Interracial couple denied marriage license in Louisana

[Figcoinc]

What the fuck man. Seriously!? :annoy:

Link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_on_re_us/us_interracial_rebuff

Story:

NEW ORLEANS – A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said. "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."

If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.
Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.

Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She is white and he is black. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.

"That was one thing that made this so unbelievable," she said. "It's not something you expect in this day and age."

Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell's wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.

"We are looking forward to having children," Humphrey said. "And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we're typical happy newlyweds."

"It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009," said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."

The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending "the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice."
"He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it," Schwartzmann said.

According to the clerk of court's office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.
Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.


The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk's office.


"I've been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don't think I've mistreated anybody," Bardwell said. "I've made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."

[Geese Pants]

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."

Yeah right............

The couple can just go someplace else to get the license.

[FallingEdge]

lol @ piles and piles of black friends. He's got a deck of cards just full of blacks.

[odin]

lol @ america.. again

edit: also... She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry." lol @ gays not looked at as "people"

[orochizoolander]

As soon as I read the thread title I visualized a black and white couple proudly marching into an office holding hands all lovey dovey when a bald fat white guy just crosses his arms together and says nope then the couple's faces become replaced by:sad:


....:rofl: this is hilarious, WHAT...A...DICK:rofl:...seriously though I hope his ass gets served Ben Stone style.

[Endaeias]

This is absolute bullshit, in my opinion. Its the same mentality that my grandfather has and he's eighty-three years old. I suppose people are entitled to their opinions, naturally. But to restrict them from getting married because he observes and has spoken to interracial couples that didn't last long. Dude, one of my friends is in an interracial marriage and they've been going strong for a while now. I love how so many people, when throwing out semi-racist scenarios, they'll bring up how many black friends they have. I don't understand how that means you're not racist, at least to some degree.

I find it pretty ironic that the woman involved in this marriage is majoring in minority politics. I hope she turns around after she gets her degree and passes the bar exam and pwns the shit out of this guy. Lol... if he's still alive, anyways.

[Lifeless]

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way," Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.



Someone needs to get this asshole a dictionary.

[krazykone123]

"I secretly don't like yer kind round' here" is probably what he's thinkin' B...

[WARNA BROTHER]

"I try to treat everyone equally," he said.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :sad:

That's messed up! You can tell by his speech that he will never view himself as wrong, either. Such a shame.

[Geese Pants]

This is absolute bullshit, in my opinion. Its the same mentality that my grandfather has and he's eighty-three years old. I suppose people are entitled to their opinions, naturally. But to restrict them from getting married because he observes and has spoken to interracial couples that didn't last long. Dude, one of my friends is in an interracial marriage and they've been going strong for a while now. I love how so many people, when throwing out semi-racist scenarios, they'll bring up how many black friends they have. I don't understand how that means you're not racist, at least to some degree.

I find it pretty ironic that the woman involved in this marriage is majoring in minority politics. I hope she turns around after she gets her degree and passes the bar exam and pwns the shit out of this guy. Lol... if he's still alive, anyways.

Funny thing is that alot of marriages in the US don't last long............regardless of race.

[The Furious One]

FACEPALM
Fuck society as long as the parents are devoted to one another and will love their child! What an ass hole

[Endaeias]

Funny thing is that alot of marriages in the US don't last long............regardless of race.

Exactly. Race doesn't dictate how long a fucking marriage will last. It's just a pathetic excuse. :(

[jae hoon]

He is just trying to save the guys house when it goes to her in 10 years.

[DaDesiCanadian]

I thought this was 2009?

[Lifeless]

I thought this was 2009?

You've obviously never been to Louisiana where it is not, in fact, 2009.

[Kazujiro]

All marriages should be denied, regardless of race. Or make divorces as cheap as the $35 for the marriage license.

[Black Jesus]

He's obviously not racist as he just did the black dude a huge favor.

[b4k4]

lol @ america.. again

edit: also... She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry." lol @ gays not looked at as "people"
I don't think that whether homosexuals are considered people or not is the issue, I think it's a question of the actual semantics of the term "marry." I'm worried I'll come across as some conservative extremist for saying this, so I'd like to qualify this by saying I'm fairly left-leaning (what self respecting Canadian isn't) and have numerous gay friends with whom I get along perfectly fine.

Really what we need to look at is the term "marriage," and what that really means, not whether or not homosexuals are considered to be "people," (obviously an absurd claim, but your full bar of negative rep shows you probably like to play the devil's advocate :P).

To quote the first definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage) to come up on dictionary.com for the term "marriage," we find:

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.*

*Emphasis added.

See the issue here is that the definition of marriage currently clearly defines the gender of the people involved. I actually feel that the desire of many members of the gay community to encroach upon this definition in order to contain single-gendered couples is an affront to the happily married heterosexual couples elsewhere in the world. The issue really isn't around whether or not a gay couple should be able to enter into a legally recognized partnership that grants them the same rights and privileges as any married couple, it's about whether or not they should be allowed to call such a union a "marriage." Personally, I feel that the definition of this term should be preserved. A new term should be devised to describe a single-gendered couple bound in such legally binding ways, but currently married couples should not be forced to "broaden the definition" of such a long-standing word, and certainly should not be forced off of the word and made to invent another defining something that the current term already explicitly delineates.

I realize this is likely a controversial point, and many of you may not agree with me, but I feel that the integrity of the word "marriage" should be preserved as is. This isn't an issue of minority rights; it's actually an issue of a minority trying to strip away important institutionalized ceremonies and adapt them for their own needs.

[DaDesiCanadian]

you've obviously never been to louisiana where it is not, in fact, 2009.

usa! usa! usa!

[jae hoon]

usa! usa! usa!

But yet they let Parry get married. :xeye::xeye:

[spudlyff8fan]

usa! usa! usa!

Only the southeast is stupid and backwards like this. The rest of America is awesome.

But yeah...you're from Canada. Who are you to talk!?

[odin]

i don't think that whether homosexuals are considered people or not is the issue, i think it's a question of the actual semantics of the term "marry." i'm worried i'll come across as some conservative extremist for saying this, so i'd like to qualify this by saying i'm fairly left-leaning (what self respecting canadian isn't) and have numerous gay friends with whom i get along perfectly fine.

Really what we need to look at is the term "marriage," and what that really means, not whether or not homosexuals are considered to be "people," (obviously an absurd claim, but your full bar of negative rep shows you probably like to play the devil's advocate :p).

To quote the first definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage) to come up on dictionary.com for the term "marriage," we find:

1. The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.*

*emphasis added.

See the issue here is that the definition of marriage currently clearly defines the gender of the people involved. I actually feel that the desire of many members of the gay community to encroach upon this definition in order to contain single-gendered couples is an affront to the happily married heterosexual couples elsewhere in the world. The issue really isn't around whether or not a gay couple should be able to enter into a legally recognized partnership that grants them the same rights and privileges as any married couple, it's about whether or not they should be allowed to call such a union a "marriage." personally, i feel that the definition of this term should be preserved. A new term should be devised to describe a single-gendered couple bound in such legally binding ways, but currently married couples should not be forced to "broaden the definition" of such a long-standing word, and certainly should not be forced off of the word and made to invent another defining something that the current term already explicitly delineates.

I realize this is likely a controversial point, and many of you may not agree with me, but i feel that the integrity of the word "marriage" should be preserved as is. This isn't an issue of minority rights; it's actually an issue of a minority trying to strip away important institutionalized ceremonies and adapt them for their own needs.

conservatives 4 life! Al-ber-ta! Al-ber-ta!

[b4k4]

Haha yeah, but even our "Conservative" government here is liberal by American standards.

[Bob Sagat]

Come on guys, why don't you believe him? He lets his piles of black friends use his bathroom. His bathroom!

[DaDesiCanadian]

But yet they let Parry get married. :xeye::xeye:

Yeah seriously. There needs to be a ban on French people getting married.


Only the southeast is stupid and backwards like this. The rest of America is awesome.

But yeah...you're from Canada. Who are you to talk!?

By your logic, the more southern you are, the stupider you get.

We're North of America.

Therefore, Canada > America. EAT THAT STUPID!

[odin]

Haha yeah, but even our "Conservative" government here is liberal by American standards.

i was joking however
im super liberal and i hate this fucking ukrainian-run super conservative albertan govt


Come on guys, why don't you believe him? He lets his piles of black friends use his bathroom. His bathroom!

im sooo not racist that i let, i mean MAKE, my black friends eat dinner in the bathroom

[jae hoon]

Yeah seriously. There needs to be a ban on French people getting married.



By your logic, the more southern you are, the stupider you get.

We're North of America.

Therefore, Canada > America. EAT THAT STUPID!

Yeah but you are South of Alaska so by that logic that means Sarah Palin is the smartest woman ever.

[odin]

Yeah but you are South of Alaska so by that logic that means Sarah Palin is the smartest woman ever.

its west too
she is on par with the NWT eskimos

[b4k4]

Yeah but you are South of Alaska so by that logic that means Sarah Palin is the smartest woman ever.
Hahaha, actually we're well north of Alaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska), if you'd care to look at a map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellesmere_Island).

Conclusion?

Santa > Inuit > Sarah Palin > The rest of Canada > USA > Mexico

Sounds about right.

[AshuraSenku]

Exactly. Race doesn't dictate how long a fucking marriage will last. It's just a pathetic excuse. :(

This is very true. Marriages dont't fail because he/she was black/white.



All marriages should be denied, regardless of race. Or make divorces as cheap as the $35 for the marriage license.


I see alot of people not getting married if this was the truth, especially; if you do not get any incentive in return.

[Chozen]

I'm actually surprised that there aren't yet laws against denying interracial marriage licenses.

[Black Jesus]

Hahaha, actually we're well north of Alaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska), if you'd care to look at a map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellesmere_Island).

Conclusion?

Santa > Inuit > Sarah Palin > The rest of Canada > USA > Mexico

Sounds about right.


You're in Ontario. Conclusion? You've singlehandedly disporven the thoery as you're well North of me and still don't know the difference between North and South, despite staring directly at a map. Obviously your health care system has been stealing funds from your education system.

[b4k4]

You're in Ontario. Conclusion? You've singlehandedly disporven the thoery as you're well North of me and still don't know the difference between North and South, despite staring directly at a map. Obviously your health care system has been stealing funds from your education system.
Obviously someone claiming I've "disporven the thoery" should be stealing funds from our education system to supplement their own :P. Also, how do I not know the difference between North and South? We were talking about Canada, and I demonstrated that Ellesmere Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellesmere_Island), the northernmost point in Canada at 80° 10′ 0″ N latitude, is well north of Alaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska), at only 71°50'N latitude at its northernmost point.

Think there's enough room left in your mouth for your other foot, too?

[odin]

pretty sure he meant ellsemere was north of alaska, not ontario

[Geese Pants]

Hahaha, actually we're well north of Alaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska), if you'd care to look at a map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellesmere_Island).

Conclusion?

Santa > Inuit > Sarah Palin > The rest of Canada > USA > Mexico

Sounds about right.

You might want to look at a map yourself (http://www.geographicguide.com/north-america-map.htm).........Alaska is pretty high up there.

Why is it not a part of Canadia again?

[b4k4]

You might want to look at a map yourself (http://www.geographicguide.com/north-america-map.htm).........Alaska is pretty high up there.

Why is it not a part of Canadia again?
Ah, you got an edit in just in time. It's not a part of Canada because the USA bought it from the Russians. There was actually a long drawn out border conflict up there. Canada's beloved RCMP (Mounties) basically existed to protect the sovereignty of our western and northwestern territories against USA encroachment.

[Amordien]

You've obviously never been to Louisiana where it is not, in fact, 2009.

Pretty much. Louisiana is so far behind that if the world ended tomorrow it would still have a week left.

and :rofl: at people being shocked stuff like this still happens.

[DaDesiCanadian]

You're in Ontario. Conclusion? You've singlehandedly disporven the thoery as you're well North of me and still don't know the difference between North and South, despite staring directly at a map. Obviously your health care system has been stealing funds from your education system.

You serious? He said "we're", which obviously indicates Canada (and therefore parts of it other than Ontario), not just himself.. I know Americans are ig'nant, but Ontario does not in fact make up the entirety of our country.

[Tim Static]

I thought this was 2009?

i was about to post those very words, all in the same order and shit, too.

wow.

[HazeandFire]

I'm not intolerant, I just think that every family should be like mine, that way kids grow up right. Like I did.


I'm actually surprised that there aren't yet laws against denying interracial marriage licenses.

:rofl: there are

[odin]

You serious? He said Canada, not Ontario. I know Americans are ig'nant, but Ontario does not in fact make up the entirety of our country.

as much as you guys think it does

HEEYYYYYYYYYYY-OOOOOOOOOOOOOo

[Valaris]

You serious? He said "we're", which obviously indicates Canada (and therefore parts of it other than Ontario), not just himself.. I know Americans are ig'nant, but Ontario does not in fact make up the entirety of our country.

Thank fucking God amirite?

[Sean's Apprentice]

Guess where I'm not getting married? I say that cause my girlfriend is also white.

[b4k4]

as much as you guys think it does

HEEYYYYYYYYYYY-OOOOOOOOOOOOOo
Pff, not even Ontario tbh.

It's more like Toronto = Canada.

:woot:

I'm just saying that for the sake of the joke though. I was born in Calgary, my folks grew up in Montreal. I'd actually like to move there (Montreal) for a few years, just to work on my French. I've loved the city every time I've spent time there, and Toronto is getting old.

[DaDesiCanadian]

Toronto, we da best.

Lol @ canadian hijack of this thread.

[Black Jesus]

Obviously someone claiming I've "disporven the thoery" should be stealing funds from our education system to supplement their own :P. Also, how do I not know the difference between North and South? We were talking about Canada, and I demonstrated that Ellesmere Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellesmere_Island), the northernmost point in Canada at 80° 10′ 0″ N latitude, is well north of Alaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska), at only 71°50'N latitude at its northernmost point.

Think there's enough room left in your mouth for your other foot, too?

By that logic your country's southernmost point is well below Alaska's southernmost point. I'm sorry that either you're too dumb to realize where you're located, or that you're too dumb to realize that your country does not equal one area, unless your contention is that all other cities are as empty as your head was for making that statement. I'll let you decide which. My foot is too comfortable in your ass for me to remove it. Thanks for the offer though.


You serious? He said "we're", which obviously indicates Canada (and therefore parts of it other than Ontario), not just himself.. I know Americans are ig'nant, but Ontario does not in fact make up the entirety of our country.

So your argument is that Ontario does not equal Canada but Ellesmere does. Hooray for poor skewed logic!

[odin]

Pff, not even Ontario tbh.

It's more like Toronto = Canada.

:woot:

whatever man, you guys need to learn french
i got people from quebec coming here and complaining that our utlity company doesnt have any agents that speak french, i say tough shit you are in the west now

[Valaris]

whatever man, you guys need to learn french
i got people from quebec coming here and complaining that our utlity company doesnt have any agents that speak french, i say tough shit you are in the west now

Amen brotha. Amen. A year or two ago some french people got all riled up because a company fired several frenchies who couldn't speak english. "It's a racist act" no motherfucker, it's doing your job. Most people DON'T speak french so unless you can adapt, you become useless at your job and we'll find someone who can do what you can't.

[DaDesiCanadian]

So your argument is that Ontario does not equal Canada but Ellesmere does. Hooray for poor skewed logic!

Hey man, if that's what it takes for total superiority over America!

*gets his fishing boat and warm clothing out*

[spudlyff8fan]

Yeah seriously. There needs to be a ban on French people getting married.



By your logic, the more southern you are, the stupider you get.

We're North of America.

Therefore, Canada > America. EAT THAT STUPID!

Yes, and by that mentality, the further west you go, the smarter you get. Which links into what Jae Hoon said. Sarah Palin is smarter than everyone in Canada.

But we can all agree that there needs to be a mass-neutering of the French citizenry.

[b4k4]

whatever man, you guys need to learn french
i got people from quebec coming here and complaining that our utlity company doesnt have any agents that speak french, i say tough shit you are in the west now
Hah! You missed my edit. Lol actually you both missed the part where I said I wanted to move to Montreal specifically so I could work more on my French :P.


Amen brotha. Amen. A year or two ago some french people got all riled up because a company fired several frenchies who couldn't speak english. "It's a racist act" no motherfucker, it's doing your job. Most people DON'T speak french so unless you can adapt, you become useless at your job and we'll find someone who can do what you can't.
Je peut parler francais assez bon pour communiquer quand je doit, mais j'ai besoin plus des opportunites pour le pracitquer. J'oublie toujours mon vocabulaire, et quelque fois les temps aussi. Mon francais ecrit et trop mal que mon francais oral.


By that logic your country's southernmost point is well below Alaska's southernmost point. I'm sorry that either you're too dumb to realize where you're located, or that you're too dumb to realize that your country does not equal one area, unless your contention is that all other cities are as empty as your head was for making that statement. I'll let you decide which. My foot is too comfortable in your ass for me to remove it. Thanks for the offer though.
You're fucking daft bro. You missed the part where someone was claiming Alaska was north of Canada. I pointed out that wasn't true. It wasn't even MY theory about the whole north is smarter than the south thing, I just rolled with it. You already looked like a tool with your first post, got called on it by a few people, and now keep talking like you still have a point. Get over it dude: YOU'RE FUCKING LOST. We're talking about CANADA compared to THE USA, not Alaska vs. Ontario or whatever dumb shit you'd like to pretend the conversation was about. Yes, Alaska is north of me. I'd never deny that, because I'm not a fucking twat. You, however, are going off about something that doesn't even make sense, and pretending you're putting me in my place when really all you're doing is making it obvious you don't even know wtf the discussion was about in the first place.

Also, for the record, Canada does all equal one area. It all equals the area called "Canada." Wow.

Did I miss anything? Oh, yeah you made an edit:


So your argument is that Ontario does not equal Canada but Ellesmere does. Hooray for poor skewed logic!
No, our argument is that Ellesmere Island is a PART of Canada, just like Alaska is a PART of the USA, and that the PART we're talking about is further north than the PART you were talking about.

HOORAY FOR ZERO READING COMPREHENSION!

[Chozen]

:rofl: there are

In that case they need to fire his old-fashioned ass.

...Donald Trump style.

[Muff Daddy]

By your logic, the more southern you are, the stupider you get.

We're North of America.

Therefore, Canada > America. EAT THAT STUPID!

A part of Windsor is actually South of Detroit. DUN DUUN DUUUUUUN!

[Amordien]

I realize this is likely a controversial point, and many of you may not agree with me, but I feel that the integrity of the word "marriage" should be preserved as is. This isn't an issue of minority rights; it's actually an issue of a minority trying to strip away important institutionalized ceremonies and adapt them for their own needs.

...

I'm pretty sure that my marriage doesn't lose significance anytime a gay couple gets married.

What was it that had been established in the Election 2008 thread? "If you have to profess yourself as a liberal or a nice guy/start your statement with 'Now, I'm a pretty liberal guy...', chances are..."

[DaDesiCanadian]

A part of Windsor is actually South of Detroit. DUN DUUN DUUUUUUN!

Windsor is also the home of the LEGENDARY JOHNSONS, so the south = retards holds true for us as well.

[Valaris]

...

I'm pretty sure that my marriage doesn't lose significance anytime a gay couple gets married.

What was it that had been established in the Election 2008 thread? "If you have to profess yourself as a liberal or a nice guy/start your statement with 'Now, I'm a pretty liberal guy...', chances are..."

Isn't that the equivalent of starting a sentence with "no offence but..."?

[odin]

Windsor is also the home of the LEGENDARY JOHNSONS, so the south = retards holds true for us as well.

hahahaha I was going to bring that up too
fucking Windsor

[Black Jesus]

You're fucking daft bro. You missed the part where someone was claiming Alaska was north of Canada. I pointed out that wasn't true. It wasn't even MY theory about the whole north is smarter than the south thing, I just rolled with it. You already looked like a tool with your first post,
The only thing toolish about my post is how hard I'm dicking you.


got called on it by a few people, and now keep talking like you still have a point. Get over it dude: YOU'RE FUCKING LOST. We're talking about CANADA compared to THE USA, not Alaska vs. Ontario or whatever dumb shit you'd like to pretend the conversation was about. Yes, Alaska is north of me. I'd never deny that, because I'm not a fucking twat. You, however, are going off about something that doesn't even make sense, and pretending you're putting me in my place when really all you're doing is making it obvious you don't even know wtf the discussion was about in the first place.
Jae's post was about ALASKA in relation to Canada, not the entire U.S. The fact that you're too ignorant to recognize that or that you choose to ignore it is not my concern. You can huff and puff and throw a temper tantrum all you want to. it doesn't change the fact that your shitty logic is easily refuted.


Also, for the record, Canada does all equal one area. It all equals the area called "Canada." Wow.

Did I miss anything? Oh, yeah you made an edit:


No, our argument is that Ellesmere Island is a PART of Canada, just like Alaska is a PART of the USA, and that the PART we're talking about is further north than the PART you were talking about.

HOORAY FOR ZERO READING COMPREHENSION!


I'm glad your celebrating your disease. The entire point is that you're using selective logic to support your point and you're too dumb to see it. Even Dadesi recognizes the fault in your logic. Because of your inability to admit fault, the lowest part of Canada is below the lowest part of Alaska which is what Jae's post (you know, the one you replied to without comprehending?) was referencing, which makes Canada South of Alaska by the bullshit you're spreading as "logic." The fact that other people agree with you just means they're as dumb as you are.

[Shaft Agent]

What the fuck man. Seriously!? :annoy:judge probably found her attractive. as a Louisianian, i've noticed whites absolutely not giving a shit about interracial couples if the white chick is nasty sloppy fat, or trashy looking. "oh look at those two! they look so in love! look at her grill! it's so shiny! they have matching Hurricane Chris tattoos!" the second some black guy is walking around with Ali Landry on their arm "the fuck is wrong with her??? y she like convicts? McCain would never approve of this..."

in conclusion i'd say yeah, it's racism, but it's just as much umadism as racism.

Laisse Le Bon Temp Rouler!

[b4k4]

...

I'm pretty sure that my marriage doesn't lose significance anytime a gay couple gets married.

What was it that had been established in the Election 2008 thread? "If you have to profess yourself as a liberal or a nice guy/start your statement with 'Now, I'm a pretty liberal guy...', chances are..."
Implicate what ever you want about my political alignment, I don't really care. I know where I stand, and I wanted to qualify that because generally anyone speaking against gay marriage would be assumed to hold conservative values by default: people are quick to judge you for the side of an issue you take, not the reason you take that side. I also never participated in that election thread. Either way what you think about my political values has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand.

That you are a married man (or woman, can never be too sure on t3h intarwebz) who doesn't feel affected by this is fine: it's obviously not my claim that everyone would. However, what about the people who are married and DO believe in preserving the meaning of the union into which they have entered as one which clearly defines the legal and/or spiritual union of a man and a woman. What about their rights to the word which explicitly describes the union they share? It's not about the marriage losing significance because some gay people decide they'd like to enter into a similar union, it's about the term "marriage" being hijacked to entail meanings which are currently not entailed under that term. I do know people who feel that way, and to be honest I can see their point. Whether or not it is of significance to you doesn't mean it isn't of significance to someone, and I believe that they have a legitimate concern in this regard. As the definition currently stands, semantically speaking it is not possible for a gay couple to be "married," because two men, or two women, cannot possibly form a union between "a man and a woman."

What if Canada suddenly decided it was going to call itself "The United States of America," would that be cool? I mean, we've got provinces... those are like states. We're in the Americas, after all. We're united, so long as Quebec never manages to bust loose. Obviously this is hyperbole, but it still makes my point: The United States of America is a term which already has a clearly defined meaning, and that meaning does not encompass Canada, and Canada should therefore attempt to lay no claim to it. Just as "marriage" is a term which already has a clearly defined meaning, and that meaning does not encompass homosexual couples. Should that meaning be broadened to incorporate homosexual couples as well, or should they find a new term to describe the otherwise comparable unions they may form? At the very least, I believe you should all take this as food for thought, and when doing so remember that there are people who really do care about preserving the current definition of "marriage," just as there are doubtless those who would care about ensuring Canada doesn't hijack your country's name, or acquire it in any manner short of absorption into the USA.

[NegroNinja]

What if Canada suddenly decided it was going to call itself "The United States of America," would that be cool? I mean, we've got provinces... those are like states. We're in the Americas, after all. We're united, so long as Quebec never manages to bust loose. Obviously this is hyperbole, but it still makes my point: The United States of America is a term which already has a clearly defined meaning, and that meaning does not encompass Canada, and Canada should therefore attempt to lay no claim to it.

No no you go ahead there, and we'll even call ourselves Canada. You can covert that astronomical bill of ours while you're at it.

[Muff Daddy]

Yo, later for Geometry Wars (http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/geometry_wars_galaxies.jpg). Sierra needs to make Geography Wars.

[DaDesiCanadian]

The North American legal system is heavily dependent upon semantics. Calling gay marriage "marriage" has much more significance than simply "hijacking" a word. Giving the union the term "marriage" also grants the couple a lot of rights.

[HBRD]

Ugh. America, fuck yeah :bluu:

[Amordien]

The North American legal system is heavily dependent upon semantics. Calling gay marriage "marriage" has much more significance than simply "hijacking" a word. Giving the union the term "marriage" also grants the couple a lot of rights.

Thanks for grasping this. The potential stripping of rights due to naming gay marriage anything other than "marriage" disturbs me.


Jazz


I'm seriously beginning to see everyone that says"What about those who care what 'marriage' means?!" just as I see the judge saying "Well, people don't respect mixed babies!". In any event we can exchange titangraphs all day, completely detracting from the point of the thread. I'm more interested in the major issue at hand. Canada has already dealt with gay marriage and that works for me. :tup:

[b4k4]

Jae's post was about ALASKA in relation to Canada, not the entire U.S. The fact that you're too ignorant to recognize that or that you choose to ignore it is not my concern. You can huff and puff and throw a temper tantrum all you want to. it doesn't change the fact that your shitty logic is easily refuted.
Ok, I realize that this is one of those internet arguments where nobody is ever going to concede something, so let me break this down into very clear steps to illustrate what happened.

This is what you claim happened:

Jae made a post about Alaska's position relative to Canada, and not the entire USA. I agree with this point 100%.

The point that I made was about Canada's position relative to Alaska. See, Jae had asserted that Alaska was north of Canada. This is not true. It is north of many parts of Canada, however my point about Ellesmere Island illustrated that there are parts of Canada north of Alaska. Call me ignorant as much as you like, but you cannot argue everything that I have stated above. You have made no refutation of my logic at any point, and have simply chosen to run with your own misinterpretation of this discussion.

To make my point more clear, claiming that Alaska is north of Canada (the point that I illustrated was clearly not true by demonstrating the northern latitude of Ellesmere Island) is like me claiming that Yao Ming is shorter than me. There are certainly parts of Yao Ming which are shorter than me (i.e. his knees, or to use an analogy more directly related to our case, Ontario as compared to Alaska). However, to leave the discussion at that would be to completely ignore the fact that parts of Yao Ming are also certainly taller than me (i.e. his head, or in the case of our discussion, Ellesmere Island as compared to Alaska).

So what, exactly Black Jesus, is the ignorance you are accusing me of being guilty of?




I'm glad your celebrating your disease. The entire point is that you're using selective logic to support your point and you're too dumb to see it. Even Dadesi recognizes the fault in your logic.
Sorry, I must have missed that. Can you quote the post in which DaDesiCanadian claimed he felt my logic was flawed? This is an honest request: if he made any such claim, I have not seen it.


Because of your inability to admit fault, the lowest part of Canada is below the lowest part of Alaska which is what Jae's post (you know, the one you replied to without comprehending?) was referencing, which makes Canada South of Alaska by the bullshit you're spreading as "logic." The fact that other people agree with you just means they're as dumb as you are.
Canada is south of Alaska but also north of it. This is my point.

DaDesiCanadian's original assertion was this:


By your logic, the more southern you are, the stupider you get.

We're North of America.
By "we", he was here referring pronominally to Canada.

Then we have jae hoon's post


Yeah but you are South of Alaska so by that logic that means Sarah Palin is the smartest woman ever.
The issue here is with the ambiguity of the pronoun "you." In this case, it can be interpreted as either being the plural reference to a group of individuals, in this case Canadians. Given that DaDesiCanadian was referring to Canada on the whole in his point, the reference of "you" was likely to this group, that is to say, Canadians. The alternative is that he was referring specifically to DaDesiCanadian by employing "you" as a singular second person pronominal reference, rather than a plural second person pronominal reference. Even if this were true (the latter case in the meaning of "you" in this ambiguous dialogue), what I then posted as a complete joke about Santa > Inuit > Sarah Palin > The rest of Canada > USA > Mexico is still 100% true, assuming of course that we take for granted that being north makes you smarter, the postulate upon which this whole conversation was based.

Santa, being at the North Pole, is obviously the northernmost cat in the whole world, 'nuff said. The Inuit people inhabiting Ellesmere island, being north of Alaska, and therefore Sarah Palin, would be smarter than her. Sarah Palin, being in Alaska which is north of the rest of Canada, would be smarter than the parts of Canada south of her, which I freely admitted in that post. The rest of Canada (i.e. me) being north of most of the rest of the USA (i.e. you, and to avoid any pronominal ambiguity I'm going to explicitly say I'm talking to you here, Black Jesus) means that I am, as clearly indicated by this post, smarter than you. USA is north of Mexico, which I just dropped in for a final laugh, blah blah blah.

I also find it fascinating that you would accuse me of having flawed logic, and then say something like:


The fact that other people agree with you just means they're as dumb as you are.
I could say the exact same thing about anyone agreeing with you. Oh wait, did anyone do that? Nope. I guess people aren't as dumb as I thought... or at least don't live as far south in the US as you.

:smokin:

[jae hoon]

This thread just proves Palin's mental capabilities. It is her plan to draw Canada in a war when she wins Presidency. Then Canada will quickly surrender due to its large French populous and will be redubed The United States of America/Canada. She will also kill Celine Dion to rid the world of terrorism.

BTW when I said you were south of Alaska I was talking about you syrup eating moose ridding milk drinking out of a bag guys. Not fucking Canartic.

[DaDesiCanadian]

this is my first, and last time ever typing out this shitty phrase:

tl;dr

[Valaris]

She will also kill Celine Dion

I'd love her forever if she did that.

[b4k4]

Thanks for grasping this. The potential stripping of rights due to naming gay marriage anything other than "marriage" disturbs me.
Let me ask you a direct question, Amordien, and please answer it directly:

What would your objection be to extending homosexual couples the exact same rights and privileges under law as any other legally married couple within that society, but using a different term to identify the union? Names aside, the two would be exactly equal, except that one would describe a heterosexual pair, and the other would describe a homosexual one.

As for this:


I'm seriously beginning to see everyone that says"What about those who care what 'marriage' means?!" just as I see the judge saying "Well, people don't respect mixed babies!".
Would you care to explain why you would so readily assume a position of such bigotry?

[Irennicus]

Come on guys, why don't you believe him? He lets his piles of black friends use his bathroom. His bathroom!

And all at the same time.

[DaDesiCanadian]

Let me ask you a direct question, Amordien, and please answer it directly:

What would your objection be to extending homosexual couples the exact same rights and privileges under law as any other legally married couple within that society, but using a different term to identify the union? Names aside, the two would be exactly equal, except that one would describe a heterosexual pair, and the other would describe a homosexual one.


Uhh what? You quoted the answer to your question, then asked the question...

[Valaris]

B4k4, you still haven't even addressed the most critial issue at hand: what about the sherbet?

[Iduno]

And all at the same time.

Maybe him and his friends are playing sardines.

[RushedDown]

the guys a dick head big deal this kinda shit happens every day

just go to a judge who's not a dickhead... problem solved

[DaDesiCanadian]

B4k4, you still haven't even addressed the most critial issue at hand: what about the sherbet?

I'm close to reaching a resolution.

[eltwopee]

i am so glad i live in California and more specifically the bay area. I am mixed with black and white and I and my parents have had no problems in life with it.

[b4k4]

Uhh what? You quoted the answer to your question, then asked the question...
Not really, because I'm saying that if laws were to be amended in such a way that a gay marriage entailed exactly equal rights at all points to a heterosexual marriage, but simply were to be called something other than a marriage, would that still be an issue?

[Muff Daddy]

Not really, because I'm saying that if laws were to be amended in such a way that a gay marriage entailed exactly equal rights at all points to a heterosexual marriage, but simply were to be called something other than a marriage, would that still be an issue?

Bro...


The potential stripping of rights due to naming gay marriage anything other than "marriage" disturbs me.

[odin]

i am so glad i live in California and more specifically the bay area. I am mixed with black and white and I and my parents have had no problems in life with it.

aside from all the guns, drugs, gangs, deaths
at least the bay accepts mixed couples

[b4k4]

Sigh... Muff Daddy, I'm saying that if the laws were redesigned in such as way as to ensure rights could be stripped in no such way, what would be the issue in using another term?

This is strictly hypothetical. All other things being equal, what's wrong with using a different word?

[eltwopee]

aside from all the guns, drugs, gangs, deaths
at least the bay accepts mixed couples

hell yeah.. I mean.. I will get robbed and shot but it will because i'm rich and not a cause im a mutt.

[JustB]

First of all:


See the issue here is that the definition of marriage currently clearly defines the physical sex of the people involved.

Fixt.

Secondly.


This is strictly hypothetical. All other things being equal, what's wrong with using a different word?

Because it leaves the door open for discrimination. It's the same reason why "blacks" and "whites" no longer have separate laws. It's pretty fucking simple: Separate is not equal.

[jae hoon]

I saw we get rid of marriage all together. It is an outdated idea that is only used to fuel the economy and give women free houses.

[Kourin-chan]

Sigh... Muff Daddy, I'm saying that if the laws were redesigned in such as way as to ensure rights could be stripped in no such way, what would be the issue in using another term?

This is strictly hypothetical. All other things being equal, what's wrong with using a different word?

What the hell is wrong with using the word "marriage"? The definition of MANY things have evolved over the years, so why can't the same be done with the word "marriage"? So many people can't grasp change, or fight against it so long. You're basically just denying a set of privileges against a certain type of people based on their sexual orientation. The last time I checked, that's known as discrimination.

/rant

[Muff Daddy]

Sigh... Muff Daddy, I'm saying that if the laws were redesigned in such as way as to ensure rights could be stripped in no such way, what would be the issue in using another term?

This is strictly hypothetical. All other things being equal, what's wrong with using a different word?

Ugh. Amordien said that the potential stripping of rights due to naming gay marriage anything other than "marriage" disturbs him. Even if the laws were designed and codified such that the rights couldn't be stripped in any way, it still doesn't negate the potentiality of said rights being stripped/denied in the future. The law says that you can't refuse to marry someone simply on the basis of race, but yet this guy—a justice of the peace for 34 years—is doing it down in Louisiana.

You can point to a law all day and say, "See, it says right there that you can't deny so and so this right!" That's never mattered. Think back to when black folks first got the right to vote. Sure, it was technically against the law to prevent them from casting a ballot, but it wasn't technically illegal for someone to create a poll tax or a literacy test as a condition for voting either. Legislation that is supposed to protect/guarantee rights is never air-tight the first time around.

[DaDesiCanadian]

But apparently that makes Amordien a bigot. :rolleyes:

[Endaeias]

Because it leaves the door open for discrimination. It's the same reason why "blacks" and "whites" no longer have separate laws. It's pretty fucking simple: Separate is not equal.

Bold is probably the best way of describing why renaming it to something else doesn't bode well. However, I do believe Great Britain considers homosexual 'marriage' as a Civil Partnership. Personally, it doesn't mean that it's totally seperate; but in some countries it will be seen as a form of segregation between those that are heterosexual and those who are homosexual.

Personally, I just feel that homosexual couples should have every single right that a heterosexual one has. All persons should be allowed to marry whomever they feel fit, regardless of sex or race. Mind you, I'm not stating that we go back to our earlier ancestors' style of marriage (teenage girls/women). But, I do think that race and sex should not be discrimination natures in regards to someone's marriage.

[Eshmasesh]

See the issue here is that the definition of marriage currently clearly defines the gender of the people involved. I actually feel that the desire of many members of the gay community to encroach upon this definition in order to contain single-gendered couples is an affront to the happily married heterosexual couples elsewhere in the world. The issue really isn't around whether or not a gay couple should be able to enter into a legally recognized partnership that grants them the same rights and privileges as any married couple, it's about whether or not they should be allowed to call such a union a "marriage." Personally, I feel that the definition of this term should be preserved. A new term should be devised to describe a single-gendered couple bound in such legally binding ways, but currently married couples should not be forced to "broaden the definition" of such a long-standing word, and certainly should not be forced off of the word and made to invent another defining something that the current term already explicitly delineates.

I realize this is likely a controversial point, and many of you may not agree with me, but I feel that the integrity of the word "marriage" should be preserved as is. This isn't an issue of minority rights; it's actually an issue of a minority trying to strip away important institutionalized ceremonies and adapt them for their own needs.You do realize that if you create some institution which is, theoretically, completely equal in every way to marriage between a heterosexual couple you are effectively allowing them to marry anyway? All you're doing is pointlessly creating a new word.

Yes, pointlessly. There is no such thing as "integrity" for words - language is inherently dynamic and constantly changes as a reflection of how society uses it. There is nothing "important" about keeping marriage defined as between a male and female, and adapting its definition doesn't strip away shit.

[eltwopee]

its 2009.. seriously guys

[b4k4]

Because it leaves the door open for discrimination. It's the same reason why "blacks" and "whites" no longer have separate laws. It's pretty fucking simple: Separate is not equal.
I'm not suggesting separate laws, I'm suggesting the same ones. Who said anything about separate? Oh, separate terms? Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. Lots of things are not equal.

It's funny because your response makes clear exactly what the issue at hand is: you are able to differentiate between "blacks" and "whites." For the record, I'm Caucasian, and I wouldn't go around asking my black friends to call me "black" any more than a black person would go around asking to me to call them "white." You know why? Because the two are different, and those differences are being preserved. I can also differentiate between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual one. I think that the hyper-PCness of our generation may actually be a bad thing, as it fails to recognize that all things are really not equal. I have less melanin than a black person; I am not equal. A homosexual couple contains a different physical gender pairing than a heterosexual one; they are not equal.

I agree that both should have exactly equal rights under law. The same laws should apply to them! Does that mean I should start calling myself black, because blacks and whites are equal?

[spudlyff8fan]

This thread just proves Palin's mental capabilities. It is her plan to draw Canada in a war when she wins Presidency. Then Canada will quickly surrender due to its large French populous and will be redubed The United States of America/Canada. She will also kill Celine Dion to rid the world of terrorism.

BTW when I said you were south of Alaska I was talking about you syrup eating moose ridding milk drinking out of a bag guys. Not fucking Canartic.

In that whole thing, the stupidest aspect of Sarah Palin is that she would actually WANT Canada. I mean seriously, who would want that snowball?

[eltwopee]

. A homosexual couple contains a different physical gender pairing than a heterosexual one; they are not equal.



Its not like I would just jump on a man's couch, I mean come on who does that?... So anyway, when I was jumping on eddie murphy's couch.

[Kourin-chan]

Its not like I would just jump on a man's couch, I mean come on who does that?... So anyway, when I was jumping on eddie murphy's couch.

:rofl: You win for that.

[Monte]

in this case it's disgusting but if he denied a white dude from marrying an asian broad i'd probably give him a high five.

[RushedDown]

I saw we get rid of marriage all together. It is an outdated idea that is only used to fuel the economy and give women free houses.

this is the best idea i have heard in forever

i have so many relatives and friends who could be free if this happened :smile:

[b4k4]

You do realize that if you create some institution which is, theoretically, completely equal in every way to marriage between a heterosexual couple you are effectively allowing them to marry anyway? All you're doing is pointlessly creating a new word.

Yes, pointlessly. There is no such thing as "integrity" for words - language is inherently dynamic and constantly changes as a reflection of how society uses it. There is nothing "important" about keeping marriage defined as between a male and female, and adapting its definition doesn't strip away shit.
A circle is very similar to an oval: they are both geometric figures with no vertexes. Why don't we just do away with one of these terms, then, and apply the same term to both? The reason we don't do this is because it is important to be able to differentiate between the two. Words do have an "integrity" as such, because they are intended to convey unique meanings. If the definition of a circle were expanded to include ovals, our language would have lost the ability to uniquely identify an important geometric figure (the circle) with the proper word. Someone obviously recognized this, and thus circles and ovals were assigned different words.

You should change your statement that there is 'nothing "important" about keeping marriage defined as between a male and a female' to say that 'there is nothing "important" to you about keeping marriage defined as between a male and a female.' Obviously there is something "important" about it to a lot of other people, though, otherwise it would never have been an issue. Just because something isn't an issue for you, doesn't mean it's not important.

Also, adapting the definition would strip meaning away from the term. In the field of semantics (the field of meaning/word-meaning, in academics), there is a theory of word meaning which breaks a word into the separate components which comprise the meaning of the word. To give an example, "marriage" currently has components of meaning such as [legal union], [between two people], [male and female], [requires ceremony of wedding to be performed], etc. If you adapt the meaning, you are stripping it of one part of its unique meaning, being the [male and female] component.

One of the boons of language is that it allows for us to make very specific references with very few words. To broaden a definition in such a way would be to make the language less specific, and would actually result in meanings becoming watered down and diluted.

[Higher-Jin]

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. If he thinks interracial marriage is immoral then who are you to tell him he's wrong? You crazy liberals are just being intolerant.


:rolleyes:

[eltwopee]

@B4K4

just say you hate the gays.. it will strengthen your stance.

[Muff Daddy]

It's funny because your response makes clear exactly what the issue at hand is: you are able to differentiate between "blacks" and "whites." For the record, I'm Caucasian, and I wouldn't go around asking my black friends to call me "black" any more than a black person would go around asking to me to call them "white." You know why? Because the two are different, and those differences are being preserved.

The reason you wouldn't go around asking your black friends to call you black is because that shit wouldn't make any damn sense.

If you came down to Detroit wearing a bunch of hip hop gear while sporting cornrows in your hair and talking slang, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to imagine that someone might say to you that you're the whitest black person they've ever met.


I agree that both should have exactly equal rights under law. The same laws should apply to them! Does that mean I should start calling myself black, because blacks and whites are equal?

No, because that wouldn't make any sense. And this analogy is bad.

Edit: b4k4, what do you think the purpose of the words "black" and "white" (as they are applied to persons) is?

[Amordien]

Sigh... Muff Daddy, I'm saying that if the laws were redesigned in such as way as to ensure rights could be stripped in no such way, what would be the issue in using another term?

This is strictly hypothetical. All other things being equal, what's wrong with using a different word?

This is my final time humoring you. You're just posturing and beating your dick without paying attention.

Why would you go through all this extra effort if they're the exact same thing?! Why are you so deadset on denying that "term" to people?

Since you feel like "directly asking", I'm going to "directly inform".

My family is just now coming together after having gone through broom jumping way back yonder ages ago, then being separated due to being enslaved, so the the "marriage ceremony not being recognized by others" is a personal dart for me. I'm not playing the "Hypothetical bullshit" game. I addressed you due to what is. Any thing other than marriage would NOT be equal, hence the need for separate terms. It's "Broom Jumping" meets "Separate, But Equal" for the new ages. You'd have to be a goddamn FOOL to think the USA is going to be kind and give them equal rights. It may not be Jim Crow era bad, but it's still not right.

"Civil Unions" are a perfect example of what I mean by "stripped rights". A guy shouldn't have to fret whether his lover's work will cover him under benefits because they have a "union" and not a "marriage". A lesbian pairing shouldn't panic over adoption rights. Hell, they have to worry about whether the state will even recognize the term UNION!

You can shuffle around hypothetical jazz all you want. Fact of the matter is, it's a separate but equal issue, and history has taught us that "separate but equal" is anything but equal.



The thing is it's not even true. I've got a bunch of gay friends with whom I'm completely cool, and even hang out with on a regular basis.

"I even let them use my bathroom!" :rofl:

[Eshmasesh]

A circle is very similar to an oval: they are both geometric figures with no vertexes. Why don't we just do away with one of these terms, then, and apply the same term to both? This is a terrible analogy. It is important to differentiate between a circle and an oval because circles are a unique instance of the same mathematical function and exhibit special properties. Please tell me how this is at all congruent to marriage, a social institution.

[b4k4]

@B4K4

just say you hate the gays.. it will strengthen your stance.
The thing is it's not even true. I've got a bunch of gay friends with whom I'm completely cool, and even hang out with on a regular basis. People will automatically assume that being opposed to gay marriage means that you dislike homosexuals or are trying to deny them rights. That's not at all the case: on the contrary, I'm trying to establish that there are numerous rational reasons for using a different term. What's surprising is that nobody is even willing to acknowledge the validity of this position, and seem to think I'd like to deny homosexuals rights, which is certainly not the case.

[Muff Daddy]

A circle is very similar to an oval: they are both geometric figures with no vertexes. Why don't we just do away with one of these terms, then, and apply the same term to both?

Because that would be really stupid, for one. And two, how is this in any way analogous to the discussion of marriage? You've thrown out circle/oval and black/white as analogues to civil union/marriage, but there's no logical connection. (Or at least the analogies aren't helping me think any clearer about the issue at hand, which is what analogies are typically supposed to accomplish.)

[Kourin-chan]

@b4k4
There IS no RATIONAL reason to be against gay marriage, whatsoever. And it seems like no matter how many gay friends you have, in the end, you still see them as different. That's pretty much the gist of what I gather from your posts.

[Endaeias]

The thing is it's not even true. I've got a bunch of gay friends with whom I'm completely cool, and even hang out with on a regular basis. People will automatically assume that being opposed to gay marriage means that you dislike homosexuals or are trying to deny them rights. That's not at all the case: on the contrary, I'm trying to establish that there are numerous rational reasons for using a different term. What's surprising is that nobody is even willing to acknowledge the validity of this position, and seem to think I'd like to deny homosexuals rights, which is certainly not the case.

I understand your point of view, b4k4. You're not trying to take away their rights (or refuse them the ability to have them); but you're trying to establish the point of view that it's okay to have the same rights under a different title. I don't think you're homophobic or that you "hate gays." But what I was trying to say is that if you try to rename something, sometimes it just doesn't bode well. It all depends on the sociological point of view. Like I've said, homosexuals in Great Britain are fine with it being considered a "Civil Partnership". They have the same rights. Hell, you can even bring your significant other over to GB and get married. Then you can apply for a Civil Partnership visa (they do have them; just like marriage visas). It's not the lack of rights, it's the seperate classification. It's not essentially needed, is it?

[Muff Daddy]

It's not essentially needed, is it?

It's not needed, he's just going through really weird mental contortions to try and make his point.

Here's b4k4:

"Hey guys, since the laws apply equally to blacks and whites, why don't we just start calling whites blacks and blacks whites? I mean, if it's all the same game then it's all the same name, right?"

Or, "Hey guys, since both circles and ovals lack vertexes, why don't we just start calling circles ovals and ovals circles. I mean, they're both kinda roundy at the end of the day, right?"

But then his shit breaks down when he says:
"Hey guys, since marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, why don't we just come up with a new term for gay people that do the same marriageyish thing? I mean, if they both enjoy the same rights, then what's in a name?"

The names don't matter in the first two, but then the name becomes all important in the third one.

[odin]

saying marriage is between a man and a woman is an outdated belief
its a coming together of 2 people in one union

gays are the same as red-headed people to me
they are rare but doesnt mean they are different

[El Chupa Negro]

Dude is wrong for denying them the right to marry . yo marriage is marriage this bull shit calling it a union or partnership is the shit that has created the bullshit hoes that fuck up the game for the women who actually plan on being with this dude pass his youth.

Honestly and truly If I choose to get in a relationship and consider that person worthy and special enough to live with for the rest of my life regardless of how much pussy is out there to be had that says something about that persons character.

[b4k4]

"I even let them use my bathroom!" :rofl:
You know what, fuck you. This is just inflammatory. Either I say I hate queers and they should all burn, in which case I'm a homophobe, or I say I have gay friends and enjoy their company, in which case I'm overcompensating? Obviously there's nothing I can say to "the internet" in order to be taken seriously, but maybe I should've known that and just kept my mouth shut. You know what? Yeah, I let them use my fucking bathroom. I treat them exactly the same as any other friends I have, except I wouldn't call them "straight" because it's not true.


This is my final time humoring you. You're just posturing and beating your dick without paying attention.

Why would you go through all this extra effort if they're the exact same thing?! Why are you so deadset on denying that "term" to people?
I'm not dead set on anything, I'm making a valid position clear, and proceeding to get gang-raped by SRK GD because nobody else in here is willing to acknowledge the validity of protests against this issue made on these grounds. I'm saying that I understand the position of people opposed to allowing the use of the same term, and illustrating that they do, in fact, have a valid concern.


My family is just now coming together after having gone through broom jumping way back yonder ages ago, then being separated due to being enslaved, so the the "marriage ceremony not being recognized by others" is a personal dart for me. I'm not playing the "Hypothetical bullshit" game. I addressed you due to what is. Any thing other than marriage would NOT be equal, hence the need for separate terms. It's "Broom Jumping" meets "Separate, But Equal" for the new ages. You'd have to be a goddamn FOOL to think the USA is going to be kind and give them equal rights. It may not be Jim Crow era bad, but it's still not right.
I'm not sure who you're quoting on the "marriage ceremony not being recognized by others" since I never said that, so I'll overlook it. I also had to look up the term broom jumping because I was unfamiliar with it, or had forgotten it since seeing Roots when I was 12. I'm not saying I think the USA is going to give them equal rights, so I don't see where that's relevant.

My whole point is that there is actually a legitimate concern for people who want to preserve the definition of "marriage," and that it isn't motivated by homophobia or any kind of discriminatory tendencies.


"Civil Unions" are a perfect example of what I mean by "stripped rights". A guy shouldn't have to fret whether his lover's work will cover him under benefits because they have a "union" and not a "marriage". A lesbian pairing shouldn't panic over adoption rights. Hell, they have to worry about whether the state will even recognize the term UNION!

You can shuffle around hypothetical jazz all you want. Fact of the matter is, it's a separate but equal issue, and history has taught us that "separate but equal" is anything but equal.
I agree that they shouldn't have to worry about it. A simple resolution would be to include a clause somewhere in US law stating that X (where X = whatever term is used to describe a homosexual marriage) may be substituted anywhere the term "marriage" occurs within law. Look, I know you don't want to deal in hypotheticals, and I never claimed that this was a practical route to resolving the issue. I think this post has made clear what aspect of this issue I am trying to emphasize.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to address the rest of you in a second, but I'm having a hard time keeping up since I've got about 5 people addressing comments to berate me and I'm the only person in this thread actually defending my position. Give me time, people. Even in the time it's taken me to write this post, I've got 5 new posts I need to respond to.

[Carpet Lint]

Oh man I wish I jumped in here earlier before it got so bonkers and off topic. I going preface this post by saying I haven't really read through this thread.
in this case it's disgusting but if he denied a white dude from marrying an asian broad i'd probably give him a high five.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING

Now if only this courageous Louisianan justice of the peace would apply this progressive forward thinking to other interracial couples as well - that should be what we're all striving towards.

Also, TECHNICALLY...this man has done no wrong.

It's not like he's the only one in the world that can sign and approve these marriage certificates. According to the article, he has never denied the right of these couples to marry. All he's done is refuse to sign their certificates. He's not saying they can't get married, he's just saying he's not going to do it. Is he legally obligated to sign every request that passes his desk? That's the question, I think.

Doesn't he have the personal right to hold his own beliefs? He doesn't believe in interracial marriage, and he's not going to participate in one. He's not stopping one, he's just telling them to go somewhere else for it. I'm in full devil's advocate mode here, but theoretically there's not really a difference between this guy and a hypothetical florist that refused to do my hypothetical interracial wedding because they only do Jewish orthodox weddings and none others.

I don't think he's at fault for not wanting to do it.

I just think the reason he gave for not wanting to do it makes him look kind of silly, what with the political correctness and so forth that we all demand of people in the year 2009.

And if I was a judge, you best believe I would be denying all the requests put forth to me personally by white males/Asian female couples. I'd be swatting that shit into the fifth row and doing the Mutombo finger wag in their dirty interracial faces.

:nono:

DENIED

[Muff Daddy]

We should just settle this like Early from Squidbillies.

Straight couples get married, gay couples get marriage-a-fied.

Straight couples have a marriage ceremony, gay couples have a marriage-ification ceremony.

I keed I keed.

[odin]

what about asian male/white female couples?

[Carpet Lint]

what about asian male/white female couples?
I would use all of my hypothetical legal powers to expedite their marriages as quickly as I could.

Honestly, if I was a judge I'd be denying all sorts of marriage requests.

Fat people, OUT. :nono: I don't support their breeding. If you're over 250 pounds, I'm not signing SHIT. I want to weed out any possible fat genetics out of the human gene pool as a service to humanity.

Likewise with ugly people, swatted. Poor people, blocked. Albinos, pinned to the glass. Vegans, not in my house. Midgets, even if it's a recursive gene, get that shit out of here.

:nono:

I'd be the Dwight Howards of judges, just sending everything into the crowd.

[Iduno]

I would use all of my hypothetical legal powers to expedite their marriages as quickly as I could.

Honestly, if I was a judge I'd be denying all sorts of marriage requests.

Fat people, OUT. :nono: I don't support their breeding. If you're over 250 pounds, I'm not signing SHIT. I want to weed out any possible fat genetics out of the human gene pool as a service to humanity.

Likewise with ugly people, swatted. Poor people, blocked. Albinos, pinned to the glass. Vegans, not in my house. Midgets, even if it's a recursive gene, get that shit out of here.

:nono:

My sarcasm detector is on the blink today so I'm just going to come out and say this.

You do realise that genetalia works perfectly well before marriage as well as after?

[Carpet Lint]

What's your point?

I would have no legal recourse to prohibit people from creating undesirable bastard children outside of wedlock. (Hook shots, three pointers.)

All I could do is prevent them from doing it within a federally recognized marriage with tax benefits and social approval. But that I would do.

What, just because someone scores a point you give up and quit? Come on son, there's 47 more minutes to play. You get some you don't.

[DeathReaper47]

Snip

"I can't be racist, I know black people!"

I always love that argument.

[Muff Daddy]

Honestly, if I was a judge I'd be denying all sorts of marriage requests.

Fat people, OUT. :nono: I don't support their breeding. If you're over 250 pounds, I'm not signing SHIT. I want to weed out any possible fat genetics out of the human gene pool as a service to humanity.

Likewise with ugly people, swatted. Poor people, blocked. Albinos, pinned to the glass. Vegans, not in my house. Midgets, even if it's a recursive gene, get that shit out of here.

:nono:

I'd be the Dwight Howards of judges, just sending everything into the crowd.

Or when they show up to your office you tell them to hop in your car and drive to the nearest basketball court.

You pull a ball out of your trunk and point to the rim like, "Okay let's see each of you jam it."

They're like: :confused: "Erm ...okay"

The guy slams it down like BOOYA BITCH!!! COME ON HONEY SHOW HIM THAT YOU CAN JAM!!!

But then the female fails and falls on her ass like Woody Harelson in White Men can't jump and you're like MARRIAGE DENIED!!!

[b4k4]

The reason you wouldn't go around asking your black friends to call you black is because that shit wouldn't make any damn sense.

If you came down to Detroit wearing a bunch of hip hop gear while sporting cornrows in your hair and talking slang, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to imagine that someone might say to you that you're the whitest black person they've ever met.
I know what you mean, and I'm the only caucasian at my workplace (a recording studio), and everyone else there is black. They tell me I have a "black soul" etc. because I fit in really well, mostly due to my socio-economic background, having come up in a predominantly Trini/Jamaican/Guyanese area in my home town. I fit in more with these people than I do with your typical suburban white folk. When they refer to me as one of their "niggas," I see it as an honorific title. That doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't try to convince them I'm "black," because I'm not.


Edit: b4k4, what do you think the purpose of the words "black" and "white" (as they are applied to persons) is?
As applied to persons it either a) describes having traits uniquely identifiable to a particular racial background, or b) describes a manner of behaviour associated with people of these groups, as in our above examples.


Because that would be really stupid, for one. And two, how is this in any way analogous to the discussion of marriage? You've thrown out circle/oval and black/white as analogues to civil union/marriage, but there's no logical connection. (Or at least the analogies aren't helping me think any clearer about the issue at hand, which is what analogies are typically supposed to accomplish.)
The logical connection I was trying to make was that in the case of circles and ovals it is important to be able to differentiate between the two for various reasons. I'm coming at this issue from the perspective of a sympathizing linguist, I guess you could say. I'm merely pointing out that oval/circle, black/white, marriage/gay marriage are all effectively different things, and that this is the reason there are different words for them.


@b4k4
There IS no RATIONAL reason to be against gay marriage, whatsoever. And it seems like no matter how many gay friends you have, in the end, you still see them as different. That's pretty much the gist of what I gather from your posts.
Of course I see them as different. I'd be stupid not to. Quick news flash: THEY ARE DIFFERENT. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing! I love gays! The more men who are going around screwing each other, the less there are standing between me and the women I'm interested in :rofl:. That's just me being pragmatic, but in all seriousness, when did it become an issue to identify different things as different? I don't call a car a truck? Why? Because they are different. I don't call my gay friends straight. Why? Because they are different. Your post is a perfect example of what I meant about our generation becoming hyper-sensitive to political correctness, to the point that we're afraid to admit anyone is different at all.

Moreover, you make the issue seem more clear cut than it is by saying there is no "RATIONAL reason to be against gay marriage." See, I'm not against anything, least of all gay people being allowed to enter into legally recognized relationships extending all the same privileges as those extended to heterosexual married couples. What I have pointed out, however, is that there certainly is a rational reason not to call such homosexual unions "marriages."


I understand your point of view, b4k4. You're not trying to take away their rights (or refuse them the ability to have them); but you're trying to establish the point of view that it's okay to have the same rights under a different title. I don't think you're homophobic or that you "hate gays." But what I was trying to say is that if you try to rename something, sometimes it just doesn't bode well. It all depends on the sociological point of view. Like I've said, homosexuals in Great Britain are fine with it being considered a "Civil Partnership". They have the same rights. Hell, you can even bring your significant other over to GB and get married. Then you can apply for a Civil Partnership visa (they do have them; just like marriage visas). It's not the lack of rights, it's the seperate classification. It's not essentially needed, is it?
First of all I want to say thanks for at least admitting you understand the perspective I'm coming from, as everyone else in this thread seems adamant about refusing its legitimacy. I agree that it is a sociological issue. Whether or not different terms are essentially needed depends on whether or not other people within the society feel that their cultural identity is being encroached upon by the broadening of the definition, I suppose. I think that if people think that things sacred to them are being taken away by the expansion of meanings important to their culture to include things which are directly opposed to their value system (i.e. the schism between Christianity, the institution which coined the English term "marriage," I am sure, and their "moral" opposition to homosexuality), then it should be taken seriously as an issue.


It's not needed, he's just going through really weird mental contortions to try and make his point.

Here's b4k4:

"Hey guys, since the laws apply equally to blacks and whites, why don't we just start calling whites blacks and blacks whites? I mean, if it's all the same game then it's all the same name, right?"

Or, "Hey guys, since both circles and ovals lack vertexes, why don't we just start calling circles ovals and ovals circles. I mean, they're both kinda roundy at the end of the day, right?"

But then his shit breaks down when he says:
"Hey guys, since marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, why don't we just come up with a new term for gay people that do the same marriageyish thing? I mean, if they both enjoy the same rights, then what's in a name?"

The names don't matter in the first two, but then the name becomes all important in the third one.
Why is the name so important in the third case? Also, why wouldn't it matter in the first two? My point is that the name very much matters, in all three of these cases. Can you explain what you see the difference as being?


This is a terrible analogy. It is important to differentiate between a circle and an oval because circles are a unique instance of the same mathematical function and exhibit special properties. Please tell me how this is at all congruent to marriage, a social institution.
It is important to differentiate between a marriage and a similar union between two individuals because a marriage is a unique instance of the same sociological function and exhibits special properties (male/female pairing as opposed to male/male or male/female).

Also, I was just checking your music out, and I liked the sounds. I'm looking into getting a new synth right now, I'm wondering if you can tell me what one you're using? Is it software or hardware? I have access to a Korg Radias at work, but I want to get something I can play around with at home to make some stuff of my own.


"I can't be racist, I know black people!"

I always love that argument.
I wasn't making any kind of argument, and nobody was accusing of me of being a homophobe ("racist" in your example). Somebody suggested I should pretend to be one to make the thread more interesting, and it's just not what I'm about. I'm sure you're very much enjoying your fallaciously drawn conclusion that I despise t3h homos and wish they would stop having all that butt secks.

[Vynce]

Arf?

[Irennicus]

Ya know, I don't think it'd be racist if he really did apply that line of logic to every single interracial marriage he came across. I don't agree with doing that, but at least he's holding the standard high and clear and isn't treating any one race with more discrimination than another.

I wouldn't consider that racist, just ignorant.

[Carpet Lint]

I love gays!
:u: Honestly like the only thing I really picked up from that post.


Or when they show up to your office you tell them to hop in your car and drive to the nearest basketball court.

You pull a ball out of your trunk and point to the rim like, "Okay let's see each of you jam it."

They're like: :confused: "Erm ...okay"

The guy slams it down like BOOYA BITCH!!! COME ON HONEY SHOW HIM THAT YOU CAN JAM!!!But then the female fails and falls on her ass like Woody Harelson in White Men can't jump and you're like MARRIAGE DENIED!!!

How cool would it be if you could ball your way out of criminal charges?

Like if you were arrested for something, and then instead of a criminal court of law everyone just surrounds a basketball court, and watch them throw you the ball and go "PLAY FOR YOUR FREEDOM!!!"

And then for serious charges like murder or rape or whatever they'd bring in the big guns, like "Now presiding...at 6'8", 250 pounds, from Akron, Ohio...please stand for the honourary...JUUUUUDGEEEEE JAAAAAAMES!!!" and out walks LeBron in judges robes and a headband.

And then all the uneducated kids with hoop dreams will instead all become like lawyers and judges and so forth in this new legal system.

Or you could choose whatever game you could play if you were weren't any good at basketball. Like you could choose to play MvC2 or something, but if you raped someone or got caught drunk driving they'd bring out Justin Wong (in judges robes and a headband still) and then you'd be LOCKED UP.

I'd be Chief Justice of the Ministry of Chu Chu Rocket Justice within six months, I'm not even kidding.

[Superking]

I don't know, between this http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/15/japan.custody.battle/index.html and the stupid kid hiding in his attic while the world thought he was reenacting the movie Up, that judge may have a point there.

Obviously I'm joking, but not related to this topic, the two things I mentioned are sorta related and somewhat lols.

[b4k4]

:u: Honestly like the only thing I really picked up from that post.
I thought you guys would enjoy that.

:wink:

[Kousen]

I understand your point of view, b4k4. You're not trying to take away their rights (or refuse them the ability to have them); but you're trying to establish the point of view that it's okay to have the same rights under a different title. I don't think you're homophobic or that you "hate gays." But what I was trying to say is that if you try to rename something, sometimes it just doesn't bode well. It all depends on the sociological point of view. Like I've said, homosexuals in Great Britain are fine with it being considered a "Civil Partnership". They have the same rights. Hell, you can even bring your significant other over to GB and get married. Then you can apply for a Civil Partnership visa (they do have them; just like marriage visas). It's not the lack of rights, it's the seperate classification. It's not essentially needed, is it?

Yeah the separate classification is not need. But that wouldn't bode well either brother. Cause of people like the one in the article. What I am trying to get to is that, people are going to bitch about it either way. Me personally i could care less if it was marriage or civil union. I don't care because in the it doesn't harm me or fuck me over. But people are going to bitch and grape anyways. So I say let them bitch and grape.

[Muff Daddy]

The logical connection I was trying to make was that in the case of circles and ovals it is important to be able to differentiate between the two for various reasons. I'm coming at this issue from the perspective of a sympathizing linguist, I guess you could say. I'm merely pointing out that oval/circle, black/white, marriage/gay marriage are all effectively different things, and that this is the reason there are different words for them.

Okay, here's where you're getting hung up. There are varying levels of importance when it comes to the need for someone to be able to identify the distinguishing characteristics of a given thing.

With regard to circles and ovals: you say that it's important to be able to differentiate between the two for various reasons. I'm with you here. If a bike manufacturer doesn't know the difference between a circle and an oval and conflates the two ...well they won't be a bike manufacturer for very long. If someone hires a contractor to build a pool in their backyard in the shape of a circle but ends up with an oval, then that's obviously wrong.

With regard to "black" and "white" as they are applied to persons: if you come home one day and see a man walking from the general direction of your house carrying your big screen TV with the Ryu sticker on it, you'll be required to name the distinguishing characteristics of the suspect if you make a police report. The distinguishing characteristics of an individual helps in the process serving up Great Justice in societies in which there are a variety of possible suspects. If Wesley Snipes robs your house, you'll be required to accurately name the distinguishing characteristics of Wesley Snipes. If Brad Pitt robs your house, you'll be required to accurately name the distinguishing characteristics of Brad Pitt. Social convention dictates that you'll describe them using the conventional labels (as either white or black) as the situation requires.

With regard to "marriage" versus "civil unions" (or "gay marriage"), the justification for having separate terms with which to describe such unions is necessarily weaker than the above two examples because it's not clear why we need to categorize the union according to sexuality with the same degree of precision as that which is required of a contractor's building plans or the description of a criminal suspect. Unless you can demonstrate that two distinct terms for marriage are required for precision purposes, the justification will always be weaksauce. If the only justification you can provide is, "Well, it's always been this way," then it fails.

[Kourin-chan]

but in all seriousness, when did it become an issue to identify different things as different?

Its an issue because you're using those differences AGAINST homosexuals; instead of just viewing them as fellow citizens entitled to the exact same rights and privileges all people are entitled to, you're making distinctions against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit, aka DISCRIMINATING. That's why in my opinion, being against gay marriage is NOT rational. What do YOU have to gain from gays not being able to marry? And would it affect you THAT much?


See, I'm not against anything, least of all gay people being allowed to enter into legally recognized relationships extending all the same privileges as those extended to heterosexual married couples.

Well let's see, with a good amount of states that are against gay adoption and the like, I don't see that happening anytime soon until people stop being afraid of marriage evolving into more than a heterosexual union.

[eltwopee]

i think one thing that we all can agree on....

ovals and circles should never be allowed to have intershape marriages.

[yah yaahh b*tch!]

" I didn't tell this couple they couldn't get married. I just told them I wouldn't do it."


Well. Alright then.

[Septimus Prime]

recursive gene
Those things manifest themselves!

[DaDesiCanadian]

:u: Honestly like the only thing I really picked up from that post.



How cool would it be if you could ball your way out of criminal charges?

Like if you were arrested for something, and then instead of a criminal court of law everyone just surrounds a basketball court, and watch them throw you the ball and go "PLAY FOR YOUR FREEDOM!!!"

And then for serious charges like murder or rape or whatever they'd bring in the big guns, like "Now presiding...at 6'8", 250 pounds, from Akron, Ohio...please stand for the honourary...JUUUUUDGEEEEE JAAAAAAMES!!!" and out walks LeBron in judges robes and a headband.

And then all the uneducated kids with hoop dreams will instead all become like lawyers and judges and so forth in this new legal system.

Or you could choose whatever game you could play if you were weren't any good at basketball. Like you could choose to play MvC2 or something, but if you raped someone or got caught drunk driving they'd bring out Justin Wong (in judges robes and a headband still) and then you'd be LOCKED UP.

I'd be Chief Justice of the Ministry of Chu Chu Rocket Justice within six months, I'm not even kidding.

i think i laughed at like every line of this post

[Kzoh]

You've obviously never been to Louisiana where it is not, in fact, 2009.

THANK YOU.People are close minded around here.

[Stuckey]

I read this earlier on CNN and got mad as fuck. You know that? That justice better watch his back like the Resident Evil 5 camera angle.

[FighterX]

"I can't be racist, I know black people!"

I always love that argument.

"I let them use my bathroom."

Oh, so that's the racial gauge now, whether or not you'd let a black person use your bathroom? :rofl:

That's the first thing racists go for when they want to cover up when called on b.s.. "I've got lots of black friends." You can have friends of all colors and still be racist.

[JubeiNinja69]

i think its ok if its white and asian.

[Gray Fox]

I sleep well at night knowing that each generation has become more liberal than the last and racist/homophobic sentiments only become less popular.

Conservatives will lose in the end.

[Will Gotti]

You know I was gonna post in here because my dad asked me if I heard about tis. I just glanced over the thread and it figures, people are talking about gay marriage. This isn't about fucking gay marriage. Simple as 1,2,3 it ain't about that shit. When prop 8 was getting talked about, nobody was vying for interracial marriage. Every single time this type of thing happens.

[Radiantsilvergun3]

Not really, because I'm saying that if laws were to be amended in such a way that a gay marriage entailed exactly equal rights at all points to a heterosexual marriage, but simply were to be called something other than a marriage, would that still be an issue?Because if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a fucking duck. Changing the name isn't going to magically change that.

[HirumaNC]

Srsly..WTF?!

[Shishioh]

THANK YOU.People are close minded around here.

Co-signed.

We even have a couple Uncle Ruckus' down here in N.O.

[goodm0urning]

Didn't we just have two history-making events occur in the progress of race relations?

1. First black president.

2. First U.S. senator in a mixed race marriage.

On balance, this judge isn't a big deal. Just a hick with a little too much authority and a misplaced sense of responsibility.

P.S. There is no harm whatsoever in letting gays marry. Seriously, anybody who says their opposition boils down to the specific use of the word "marriage" is bullshitting everyone, possibly even themselves. Never mind how worrying it is that quibbling over the word is essentially clinging to the separate-but-equal mentality.

[Endaeias]

You know I was gonna post in here because my dad asked me if I heard about tis. I just glanced over the thread and it figures, people are talking about gay marriage. This isn't about fucking gay marriage. Simple as 1,2,3 it ain't about that shit. When prop 8 was getting talked about, nobody was vying for interracial marriage. Every single time this type of thing happens.

You're definitely right, Will. But as you said, every time ... this is going to happen. If it's something about unequal/unjust relationship troubles, it's going to result in homosexual marriages. It's a doomed situation. Interracial marriage, on the other hand, should have just been something with less trouble than that of Proposition 8. Yet, here we are with this issue at hand.. it's typical, isn't it?

[Gray Fox]

1)There is no such thing as traditional marriage

2)Many things that were traditionally considered ok in many popular religions are not now.

3) The united states is not governed by the bible (even though it may seem that way). We have a separation of church and state. You are welcome to be bigot all you want, more power to you. You just can't bring your bigotry into legislation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzeSE0JvRcI

[souji5]

Kinda funny that it happened in one of the most mixed up states in the country. I mean come on Creole? Cajun? Races have "intermingled" down there since America was founded..... Maybe the Rev should step out of the pew and into the quarter...Idiot

[Flushes]

This thing could be on the Onion and nobody would know any better.

[Amordien]

You know what, fuck you. This is just inflammatory.

I've been laughing because you obviously take yourself way more seriously than you should. I told my boxing crew about your bullshit and they fell out laughing. In any event, you probably will meet me in person if you pop up at a tournament. Keep that in mind while you run off at the mouth talking about "Fuck You", sunshine.


Obviously there's nothing I can say to "the internet" in order to be taken seriously, but maybe I should've known that and just kept my mouth shut.

We're in agreement on the "should have known" and "kept my mouth shut" part. I promise you that I'd laugh at you in person as well though, not just on "the internet".


You know what? Yeah, I let them use my fucking bathroom. I treat them exactly the same as any other friends I have, except I wouldn't call them "straight" because it's not true.

Yes. They're not straight. Now. I want you to go to any gay friend you have and try to have this conversation on how the term "marriage isn't valid for them because it's not a union between male and female". Let me know how that conversation pans out for you. :tup:


I'm not dead set on anything, I'm making a valid position clear, and proceeding to get gang-raped by SRK GD because nobody else in here is willing to acknowledge the validity of protests against this issue made on these grounds. I'm saying that I understand the position of people opposed to allowing the use of the same term, and illustrating that they do, in fact, have a valid concern.

That's because they are invalid views. Invalid, bigoted, frightened, insecure views. This "You have that thing and we'll have this thing" view is elementary school shit. It truly is.


I'm not sure who you're quoting on the "marriage ceremony not being recognized by others" since I never said that, so I'll overlook it. I also had to look up the term broom jumping because I was unfamiliar with it, or had forgotten it since seeing Roots when I was 12. I'm not saying I think the USA is going to give them equal rights, so I don't see where that's relevant.

So all of your bullshit about ovals and circles, black and white, apples and oranges, and you can't notice the link between calling a supposedly equal thing an "other" and the potential issue it might cause to call a "union" something other than a "marriage"? :lol:


My whole point is that there is actually a legitimate concern for people who want to preserve the definition of "marriage," and that it isn't motivated by homophobia or any kind of discriminatory tendencies.


Is it fun being that fucking delusional and stupid? They say "ignorance is bliss", but...

Let me explain how you're coming off, since you want to bring up "Black" and White". It's as if there's a White supremacist saying "I hate nigras, latinos and jews". Then there's a White separatist saying "I don't necessarily HATE others. I just don't want to live near/work with/raise my kids around others". Then I'm seeing you pop up and saying "Well, they DO have a valid concern. Black people hold (insert crime statistic), latinos have been known to (insert crime statistic), and Jews (insert New World Order ramble)"

You opted to defend an unpopular point of view. It's unpopular for a reason. You can dance around vocabulary phrases and definitions all you want, but it's homophobia. I, as a straight cisgendered male, have NO issue with gay people being married. It. Doesn't. Damage. My. Marriage. To say "This isn't marriage because there's no male-female coupling, and I refuse to acknowledge it as an actual marriage" is watered down, candy-coated homophobia and "other"ing. Say whatever the fuck you want, but it's bullshit. Period.


I agree that they shouldn't have to worry about it. A simple resolution would be to include a clause somewhere in US law stating that X (where X = whatever term is used to describe a homosexual marriage) may be substituted anywhere the term "marriage" occurs within law.

Keep up with that "othering" bit (http://i982.photobucket.com/albums/ae306/pimpbot_9000/jimcrow.jpg). As said, have that chat with your imaginary gay friends and let me know how that works for you.




I'm going to address the rest of you in a second, but I'm having a hard time keeping up since I've got about 5 people addressing comments to berate me and I'm the only person in this thread actually defending my position. Give me time, people. Even in the time it's taken me to write this post, I've got 5 new posts I need to respond to.

No one "berated" you until just now. You deserve more than a measly jab at your posturing and strutting for the "fuck you" and calling me a "bigot" when you're actively defending the closet bigot stance here.

There's a reason you have five other people to adress, jackass. Take a hint.

I'm out. Have fun lying to yourself.

[omfg]

Okay, here's where you're getting hung up.
*snip*
just wanted to say, beautiful argument

[Gray Fox]

Another thing I'm kind of confused by, Muff Daddy weren't you arguing the opposite of your current position before?(in previous threads concerning this subject) Do I have you confused with someone or am I misinterpreting you or something?

[Rhio2k]

Because if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a fucking duck. Changing the name isn't going to magically change that.

Weren't they offered that, but then got all pissy and wanted it to actually be called marriage instead of civil union?

[ReggieHadoken]

Heard about this a few days ago. Pretty messed up. This story alone will hopefully lose him a lot of marriage ceremonies. And he actually pulled out the "I know lots of black people" card. Man, the stupidity on that one never gets old.

[DeathReaper47]

Another thing I'm kind of confused by, Muff Daddy weren't you arguing the opposite of your current position before?(in previous threads concerning this subject) Do I have you confused with someone or am I misinterpreting you or something?

I remember him saying that he didn't care either way, which is kinda where I'm at. It doesn't effect me in any kind of way(except the eyesores of seeing same sex people kissing), so I just don't give a shit.

[El Chupa Negro]

Interesting how nothing has to do with Interracial marriage in this thread. Denying anyone marriage based on race is bad for the human gene pool and society. I mean whats next we are gonna start separting who marries who by region. I can't marry a chick from new york because she can't adjust to my climate down south ? The fuck is wrong with this world because this isn't just one case probably this shit happened in the 50s 60s this is an on going problem .I see more divorcees of the same race on tv bitching and going to court for the simple fact that people grow apart or the relationship can't advance anymore. Is the judge really serious he acts like people don't just have differences and problems that prevent a relationship from continuing . Dude should have retired along time ago he is not fit to be a judge he has a biased opinion on interracial marriage and has probably stopped many great couples from following their dreams .

[Radiantsilvergun3]

Weren't they offered that, but then got all pissy and wanted it to actually be called marriage instead of civil union?I don't get what you're saying. They got offered Marriage and turned it down cause they want it to be called Marriage and not civil union?

I'm saying that it's stupid to create a new system so that gays can get "married" and have all the benefits married couples get and then call it something else. If it entitles everything that comes with marriage call it it marriage cause that's what it is.

[Gray Fox]

You and your respective religion do not have to acknowledge Gay or interracial marriage.

However it's another thing ENTIRELY to enter that into law. We have a separation of church and state in the US and you cannot use religious text as government edict.

[Rhio2k]

I don't get what you're saying. They got offered Marriage and turned it down cause they want it to be called Marriage and not civil union?

I'm saying that it's stupid to create a new system so that gays can get "married" and have all the benefits married couples get and then call it something else. If it entitles everything that comes with marriage call it it marriage cause that's what it is.

If I remember right, civil unions were granted by court, but these folks wanted ceremonies in church and shit, so they were all pissed cuz they wanted to get hitched like straight people. And I think it's pretty fucked up to force churches to be a party to something that goes against their scripture.

[Gray Fox]

If I remember right, civil unions were granted by court, but these folks wanted ceremonies in church and shit, so they were all pissed cuz they wanted to get hitched like straight people. And I think it's pretty fucked up to force churches to be a party to something that goes against their scripture.

Wrong, they wanted to be given the right to marry, not the right to have "civil unions". As it has been stated a million times, separate is not equal. Why is this so difficult to grasp.

[omfg]

I think I see where b4k4 is fucking up. he kinda argues a little bit like me. I sorta get it when he says "you don't call a truck a car". where he's messing up is that the thought formed in his head is way off.

picture it: the word "truck" hasn't been made yet. an indescriptive man needs to transport a bunch of shit. he tells the guys "I'm gonna need all you guys to bring cars here to load this shit up". they all bring ACTUAL cars, he gets pissed off, they get pissed off because he's pissed off at them. "Not THAT kind of car! I meant the long kind that carries loads of stuff!" so one smart guy in the group says "You know what? From now on, let's just call it a transport car and the normal kind a car." everyone agrees. So from then on out, if he needs 80 cars he says "I need 80 cars" and if he needs 80 trucks he says "I need 80 transport cars". along the line, some guy gets fuckin sick of saying transport car. he starts saying truck. truck easier to say.. truck is one syllable one word; transport car is 3 syllable 2 words. everyone adapted, now it's a truck.

the reason "civil union" doesn't satisfy gay people is because the words "civil union" come from literally nowhere. it's not easier to say, it's BARELY easier to type, it's two words edit: (this is supposed to mean two RANDOM words. I am well aware that "gay marriage" is two words and that "civil union" is just as many words. do not patronize me), and it's 1 syllable more than gay marraige. that indicates a COMPLETE separation from marriage between a man and a woman, as if saying a union between two men and two women can't even be classified as merely a different type of marriage*. if this isn't the case, then why can't it have the root word?

"civil union" doesn't even hint that it MIGHT be marriage based on wording. to me, the law pretty much seems like they're trying to say that feeling attraction and love for a member of the same sex is something only sexual deviants are into (take a look at Romeo & Juliet laws. notice it doesn't apply to gay couples). civil union at best SOUNDS like "Well, we haven't killed each other yet and we're working together as one." :xeye: Fuck, every single one of you who's employed has a civil union

not that I'm gay or even plan to marry at all, but how the fuck does that sound in normal ass conversation. I'd be embarassed to say it. "Good looking guy like you, are you married?" "No, but I have a civil union with my lover Henry" wtf.

*I remember hearing a saying when I was little. "Gay guys are gay because they can't find a girl to be with, so they get with other guys". can you imagine someone so pathetic? think of homosexuality in this manner as you read on.

when you were little, ever had one of those conversations with your friends about what getting laid is? we could all pretty much agree that if the girl strokes you to orgasm, you didn't get laid. if she sucks your dick, you got SUPER lucky... but you still didn't get laid. if you stuck it up her pussy or her ass and thrusted in and out, THEN you got laid. the law recognizes heterosexual couples because they have gotten laid, metaphorically and literally. with homosexual couples, if we use heterosexual rules, you didn't get laid if it's a guy's ass you plowed. you didn't get laid if it was penetration by a tongue or a dildo either. the law's like.. "so you got tongued/fucked another man. you didn't get laid."

[Gray Fox]

snip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAOxY_nHdew&feature=related

Gay people aren't annoyed that it's two words, but that they are treated differently than anyone else.

[b4k4]

I've been laughing because you obviously take yourself way more seriously than you should. I told my boxing crew about your bullshit and they fell out laughing. In any event, you probably will meet me in person if you pop up at a tournament. Keep that in mind while you run off at the mouth talking about "Fuck You", sunshine.
Ah yes, because I'm sure they got an objective assessment of the course of the conversation. Call me a bigot, to my face or otherwise, and I will get upset, because I'm anything but one, and unless you can show me where I've demonstrated bigotry anywhere in this thread, I doubt you'll be able to pull that off. In fact, I'm just going to quickly quote the entries on bigot (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot) and bigotry (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry) while we're at it:

Bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Sorry, would you care to show where I have demonstrated my intolerance of any differing creed, belief, or opinion? Don't try to draw on the "implications" of my defense of the term marriage, which has nothing to do with my attitude towards homosexuality, which is wholly accepting.

Bigotry - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

If anything, reading these definitions has shown me that you are bigoted against my arguments, which have been received with much skepticism, hatred, and an overall lack of serious contemplation on your part. You are clearly bigoted against an individual expressing their views opposing the naming of gay "marriages" as such, and have responded with "complete intolerance" to my creed.


We're in agreement on the "should have known" and "kept my mouth shut" part. I promise you that I'd laugh at you in person as well though, not just on "the internet".
Have fun with that. Galileo "should have known" to "keep his mouth shut" when he challenged the Catholic Church's enshrined view that heavier objects accelerated more quickly under gravity's pull. However, he, like myself, chose instead to speak out and knowingly voice an unpopular and controversial point of view. For it he was thanked with a life in exile, and for my part I get to deal with you.


Yes. They're not straight. Now. I want you to go to any gay friend you have and try to have this conversation on how the term "marriage isn't valid for them because it's not a union between male and female". Let me know how that conversation pans out for you. :tup:
Much to your chagrin, I am sure, I have had this conversation with them. As you can see from this thread, I am not one to shy away from controversy. While they still thought that they should be allowed to use the term "marriage," they agreed that there is validity to the position that the term already holds a unique meaning referencing heterosexual couples, and therefore should not apply to homosexual ones.


That's because they are invalid views. Invalid, bigoted, frightened, insecure views. This "You have that thing and we'll have this thing" view is elementary school shit. It truly is.
Invalid how? Calling something invalid is very different from demonstrating it. Instead of addressing the issue, however, you again resort to your strategy of attacking me personally (suggesting my views, and therefore myself, are bigoted, frightened, and insecure) rather than attempting to hold a discussion to actually assess the merit of the topic at hand. Perhaps this is because you are so bigoted against the idea, so "completely intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from your own" that you feel the need to attack me?


So all of your bullshit about ovals and circles, black and white, apples and oranges, and you can't notice the link between calling a supposedly equal thing an "other" and the potential issue it might cause to call a "union" something other than a "marriage"? :lol:
I have never, over the course of this entire discussion, said that a gay union and a heterosexual marriage are "equal." What I have said is that both should have exactly equal protection under law. However, I must reiterate that there are many differences between a gay and heterosexual couple, including, but not limited to:

The physical gender of involved persons.
The nature of sexual relations between said persons.
The potential to procreate in order to produce offspring.

Clearly, the two are not equal. However, I do believe they should both receive equal treatment insofar as any legal issues surrounding such unions are concerned.


Is it fun being that fucking delusional and stupid? They say "ignorance is bliss", but...
So how exactly am I delusional, stupid, or ignorant? Oh right, these are just more personal attacks intended to infuriate me, rather than to actually further the course of a discussion your own bigotry prevents you from being able to engage objectively in. Moving on...


Let me explain how you're coming off, since you want to bring up "Black" and White".
First of all, read the thread. I didn't "bring up" the black and white issue, JustB did in this post (http://forums.shoryuken.com/showpost.php?p=7694944&postcount=83). I was provided with a counter-point, and I addressed that post by following along in subsequent arguments. Thanks for making fallacious claims, though. I appreciate your attempted propaganda campaign against me: it's keeping me sharp.


It's as if there's a White supremacist saying "I hate nigras, latinos and jews". Then there's a White separatist saying "I don't necessarily HATE others. I just don't want to live near/work with/raise my kids around others". Then I'm seeing you pop up and saying "Well, they DO have a valid concern. Black people hold (insert crime statistic), latinos have been known to (insert crime statistic), and Jews (insert New World Order ramble)"
How is it anything like this? I've never made any generalizations, throughout the course of this thread, about any group of individuals, black, white, straight, gay, or otherwise. The only traits I've associated with any group are those necessitated by the definition of the term used to identify them (i.e. a black person has more melanin than a white one, provided they aren't an albino in case you feel like throwing that at me). You're actually at the point where your own bigotry towards me has lead you into imagining that I am bigoted. "Whoah, this guy doesn't instantly get behind the gay marriage movement. He must be a bigot! I bet you he thinks racists have valid concerns, is a total eugenicist, and reads Mein Kampf every night before going to sleep!"

The whole paragraph of yours I've quoted above is literally nothing an expression of your suspicion that I am probably racist, without me having made any indication that this is actually the case. Would you care to provide any evidence?


You opted to defend an unpopular point of view. It's unpopular for a reason. You can dance around vocabulary phrases and definitions all you want, but it's homophobia.
No, it isn't. Since homophobia (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia) is "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality," and nowhere in anything I've said have I demonstrated a fear of or antipathy towards any homosexuals at all. This is, again, you leaping to conclusions about my character because you choose to assume that anyone not immediately on the gay marriage bandwagon is a homophobe, while throughout this entire thread I have demonstrated that there are motivations for preserving the unique definition of the term "marriage" which are not products of homophobia.


I, as a straight cisgendered male, have NO issue with gay people being married. It. Doesn't. Damage. My. Marriage.
Um, what does cisgendered mean? That one is new by me. Congratulations on not having an issue with it. Personally, abortion doesn't irk me so strongly that I'd lobby against it, but obviously there are those who care that much. What I have been doing in this thread is try to open the eyes of adamant supporters of the gay marriage movement to the fact that not everyone who is opposed to it is homophobic. Nonetheless, it seems that you Amordien would categorically place anyone asking that the term "marriage" not be used to describe gay couples into the category of homophobic. You do realize what this makes you, don't you? Prejudiced. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudiced) You are wholly unwilling to acknowledge that the preservation of a term such as marriage/circle/orange is legitimate


To say "This isn't marriage because there's no male-female coupling, and I refuse to acknowledge it as an actual marriage" is watered down, candy-coated homophobia and "other"ing. Say whatever the fuck you want, but it's bullshit. Period.
It is "othering," or to use an actual word, "differentiating (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/differentiating)" (there you go, stretch that vocabulary of yours) because the two are different. I don't go around calling myself a "nigga" because the word doesn't describe me, and because it has much historical connotation around the word which might offend certain groups if I use it insensitively, so I don't do it. However, I know many people who can lay legitimate claim to the descriptive purpose of that word, and will use it self-referentially at will. Do I get in a huff over this and demand that I, too, be granted "nigga" status? No, I recognize that I am a "cracka," I am other, I am different (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/different). Are the people who would be offended by me referring to myself as "nigga" racist? Not necessarily, as there are more forces at work here than just racism. Similarly, if a gay couple were to go around calling their union a "marriage," even though the current definition of the word (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage) explicitly references heterosexual couples, what of the historical connotation of the word, and the certain groups who are interested in preserving that unique meaning? Just as a white person should not be able to insist upon privileged access to a term that does not describe them, just as a guy who once took a first aid course should not be able to call himself a doctor, so too should a gay couple not be able to insist on using a word which already has a clearly defined meaning which excludes them. All words differentiate meaning in this way: they indicate what something is, and also what it is not. The current definition of marriage is very clear on this point.

Why should that have to change?



Keep up with that "othering" bit (http://i982.photobucket.com/albums/ae306/pimpbot_9000/jimcrow.jpg). As said, have that chat with your imaginary gay friends and let me know how that works for you.
Since I worked next to a gay man in a call center for about 2 years, we had the chance to cover a lot of ground on down time between calls, and no I didn't hesitate to discuss controversial subjects.


No one "berated" you until just now. You deserve more than a measly jab at your posturing and strutting for the "fuck you" and calling me a "bigot" when you're actively defending the closet bigot stance here.
I called you a bigot because, unlike me, you're actually openly displaying bigoted tendencies. As for me, you're just assuming that I'm a bigot because it's convenient for you: it allows you to deflect my (entirely non-bigoted, non-homophobic) arguments by fallaciously concluding that they are derived from my bigotry, which is wholly a product of your imagination, unless you'd care to use the actual definition of the term and then make specific reference to a point in time where I have exemplified bigotry, as I have done to you. "Closet bigot" is the best you've got on me. You're saying "I can't prove the guy's a bigot, but I just know he is! My bigot sense is tingling!" You know what? Try to slander me, publicly or otherwise, and a "fuck you" is your just desserts. You got what you deserved.


There's a reason you have five other people to adress, jackass. Take a hint.

I'm out. Have fun lying to yourself.
Yeah, the reason is that I'm actually driving a stimulating discourse, whereas you're badgering me because you'd love to think I'm what you think I am.

I'm still in, because I'm not the hit-and-run kind of poster who likes to throw up a wall of bullshit with more holes than the ozone layer, and then bounce feeling self-righteous.

I'll see you at the next tournament, and we can continue this in person. I'm curious to see if you can actually make a cohesive point or if, as I suspect (note: I am admitting I have no evidence! I'm not a bigot like you. I am other) you'll try to hit me off with a few personal attacks, appeal to an audience for laughs, and then roll out like you actually presented a logically sound argument.


*snip*
Thanks for taking the time to understand my point, and paraphrasing it in a way that hopefully others will be able to understand.

[lefty lizard]

I thought this was 2009?

maybe up north,but in the south they still want it to be 1915.:lol:

[omfg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAOxY_nHdew&feature=related

Gay people aren't annoyed that it's two words, but that they are treated differently than anyone else.
uh... I'm a little disturbed. you're calling me a dumbass because of your own mistake.. please quote any point of any post I've ever made that directly states "gay people are annoyed by civil union because it's two words".

edit: I can see how you might've thought that by mistake, but you're still stupid for doing so

may God have mercy on YOUR soul.. :wtf:


Thanks for taking the time to understand my point, and paraphrasing it in a way that hopefully others will be able to understand.
I didn't paraphrase your point; I explained the angle it should've came from

in the analogy, think of car as marriage and transport car as gay marriage. a truck's called a transport car before we called it a truck. we were used to it being a transport car. at least the name "transport car" indicated that it has its roots in "car". civil union has no such indication. if

[Muff Daddy]

Another thing I'm kind of confused by, Muff Daddy weren't you arguing the opposite of your current position before?(in previous threads concerning this subject) Do I have you confused with someone or am I misinterpreting you or something?

I got annoyed in the prop 8 thread when people started saying that black people had to be for gay marriage because the issue was so obviously similar to the interracial marriage thing.

My position was always that the government doesn't need to be a mediator on the question of what constitutes "marriage"—meaning that things like "prop 8" (and any legislation waxing poetic on the "definition of marriage") should never come up for a vote at the state or federal level. In a supposedly "free society", you'd be able to do whatever your inclinations drove you toward so long as you're not hurting someone else. I don't get how the governments of so-called Western Civilization can be wringing its hands over the definition of marriage when the ancient Greeks were poking young boys in the booty all the live long day as they laid the foundation for the what we call "empirical shit".

I just don't give a shit either way, like goodm0urning said. All I said was that I, personally, like female booty, cherish it faithfully, and is where babies come from. People come from vaginas and that's an incontrovertible fact. Me getting annoyed with gay rights folk who name-drop the black/white division in this country for their own political gain (funny how the issue always comes up predictably in either situation) is just the other side of the coin of the libertarian in me who says that people should be left the fuck alone.

[Gray Fox]

I got annoyed in the prop 8 thread when people started saying that black people had to be for gay marriage because the issue was so obviously similar to the interracial marriage thing.

My position was always that the government doesn't need to be a mediator on the question of what constitutes "marriage"—meaning that things like "prop 8" (and any legislation waxing poetic on the "definition of marriage") should never come up for a vote at the state or federal level. In a supposedly "free society", you'd be able to do whatever your inclinations drove you toward so long as you're not hurting someone else. I don't get how the governments of so-called Western Civilization can be wringing its hands over the definition of marriage when the ancient Greeks were poking young boys in the booty all the live long day as they laid the foundation for the what we call "empirical shit".

I just don't give a shit either way, like goodm0urning said. All I said was that I, personally, like female booty, cherish it faithfully, and is where babies come from. People come from vaginas and that's an incontrovertible fact. Me getting annoyed with gay rights folk who name-drop the black/white division in this country for their own political gain (funny how the issue always comes up predictably in either situation) is just the other side of the coin of the libertarian in me who says that people should be left the fuck alone.

I had to laugh at the goodmourning comment because I made that mistake too. Despite the fact that deathreaper47 has a superman avatar it isn't goodmourning haha.

I have to disagree with one point though. People should be free to do what they want as long as its not hurting anyone else, but isn't not allowing people the right to have the same rights as someone else hurting them?

I dunno, I think if we took the same concepts being discussed here and replaced black or minority or interracial with gay it's the same thing.

[voodazz]

This sounds like an Onion article.

I love racism!

[Tiberious]

First off, in regards to the OP, shit was just fuckin' retarded. But, what would I expect from Louisiana, such a blue state it's choking to death?


I got annoyed in the prop 8 thread when people started saying that black people [/i]had to be for gay marriage because the issue was so obviously similar to the interracial marriage thing.

My position was always that the government doesn't need to be a mediator on the question of what constitutes "marriage"—meaning that things like "prop 8" (and any legislation waxing poetic on the "definition of marriage") should never come up for a vote at the state or[i] federal level. In a supposedly "free society", you'd be able to do whatever your inclinations drove you toward so long as you're not hurting someone else. I don't get how the governments of so-called Western Civilization can be wringing its hands over the definition of marriage when the ancient Greeks were poking young boys in the booty all the live long day as they laid the foundation for the what we call "empirical shit".

I just don't give a shit either way, like goodm0urning said. All I said was that I, personally, like female booty, cherish it faithfully, and is where babies come from. People come from vaginas and that's an incontrovertible fact. Me getting annoyed with gay rights folk who name-drop the black/white division in this country for their own political gain (funny how the issue always comes up predictably in either situation) is just the other side of the coin of the libertarian in me who says that people should be left the fuck alone.

Thing is, the ancient Greeks only married a woman to get her pregnant, and create a generation of not-so-ancient Greeks. The common practice was you had your baby-maker at home, and your 'true love' was of the same sex. Obviously, had all the Greek men been solely homosexual, they wouldn't've lasted long.


I too am not that wild about the fight for gay marriage, but for a different reason. My take on the matter is that when the time is right, it is something that will happen naturally. Where the popular resistance truly comes from is the attempt to legislate acceptance. I've said it before, but when it comes to this issue, the gay community is its own worst enemy. I won't go further unless asked. I've posted it in other places enough.

[thurst]

i actually have no problem with what the guy did. if it's legal for pharmacists and doctors to not perform certain duties that violate their conscious why isn't it ok for a justice of the peace? he's not going thru any motions to obstruct them from being married he's just not willing to be a party to it.

[HazeandFire]

I always believed there was something fundamentally wrong with any person telling any other person what they can or cannot do.

And by always, I mean since I started smoking weed :smokin:. On the real though I had a homophobic upbringing until I learned how disgusting it is when someone tells you "You can't do what you want to do because IT'S THE LAW", like that has anything to do with right and wrong.

Sanctity of marraige and concern for children went way out the window when divorce rates reached 50% for me :rolleyes:. Homophobia... racism... people need to realize that children aren't confused with same-sex/interracial/group marraiges, it's just adults that are confused. It's shit like this that in my coming of age made me realize that the adults in the world I once looked to for answers are just as confused and illinformed as I. Fact is, as long as the law allows segregation of same sex couples, children in public schools will continue to bully, target, and physically harm gays, and feel justified while doing so.

TL;DR If you're not my father or mother, your opinion is opinion and should have no more power over me than mine has over you, whether your a justice of peace, a cop, or a politician.


First off, in regards to the OP, shit was just fuckin' retarded. But, what would I expect from Louisiana, such a blue state it's choking to death?
You're as intolerant as the people you are critisizing.

[Will Gotti]

First off, in regards to the OP, shit was just fuckin' retarded. But, what would I expect from Louisiana, such a blue state it's choking to death?

First off, stfu with the red state vs. blue state politics.

EDIT: BTW Louisiana isn't a blue state, it's a purple state just like "Porkopolis", Ohio.

[thurst]

@b4k4
There IS no RATIONAL reason to be against gay marriage, whatsoever. And it seems like no matter how many gay friends you have, in the end, you still see them as different. That's pretty much the gist of what I gather from your posts.

lol this is laughably false.

[bl4rg3s]

Loving V Virginia

[rehab]

Have fun with that. Galileo "should have known" to "keep his mouth shut" when he challenged the Catholic Church's enshrined view that heavier objects accelerated more quickly under gravity's pull. However, he, like myself, chose instead to speak out and knowingly voice an unpopular and controversial point of view. For it he was thanked with a life in exile, and for my part I get to deal with you.

Why would you do that to yourself?

I don't fully understand how (other than SRK we da best etc) the argument got to where it is, but comparing yourself to Galileo? Regardless of the minority voice comparison, why would you put yourself through the inevitable hell of responding to "LOL martyr complex"

[Panicked]

You know I was gonna post in here because my dad asked me if I heard about tis. I just glanced over the thread and it figures, people are talking about gay marriage. This isn't about fucking gay marriage. Simple as 1,2,3 it ain't about that shit. When prop 8 was getting talked about, nobody was vying for interracial marriage. Every single time this type of thing happens.

Yeah...probably because it's already legal. :confused:

[Digital-]

they should just call gay marrige "the unions of the homobuttsexualizmz"

[Galactic]

Come on guys, why don't you believe him? He lets his piles of black friends use his bathroom. His bathroom!

Yeah, the bathroom he built on the other side of his house specifically for his black friends.

"Hey you pile of black people! See that right there is the 'white' bathroom, this one over hear is the one for you colored folk!"

And lol @ the rest of this thread.

^_-;

[Septimus Prime]

Here's what's going to happen: the next time a thread like this comes up, everyone who gets into the gay marriage debate is going to get an infraction.