| | | Author | Message |
|---|
sandpaperback
  
| | #1 posted November 4, 2009 at 8:21am (EST) |
For those who don't know, Maine was voting on repealing a law that legalized gay marriage earlier this year. The YES vote won, meaning that the law will be repealed.
I have never been so disappointed in my fellow citizens - which includes electing GWB for a second term. I mean, people actually just voted to take rights away from their neighbors. It makes me sick.
A co-worker posted something along the lines of when gay people finally do have the same rights, the people who opposed it are going to go down in the history books alongside the people who opposed ending segregation or giving women the right to vote. That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that things are fudgeed up right now. | DefaultGen
| | #161 posted November 10, 2009 at 10:37am (EST) |
If I were describing white people I'd probably use "We" to describe us.
 | Lino
| | #162 posted November 10, 2009 at 10:39am (EST) |
If I were describing white people, i'd just say "our masters" or "your holiness" or something....
 | thatonedude
 
| #163 posted November 10, 2009 at 10:45am (EST)
edited November 10, 2009 at 10:45am (EST) |
I prefer the term Honky. | Lino
| | #164 posted November 10, 2009 at 10:51am (EST) |
and it looks like I'd prefer you in handcuffs!!!
| thatonedude
| | #165 posted November 10, 2009 at 12:51pm (EST) |
Rawr! | Sid_Ceaser
 
| | #166 posted November 10, 2009 at 3:51pm (EST) |
kokopelli wrote:
> It is sad that so many use the term "they" to describe homosexuals
> like me. To me, that is the heart of discrimination.
There was not one iota of discrimination from what I wrote. Methinks you are digging a little too much. Especially if you are trying to insinuate that I'm homophobic.
:: Ceaser Photography :: | DrizzDrizzDrizz
| | #167 posted November 10, 2009 at 3:53pm (EST) |
Yeah, dude, what the hell. Sid's as gay as they get.
Smile Now Cry Later | Chad
| | #168 posted November 10, 2009 at 3:56pm (EST) |
Sid,
The AFFL would like to cordially invite you to view, and if desired, participate.
http://gametz.com/forum/USER%253A23673/topic/35787... | Ghaleon
 
| | #169 posted November 10, 2009 at 4:44pm (EST) |
anti_virus347 wrote:
> Wii wrote:
>> Hobmeister wrote:
> |>> ENIX wrote:
>> |>> DrizzDrizzDrizz wrote:
> |>> |>> DR_SPOCK wrote:
>> |>> |>> I'm not sure whose posts are more disappointing,
>> Reed's
>> |>> |>> or Enix's. On the one hand, Reed says a lot of stupid
>> crap
>> |>> |>> over three posts. On the other, Enix isn't "a fan
>> of gay
>> |>> |>> people," as if homosexuality is a sports team.
> |>> |>>
> |>> |>> I vote ENIX. Reed, we could have pretty much predicted
>> him to
> |>> post
> |>> |>> like that...actually, I would expect worse. But ENIX's
>> post reminds
> |>> |>> me of people who say things like "I have absolutely
>> nothing against
> |>> |>> gay people, I'm all for freedom, as long as they
>> keep their gayness
> |>> |>> in the privacy of their homes"
> |>> |>>
> |>> |>>
>> |>>
>> |>> Way to take things literally there, guy.
>> |>>
>> |>> I don't give a crap how gay someone wants to be in private
>> or all
>> |>> flamoyantly in public either, just don't try to gay
>> rape me and
> |>> I'm
>> |>> cool with your gayness. By "fan", I mean, I personally
>> don't care
>> |>> for the gay lifestyle but to each his own. It like
>> saying I don't
>> |>> care much for the PS3, but it's there and it's in my
>> house...so
> |>> be
>> |>> it. I got nothing wrong with gay people, but I don't
>> go out of
> |>> my
>> |>> way to get involved in gayness --that's all. This extends
>> to other
>> |>> personal choices and lifestyles too, it's not just gay
>> people;
> |>> that
>> |>> just happens to be the topic of discussion.
>> |>>
>> |>> Seems like you're the one being judgmental about me
>> and the way
> |>> I
>> |>> feel about crap. What do you care? Even if I hated
>> gay people,
> |>> who
>> |>> cares as long as I don't act on that hatred.
>> |>>
>> |>>
> |>>
> |>> I agree with ENIX. I think thats reasonable to say. Just
>> because we
> |>> dont out right hate gays, doesnt mean we have to be some
>> gay rights
> |>> activist as well. Whats wrong with being in between on
>> the issue?
> |>> I respect the right for gays to be gay but its not something
>> I want
> |>> to be involved in. To each to his/her own. If your gay
>> just be respectful
> |>> to other people who are straight and its all good. Some
>> gay people
> |>> seem to use there gayness as an excuss to do whatever
>> they want and
> |>> be perverted in public just cause they know they can
>> get away with
> |>> it. That is really all I have an issue with.
>>
>> But it's ok to be whorish in public if you're straight?
>>
> His point is, if you tell a gay to knock it off, they are more likely
> to call you out on some sort of discrimination then to stop. I see
> it happen alot, it annoys me.
>
I highly doubt that.
Besides, try responding to what I wrote, not avoiding it completely. | j_factor
| | #170 posted November 10, 2009 at 5:01pm (EST) |
I used to be totally in favor of gay marriage, but then I saw this, and my mind was changed.
Seriously though, there's no reason marriage should be dependent on gender. A marriage license is just a legal pact between two people that provides for certain rights and responsibilities that can't be otherwise obtained. The sex(es) of the persons involved doesn't have any functional bearing. The government shouldn't even be verifying who's male and who's female. We're all individuals, and we should all be equal under the law.
Besides, if you don't like gay marriage... you don't have to have one. Preventing other people from doing it is just mean-spirited.
Classic Cantero quote:
"Gun Valkyrie just wasn't any good." -- 2003
"Just went through GUNVALKYRIE again. Got all the cores this time, Kelly Lv-3 is pretty sweet.
But yeah, killer game. RECOMMENDED." -- 2008 | Jaclo
| | #171 posted November 10, 2009 at 5:55pm (EST) |
Wow......
I don't really know what to say.
This whole situation is gay. | Jaclo
| | #172 posted November 10, 2009 at 6:03pm (EST) |
For the record, I don't look at gay people any differently than I look at straight people. I think marriage is a dumb institution, but if people want to do it, regardless of whom it is with, they should be able to.
Comparing gay marriage to incest marriage is pretty silly. It can be assumed that after marriage, sex will be involved. With gay couples, there is no chance of offspring, so there is no chance of any mutations and such. With incest couples, the chance is increased by 100%.
The whole thing boils down to religion and bigotry.
The religious argument should be thrown out immediately, for a number of reasons, but mostly because there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.
The other arguments....well....they're just ignorant douchebags.
Live and let live, people.
I agree with someone else who said that this isn't a democratic decision. It's simply a matter of equality. | DrizzDrizzDrizz
| | #173 posted November 10, 2009 at 6:06pm (EST) |
Great post.
Smile Now Cry Later | BluePhoenix
| | #174 posted November 10, 2009 at 6:53pm (EST) |
j_factor wrote:
A marriage
> license is just a legal pact between two
> people
Marriage is a religious ceremony that the government felt like butting in on. To get a marriage license may be one thing, but to be married is another.
Jaclo wrote:
> With incest couples, the chance is
> increased by 100%.
I'm no scientist, but I doubt that there is a 100% chance of genetic mutation. 100% means it will happen, every time.
> |> The religious argument should be thrown out
> immediately, for a number of reasons, but
> mostly because there is supposed to be a
> separation of church and state.
I agree that there should be a seperation of church and state. However I don't understand how that leads to the religious argument being "thrown out immediately". Marriage has always existed as a religious event, why should the religious side be the one that has to back out to keep them seperate?
| DrizzDrizzDrizz
| | #175 posted November 10, 2009 at 6:59pm (EST) |
"I'm no scientist, but I doubt that there is a 100% chance of genetic mutation. 100% means it will happen, every time. "
He said the chance increases by 100%. As in, it doubles. (You have one corn dog. Now your neighbor comes over and you're given another corn dog. You've increased your corn dog ownership by 100%)
Smile Now Cry Later | Honker
| | #176 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:02pm (EST) |
BluePhoenix wrote:
> Marriage has always existed as a religious
> event, why should the religious side be the one that has to back out
> to keep them seperate?
Wrong.
Various cultures around the world have had "marriage" ceremonies that had / have nothing to do with religion, god, or a diety. One needs only look as far as the Samoan culture and the work of Margaret Meade.
We are a civil society, not a religious one. Secular, religion has no place in ANY of our civil events.
I'd like to see it turn to "civil" unions. You get a license from the state (a contract that denotes certain privileges like taxes, health care, end of life, etc.). If people want to get "married," they first get a license from the state and then go get "married" by the religion of their choice. | BluePhoenix
| | #177 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:08pm (EST) |
DrizzDrizzDrizz wrote:
> "I'm no scientist, but I doubt that there
> is a 100% chance of genetic mutation. 100%
> means it will happen, every time. "
>
> He said the chance increases by 100%. As
> in, it doubles. (You have one corn dog. Now
> your neighbor comes over and you're given
> another corn dog. You've increased your corn
> dog ownership by 100%)
>
>
hmm. You may be right and I was probably incorrect in believing that he meant a 100% chance. However, he said gays have a zero chance and then for incest couples the chance increases by 100% which would still be zero percent. Probably why I thought 100% increase meant going from zero to 100 percent. | Lino
| | #178 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:10pm (EST) |
BluePhoenix wrote:
>
> Jaclo wrote:
>> With incest couples, the chance is
>> increased by 100%.
>
>
> I'm no scientist, but I doubt that there is a 100% chance of genetic
> mutation. 100% means it will happen, every time.
>
No that isn't what it means. Increasing your chances could be any made up number, 100% or 1000%.... another way of wording this would be "with incest couples, the chance is increased by 100 times."
Like the lottery, if you buy one ticket you have z% of a chance to win. If you buy 100 tickets, you have 100z% chance of winning. If you buy 1,000 tickets you have just increased your chances of winning by 1000% or 1000 times better than before. Doesn't mean you automatically win, you're just increasing your chances by a huge percentage.
This is completely different from something like giving 100% of your best effort to win. Your max is 100% and that's as much as you give, your max.
>
> I agree that there should be a seperation of church and state. However
> I don't understand how that leads to the religious argument being
> "thrown out immediately". Marriage has always existed as a religious
> event, why should the religious side be the one that has to back out
> to keep them seperate?
>
>
Religions may have adopted marriage as a holy sacrament but that is completely different from a government-licensed marriage. For example, Catholics adopted wine and bread served during mass. Obviously wine and bread exist outside of Catholocism.
Same thing with marriage, which is a union devised for certain priveledges and benefits in our society, like tax breaks, etc.
Nothing to do with religion.
Our country was founded on a separation of church and state, which automatically throws out the religious arguement...... hence the word "separation". We're dealing with a topic concerning the state. Now, if this was a matter of why can't gays marry within the Christian church, then that's another story.
But we're talking about gays marrying within the STATE. That's why the church is automatically thrown out.
Another helpful tip from your friendly neighborhood Lino!!
| Lino
| | #179 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:13pm (EST) |
looks like i'm late to the party as usual....... but at least i'm fashionably late
| Jaclo
| | #180 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:13pm (EST) |
BluePhoenix wrote:
> hmm. You may be right and I was probably incorrect in believing that
> he meant a 100% chance. However, he said gays have a zero chance and
> then for incest couples the chance increases by 100% which would still
> be zero percent. Probably why I thought 100% increase meant going
> from zero to 100 percent.
Ah, shoot. I didn't even think about the whole "anything times zero equals zero" thing. Dang it....
Well, yeah, what I was trying to say is that there is no chance of a negative mutation amongst gay people and that there is a chance with incestuous couples. | DefaultGen
| | #181 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:15pm (EST) |
BluePhoenix wrote:
> Marriage is a religious ceremony that the government felt like butting
> in on. To get a marriage license may be one thing, but to be married
> is another.
Marriage is a legal status for a tax break. If religious institutions want to have their own "marriage" that doesn't affect legal status of individuals they can hate gays all they want. I agree with whoever above that marriage is pretty dumb.
> I'm no scientist, but I doubt that there is a 100% chance of genetic
> mutation. 100% means it will happen, every time.
He meant there's an infinite increase in the chance of actually baring children, since gay couples can't.
> I agree that there should be a seperation of church and state. However
> I don't understand how that leads to the religious argument being
> "thrown out immediately". Marriage has always existed as a religious
> event, why should the religious side be the one that has to back out
> to keep them seperate?
>
Because now it's a legal item. Keep the religious status of marriage in church, when it comes to matters that affect government, religion shouldn't be involved at all. Like I said, the church can make their own marriage and exclude whoever they want from that. Either that or the government needs to remove all tax breaks and legal status' associated with marriage so it's a completely religious thing.
| BluePhoenix
| | #182 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:16pm (EST) |
kokopelli wrote:
> BluePhoenix wrote:
>
>> Marriage has always existed as a religious
>> event, why should the religious side be
> the one that has to back out
>> to keep them seperate?
>
> Wrong.
>
> Various cultures around the world have had
> "marriage" ceremonies that had / have nothing
> to do with religion, god, or a diety. One
> needs only look as far as the Samoan culture
> and the work of Margaret Meade.
>
> We are a civil society, not a religious
> one. Secular, religion has no place in ANY
> of our civil events.
>
> I'd like to see it turn to "civil" unions.
> You get a license from the state (a contract
> that denotes certain privileges like taxes,
> health care, end of life, etc.). If people
> want to get "married," they first get a license
> from the state and then go get "married"
> by the religion of their choice.
I was only speaking in terms of America. I also think civil unions are a good idea. I felt that the seperation of church and state wouldn't be going both ways if the government made decisions on what constitutes a marriage as long as religion played a part in it. | DrizzDrizzDrizz
| | #183 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:24pm (EST) |
Jaclo wrote:
> BluePhoenix wrote:
>> hmm. You may be right and I was probably incorrect in
> believing that
>> he meant a 100% chance. However, he said gays have a
> zero chance and
>> then for incest couples the chance increases by 100%
> which would still
>> be zero percent. Probably why I thought 100% increase
> meant going
>> from zero to 100 percent.
>
> Ah, shoot. I didn't even think about the whole "anything
> times zero equals zero" thing. Dang it....
>
> Well, yeah, what I was trying to say is that there is no
> chance of a negative mutation amongst gay people and that
> there is a chance with incestuous couples.
Yeah but no, I don't think you screwed up. The 100% increase is independent from the zero percent chance regarding a gay couple. The 100% increase refers to the incest couple, it's a separate thing. No multiplying by zero here. BluePhoenix incorrectly took the "no chance" from column A, and combined that with the "100% increase" from column B, and that's just a recipe for trouble, mixing columns and all.
Smile Now Cry Later | Forgotten_Freshness
 
| | #184 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:26pm (EST) |
I don't have any idea what the fudge just happened.
 | DrizzDrizzDrizz
| #185 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:31pm (EST)
edited November 10, 2009 at 7:32pm (EST) |
Breakdown:
Jaclo made good points.
BluePhoenix misinterpreted some of it, some confusion with percentages (honest mistake, bless his heart).
I injected a voice of reason. Lino injected a tardy voice of reason.
DefaultGen injected a very tardy (and slightly misguided on the percentages front) voice of reason.
BluePhoenix brought up his reasoning for the misinterpretation.
Jaclo apologetically admitted he made a mistake with his wording/percentage usage.
I came in with a second dose of reason and informed Jaclo he shouldn't have done that because he was, in fact, correct all along.
You came in with confusion.
I have now upped the dosage for my third and possibly final voice of reason injection for the night.
Smile Now Cry Later | Forgotten_Freshness
| | #186 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:34pm (EST) |
You're like a super hero.
| Knight
| | #187 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:36pm (EST) |
Gay potatoe pacman apple sex.
--
| DrizzDrizzDrizz
| | #188 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:36pm (EST) |
Absolutely correct.
Smile Now Cry Later | BluePhoenix
| | #189 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:45pm (EST) |
DrizzDrizzDrizz wrote:
> Jaclo wrote:
>> BluePhoenix wrote:
> |>> hmm. You may be right and I was probably
> incorrect in
>> believing that
> |>> he meant a 100% chance. However, he said
> gays have a
>> zero chance and
> |>> then for incest couples the chance increases
> by 100%
>> which would still
> |>> be zero percent. Probably why I thought
> 100% increase
>> meant going
> |>> from zero to 100 percent.
>>
>> Ah, shoot. I didn't even think about the
> whole "anything
>> times zero equals zero" thing. Dang it....
>>
>> Well, yeah, what I was trying to say is
> that there is no
>> chance of a negative mutation amongst
> gay people and that
>> there is a chance with incestuous couples.
>
> Yeah but no, I don't think you screwed up.
> The 100% increase is independent from the
> zero percent chance regarding a gay couple.
> The 100% increase refers to the incest couple,
> it's a separate thing. No multiplying by
> zero here. BluePhoenix incorrectly took the
> "no chance" from column A, and combined that
> with the "100% increase" from column B, and
> that's just a recipe for trouble, mixing
> columns and all.
>
>
>
>
I mean, if it is independent from the 0 then what is being increased by 100% and where did the 100% come from anyway?
Whatever though, we all seem to have the same general idea and are just arguing over details. I'm also uninformed about some of it so hopefully this is the last post I make in this thread. | anti_virus347
| | #190 posted November 10, 2009 at 7:49pm (EST) |
I think everyones point is: Maine FTW!
 Racing your Honda is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. | j_factor
| #191 posted November 10, 2009 at 8:57pm (EST)
edited November 10, 2009 at 9:00pm (EST) |
BluePhoenix wrote:
> j_factor wrote:
> A marriage
>> license is just a legal pact between two
>> people
>
> Marriage is a religious ceremony that the government felt
> like butting in on. To get a marriage license may be one
> thing, but to be married is another.
Marriage has significance in many religions, but it's never been purely religious. Communist countries that had official state atheism still had marriage. Non-religious people get married all the time, and non-Abrahamic religions generally don't put a big religious emphasis on marriage. In ancient Athens, a marriage was a civil and social arrangement, not a covenant with the gods. (They didn't have same-sex marriage either, but for different reasons.)
> I agree that there should be a seperation of church and
> state. However I don't understand how that leads to the
> religious argument being "thrown out immediately". Marriage
> has always existed as a religious event, why should the
> religious side be the one that has to back out to keep them
> seperate?
There are religious groups that support same-sex marriage and officiate same-sex weddings. The religious side doesn't have to "back out". To deny recognition of same-sex marriage is to favor the churches that don't permit them over the ones that do. Freedom of religion would demand that the government take a neutral position, allowing each religious body to decide for themselves, and recognizing same-sex marriages from the ones that do permit it, while respecting the right to abstain for the ones that don't.
Classic Cantero quote:
"Gun Valkyrie just wasn't any good." -- 2003
"Just went through GUNVALKYRIE again. Got all the cores this time, Kelly Lv-3 is pretty sweet.
But yeah, killer game. RECOMMENDED." -- 2008 | Honker
| | #192 posted November 10, 2009 at 9:01pm (EST) |
You rock, j. | j_factor
| #193 posted November 10, 2009 at 9:10pm (EST)
edited November 10, 2009 at 9:10pm (EST) |
Thanks. Wanna get hitched?
Classic Cantero quote:
"Gun Valkyrie just wasn't any good." -- 2003
"Just went through GUNVALKYRIE again. Got all the cores this time, Kelly Lv-3 is pretty sweet.
But yeah, killer game. RECOMMENDED." -- 2008 | Honker
| | #194 posted November 10, 2009 at 9:11pm (EST) |
I already have a same sex partner, thanks 
But, hey, you can join us if you wish! | BoB
| | #195 posted November 10, 2009 at 9:37pm (EST) |
*meh | anti_virus347
| | #196 posted November 10, 2009 at 9:45pm (EST) |
BoB wrote:
>
>
Love you too bobby
Racing your Honda is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. | DefaultGen
| | #197 posted November 10, 2009 at 9:53pm (EST) |
DrizzDrizzDrizz wrote:
> Breakdown:
> DefaultGen injected a very tardy...
Dammit bill, just send me to the last page when I click a thread.
| j_factor
| | #198 posted November 10, 2009 at 10:36pm (EST) |
kokopelli wrote:
> I already have a same sex partner, thanks
>
> But, hey, you can join us if you wish!
Meh, if I want a three-way, there are places I can go.
Classic Cantero quote:
"Gun Valkyrie just wasn't any good." -- 2003
"Just went through GUNVALKYRIE again. Got all the cores this time, Kelly Lv-3 is pretty sweet.
But yeah, killer game. RECOMMENDED." -- 2008 | Knight
| | #199 posted November 10, 2009 at 11:30pm (EST) |
No offense to any homosexuals in the room, but kokopelli is a jerk.
--
| Honker
| | #200 posted November 11, 2009 at 12:03am (EST) |
Wrong topic.
HERE | | |
Topic Page Hits: 1 today (13 in the last 30 days) |
