixiecrats, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

As an elected representative, if you think legislation will end up having a net negative effect on our country, you should oppose it. Isn't that, from a broad view, the only criteria for opposing legislation (shenanigans, lobbies and corruption aside)?

I expect you to do what's right. With your type of criteria the 13th amendment would never have passed.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What ENDA will do is make open season with lawsuits against churches.

I lack objectivity on this subject so I'll be interested to hear multiple takes. My question is, why can't the church function within the framework? Everybody they employ sins, right? What line does a (practicing) homosexual cross that a woman having sex (or worse a child!) out of wedlock, or a man living with a woman he's not married to, or a person being divorced doesn't cross?

And that's without taking the obvious shot that the church has been willing to tolerate (and protect) some really vile behavior if the person committing it is a priest. So it may take some effort to bring me around to the church's concerns.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So I'm not allowed to drawn an analogy because of the political landscape from 50 years ago (never mind that my analogy is about rights, not politics) because so much has changed but you're going to equate past democrats to current ones, completely ignoring your own point.

I think you missed the point of my "question". I was trying to point out how ridiculous that question is to ask considering how much has changed. Did you read the sentence directly after the question where I specifically pointed that out for you? I intended to apply my point to my entire statement, I apologize if I did not make this clear.

You can draw the analogy if you want, but don't expect it to make a convincing argument. Do you think we would have passed the ACA 50 years ago in this setting? (Again, simply pointing out how ridiculous trying to compare America 50 years ago to America now, no need to answer).

I don't think they would have if they'd been Dixiecrats, that's for sure.

I mean, it's irrelevant. You cannot say whether they would or would not have considering how different the politics of time would have shaped our rights. I don't think its wise to ignore the political landscape while considering the legislation that granted us those rights, then ask "what would this person have done on this legislation" and expect to convince anyone that isn't in lock step with your narrative that republicans are evil.

I expect you to do what's right. With your type of criteria the 13th amendment would never have passed.

Is it right to allow a broken tort system to get lawyers with connections rich as all hell at the expense of businesses, employees, and ultimately the American consumer?

No legislation exists in a vacuum, and it is extremely unwise to consider legislation while ignoring unintended impacts to America as a whole. LGBTs can sue for discrimination today, though this act would make it much easier (and likely make it much easier to get payouts, deserved or not).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What ENDA will do is make open season with lawsuits against churches.

That's is ENDA's game, to be sure. Crafted by lawyers, for lawyers. For years they've been trying to find better ways to sue religious institutions, and it opens up whole new avenues of cash flow for them.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Do you think we would have passed the ACA 50 years ago in this setting?

40 years ago a republican proposed extending medicare to all and Nixon talked about national health insurance during his reelection campaign.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Is it right to allow a broken tort system to get lawyers with connections rich as all hell at the expense of businesses, employees, and ultimately the American consumer?

Is it right to deny people workplace equality because of the acts of the unscrupulous?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I lack objectivity on this subject so I'll be interested to hear multiple takes. My question is, why can't the church function within the framework? Everybody they employ sins, right? What line does a (practicing) homosexual cross that a woman having sex (or worse a child!) out of wedlock, or a man living with a woman he's not married to, or a person being divorced doesn't cross?

And that's without taking the obvious shot that the church has been willing to tolerate (and protect) some really vile behavior if the person committing it is a priest. So it may take some effort to bring me around to the church's concerns.

Marriage is a sacrament, one of the most important ones, too. In simple terms, it's one of the things that is most sacred to them, it's right up there with communion and baptism. For most Christian churches, if they're forced to marry homosexuals, they'll cease actually being a church.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Marriage is a sacrament, one of the most important ones, too. For many churches, if they're forced to marry homosexuals they'll cease actually being a church.

Who said they had to marry homos?

[subego]

I'd imagine the 1st Amendment would trump it.

[subego]

I should throw in as news we have 'mo marriage now here in Illinois.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Who said they had to marry homos?

Because that's the tie to it, a piece of the larger picture.

[subego]

Still seems like those lawsuits would lose.

I was imagining lawsuits about employment.

[Chongo]

The Diocese of Cincinnati has already been sued.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

40 years ago a republican proposed extending medicare to all and Nixon talked about national health insurance during his reelection campaign.

Great, that was 40 years ago with an entirely different political landscape, economy, etc.

Is it right to deny people workplace equality because of the acts of the unscrupulous?

What rights are they being denied now, Dakar? Sexual harrassment is still illegal and harassment is grounds to sue. To sue for things like not having unisex bathrooms, to sue for sensitivity training, affirmative action, and the like?

[Chongo]

Can I sue because the lesbians on second shift conspired to prevent me from training on the wafer saws when I first started at Motorola? Out of 25 people on the shift, 20 were woman and 18 were lesbians, including the supervisor. I got tired of being passed over for training (11 months) and transferred out of the materials group to a wafer fab. Not only did I receive advance training, I found out I was supposed to have a grade change from a 500 to a 503, along with a significant raise in pay after three months.

[ebuddy]

Someone asked if we'd have passed the ACA 40 years ago and my first thought was; hell, had the President been honest with the country and the Democratic Party not unabashed sheeple in lockstep with the fool, the ACA would not have passed in 2010.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Because that's the tie to it, a piece of the larger picture.

Yeah, except it very clearly says its employment. You guys are looking for boogeymen.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The Diocese of Cincinnati has already been sued.

...and you can't blame ENDA for it. Link?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Great, that was 40 years ago with an entirely different political landscape, economy, etc.

lol
I hereby promise never to compare the past to the present, ok, snow-i?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What rights are they being denied now, Dakar? Sexual harrassment is still illegal and harassment is grounds to sue.

"The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by civilian, nonreligious employers with at least 15 employees."

---

Oh hey, religious organizations are exempted? Shaddim, Chongo, care to explain yourselves?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, except it very clearly says its employment. You guys are looking for boogeymen.

I'm not looking for anything, I'm trying to explain their reasoning. Personally I think the Catholic clergy is as good a vocation as any for gay men, provided they adhere to the rules like anyone else.

Oh hey, religious organizations are exempted? Shaddim, Chongo, care to explain yourselves?

What? Many churches have ancillary organizations attached to them that aren't directly a part of the religious institution itself, ex. Notre Dame's apparel and souvenir companies. Although they do hire homosexuals, I know it for a fact, obvious transgenders likely wouldn't be.

I'll never be for any legislation that tells people who they're required to hire. Society is moving towards complete inclusion all on its own, and at a rapid pace, laws like this aren't much more than a thumb in the eye to cause friction and display differences, rather than encourage dialogue and unity. It goes back to that whole thing of telling people "you will do this", rather than, "let's talk about why this is important". The same people who want to negotiate with terrorist states until the cows come home won't even hold official discussions about social matters with its own citizens, choosing to legislate rather than talk and educate. There's something distinctly absurd about that, from my perspective.

[Chongo]

The same "exememption" they have under the ACA?

link
Fired lesbian teacher Carla Hale won’t get job back in deal with diocese | The Columbus Dispatch