Woot! Go San Francisco!

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
Idaho is going to have a law NOT recognizing *** marriage. It should be passed within a week or two. Then what? The issue is going to go before the US Supreme Court. I don't think it'll pass muster there.
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Good for them. Marriages for everyone. Or not.

On a completely different note, a rant. For ****'s sake, how difficult is it to make a bloody comment about a story that you post? We all have freakin' computers, we can find and read the damn news. What's the deal with the proliferation of threads with only a link to a news article I've already seen? Underseer, I'm looking at you. You've started a really, really dumb trend.

Has the forum degraded to this? Show and no tell? Honestly, are y'all afraid to go out on a limb? In the words of a wise man, "Stop Sucking!"

I feel better.
 

Anyee

Diabloii.Net Member
Be careful! Those two old ladies are contributing to the downfall of the American family by participating in a union that's outlasted the marriages of people in the US today. Much Mazel to them.

Smeg: There are DOMA laws in 38 states. That ain't news. And it is Idaho.
 

Smeg Head

Diabloii.Net Member
mac is right, comment on the story. Unless the story speaks for itself (such as a funny picture).

But you're wrong on marriage for all or none. *** marriage isn't going to be accepted in this country. Pushing it on us is only going to create a backlash. Maybe even to the point of killings and lynchings.
 
Yes, please comment and/or at least include an excerpt, please. All I get is an error 404 message for the link, so my knowledge has been increased not at all.

Edit: And Smeg, I think you're wrong. I think homosexual marriages will eventually be accepted and/or at least tolerated. Yes, there will be plenty of backlash, but it will happen. Like mixed racial marriages, mixed religious marriages, which are so commonplace now as to be almost unremarkable, but which were quite the headline in the early days.
 

Anyee

Diabloii.Net Member
Smeg Head said:
Maybe even to the point of killings and lynchings.
That would be sad, but prove a point: the people of this country would rather have fear, lawlessness, anger, hate and murder than love. Oh well.
 

Underseer

Diabloii.Net Member
My apologies everyone, I'm used to different standards/traditions from other boards. I'm used to people posting a link to an article, then diving into the resulting fray later. Besides, doesn't the title count as a comment? Sorta? *looks sheepish*

Anyway, I am glad someone's really taking a stand on this issue (other than a state supreme court or the Episcopalians), and not at all surprised that someone turns out to be San Francisco. :)

Again, my apologies. <Cave Man voice>I am still learning your ways. They are unfamiliar and they frighten me.</Cave Man voice>
 
Anyee said:
That would be sad, but prove a point: the people of this country would rather have fear, lawlessness, anger, hate and murder than love. Oh well.
Living in Boston, kinda isolates you from the feelings of the majority of America. City folks tend to be more ... erm ... accepting of different lifestyles.

NB :uhhuh:
 

Anyee

Diabloii.Net Member
From this article in the Boston Globe.

Then the name-calling began. A black teenager in the church group yelled an antigay slur at the man. The man returned fire with a racial slur. "How do you like it?" the man said, as the boy retreated to the back of the group, shocked.

"Let him burn in hell!" yelled a girl of about 10 from the church group.
I'm so pleased to see that the religious movement is not above name-calling and threats. That 10 year old must be the future of America that homosexual marriages could threaten. And well played to the guy who shot back the racial slur; that gets the Shylock "If you prick us, do we not bleed" award for the day. I suppose that kid forgets that he's a minority as well...
 

Xynrx

Diabloii.Net Member
Welcome to the new world. *** marriage and rights are taking a big step here. Soon it will become fully legal, but the hardest fight of all is yet to come. Homosexual people will begin the open and difficult fight for equality, following in the path once trekked (and arguably still trekked in many places all over the world) by blacks and women in a fight for equal rights and freedoms. The question isn't IF it will happen, the question is HOW SOON will it happen. You can pin your hopes on Idaho all you want, but it will follow the trend too eventually. The US is on the verge of a big leap against discrimmination, Bush doesn't like it, but there is nothing even the president can do about it.

I can see 20-30 years down the road people feeling pity for anti-*** activists just like we do now for ex-SS guards from **** (enter extreme right-wing party here) Germany slouched in thier rocking chairs mumbling obsenities about Jews.

EDIT: Forgot it was censored
 

cleanupguy

Diabloii.Net Member
All I get is a flashback of the image I saw on TV: Talibans killing a woman in a stadium for alleged adultery. But I'm sure this is much justified and necessary when the phrase "in the name of God" comes in.

Smeg Head said:
Pushing it on us is only going to create a backlash. Maybe even to the point of killings and lynchings.
 

Underseer

Diabloii.Net Member
Arrgh! I just realized the [bad word] language filter mangled the URL in my first post.

Apologies again.

San Francisco weds first *** couple

Thursday, February 12, 2004 Posted: 7:49 PM EST (0049 GMT)


SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- In a bold political and legal challenge to California law, city authorities officiated at the marriage of a lesbian couple Thursday and said they will issue more *** marriage licenses.

The act of civil disobedience was coordinated by Mayor Gavin Newsom and top city officials and was intended to beat a conservative group to the punch.

The group, Campaign for California Families, had planned to go to court on Friday to get an injunction preventing the city from issuing marriage licenses to *** couples.

Longtime lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, were hurriedly issued a license and were married just before noon by City Assessor Mabel Teng in a closed-door civil ceremony at City Hall, mayor's spokesman Peter Ragone said. The two have been a couple for 51 years.

Ragone said that beginning at noon, officials would begin issuing marriage licenses to any *** couples applying for one. One lesbian couple had already lined up outside City Hall, one of the women wearing a white wedding dress.

Lyon and Martin said after the brief ceremony that they were going home to rest and did not plan anything to celebrate. The couple seemed proud of what they had done.

"Why shouldn't we" be able to marry? Lyon asked.

Thursday's marriage runs counter to a ballot measure California voters approved in 2000 that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

No state legally sanctions *** marriage, though Massachusetts could become the first this spring. The Massachusetts high court has ruled that gays are entitled under the state constitution to marry.

State lawmakers later passed a domestic partner law that, when it goes into effect in 2005, will offer the most generous protections to gays outside Vermont.

Mayor Newsom was not present for the wedding Thursday. The two official witnesses were Kate Kendell, director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and former city official Roberta Achtenberg.

The Campaign for California Families did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
 

DurfBarian

Diabloii.Net Member
Smeg Head said:
But you're wrong on marriage for all or none. *** marriage isn't going to be accepted in this country. Pushing it on us is only going to create a backlash. Maybe even to the point of killings and lynchings.
Let's try throwing some new words into that mix:

Smeg Head said:
But you're wrong on freedom for all or none. Western-style democracy isn't going to be accepted in Iraq. Pushing it on them is only going to create a backlash. Maybe even to the point of killings and lynchings.
You're right, it's time to walk away from progressive reforms when they start flying in the face of deeply ingrained tradition.
 
Anyee said:
Be careful! Those two old ladies are contributing to the downfall of the American family by participating in a union that's outlasted the marriages of people in the US today.
Their union isn't a day old, unless you mean their relationship, in which case you're just plain misinformed. I'm sure you're chomping at the bit to tell me 50% of US marriages end in divorce, so I'll broken record this for you again.

In fact, I changed my mind and you get the copy and paste version directly from thread #87540 on this subject.

Some Kickass Pirate said:
The divorce rate is 50% of the marriage rate, if that's what you're saying. That doesn't equate to 50% of all marriages ending in divorce.

It works exactly the same as birth and death rates for a population. We have a birth rate of 14 per 1000 population and a death rate of 9 per 1000 population. That doesn't mean we lose 64% of our population each year, or that 64% of births end in deaths. There is a large, large population aside from what's added and subtracted each year.

Same with marriage and divorce rates. We have a marriage rate of 10 per 1000 population and a divorce rate of 5 per 1000 population. If this remains constant, each year, for every 1000 people 10 marriages will be added and 5 will be subtracted. From what? From the large, large population of marriages that already exist. 5 per 1000 people is clearly far less than half of all marriages, it's only half of what will be added in that year.
As for Smeg's lynchings, you had this to say...

Anyee said:
That would be sad, but prove a point: the people of this country would rather have fear, lawlessness, anger, hate and murder than love. Oh well.
Haha, good one. Tell me about another person violating state law to marry a *** couple, or about how proud you are of a homosexual angrily and hatefully spitting racial slurs at children forcing them to recoil in fear. Sorry, but there are ways to draw attention to what you perceive as a problem, and then there are ways to escalate the situation by being belligerent, hypocritical counterculturalists.
 

DurfBarian

Diabloii.Net Member
IDupedInMyPants said:
Tell me about another person violating state law to marry a *** couple
Yes, yes, we all know that civil disobedience has never been a valid tool for getting things changed in America. How dare they violate laws they find unjust?
IDupedInMyPants said:
or about how proud you are of a homosexual angrily and hatefully spitting racial slurs at children forcing them to recoil in fear. Sorry, but there are ways to draw attention to what you perceive as a problem, and then there are ways to escalate the situation by being belligerent, hypocritical counterculturalists.
And the teenager who yelled the angry threat first didn't even show up on your antibelligerence radar? Maybe "you're going to hell for being g#y" doesn't count as anger or hate in your book, though.
 

Smelly

Diabloii.Net Member
Ah yes, the clashing of intellect... a place I hold no wieght. Anyways, I've actually learned a lot from these debates. I had my set opinions about it from the start, with little knowledge so I decided not to contribute. I still have little knowledge, but I'm going to poke in for a second.

*** marriages are going to happen, it's just a matter of time. I don't care if they happen now, tomorrow, or in a few years. I accept homosexuals for who they are, and I have no bias against them and their desires to marry. I wasn't surprised one bit, seeing as San Francisco's a very nice haven for homosexuals. Castro. Hi. Yes, homosexual flags from household to household. Freaky night parties. Whatever, tho.

I just see it as something that will happen no matter what, in one way or another... so what's the big fuss? And all these anti-*** marriage rallies with people holding religious signs, get a damn clue already. Nobody wants to see you brandishing Jesus, and since when is okay to hold a symbol of Jesus on a cross while you walk down the street?

I really don't see the problem with two homosexuals who want to share a life together, have the benefits of marriage. You then have to take into account a few other things:

o Not all homosexuals are going to get married for God's sake.
o There's not that many homosexuals to begin with, so what is the big freaking deal?
o Your ideals? Your morals? Shove em.

Duped and Durf you guys both rock. Duped has always been one of my favorites since his arguments are actually quite fun and knowledgable. Smart guy, that Duped.

So yep, there I go. Even tho I wouldn't mind smacking Aynee a few times for questioning my manhood, I still think in general, homosexuals get a thumbs up from me.



:thumbsup:
 
And the teenager who yelled the angry threat first didn't even show up on your antibelligerence radar? Maybe "you're going to hell for being g#y" doesn't count as anger or hate in your book, though.
Being pissed at someone for doing something and proud of someone else for doing the same thing is hypocritical, and yes both were belligerent and hateful.

Yes, yes, we all know that civil disobedience has never been a valid tool for getting things changed in America. How dare they violate laws they find unjust?
Right, I know. Alls I'm sayin' is you can't deride lawlessness whilst being lawless.
 

Anyee

Diabloii.Net Member
IDupedInMyPants said:
Their union isn't a day old, unless you mean their relationship, in which case you're just plain misinformed.
They've been together for 51 years. You don't see that kind of longevity in most relationships of any sort.
 
Top