Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Underseer, Feb 13, 2004.
Woot! Go San Francisco!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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>
Thus proving the moral fibre of Christian fundamentalists.
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.
From this article in the Boston Globe.
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...
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
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.
Arrgh! I just realized the [bad word] language filter mangled the URL in my first post.
Let's try throwing some new words into that mix:
You're right, it's time to walk away from progressive reforms when they start flying in the face of deeply ingrained tradition.
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.
As for Smeg's lynchings, you had this to say...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Right, I know. Alls I'm sayin' is you can't deride lawlessness whilst being lawless.
They've been together for 51 years. You don't see that kind of longevity in most relationships of any sort.