A Fuzzy Thread

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

Interracial marriage was once illegal, and the same arguments were made to keep it from happening, and we survived that one, I think we will survive this too.

Well now, hold on...he's barely passed the 100-day mark.

[RAZOR]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

Interracial marriage was once illegal, and the same arguments were made to keep it from happening, and we survived that one, I think we will survive this too.

Japan survived two atom bombs, I don't find that much of an argument.

[Fred Douglass]

......."welcoming me back?"..I didn't earn a suitcase----I simply went to me wee hoos in Maine! I still think that we First Amendment heroes should prevail upon Brent to put these logos on! One padlock for me...so far.............I tried to back-channel* this suggestion for logos to a couple of ye stalwarts, but apparently didn't get through (ahem!).

*always the best place to have a hilarious chat!

GO BRUINS!!!!

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by Jamo

...and BTW, that being said...I'm also damn tired of gays of dancing around and sashaying their asses while they procalim how damn gay they are (just as I'm damn tired of hearing how black, jewish or white someone is). Hilton should've been kicked off the show, and Miss California provided an honor for doing no less than Ms. Parks in refusing to give up her seat.

Do We need to remind you that gay bashing is cause for thread locking?

BTFW: YeaYuh brutha. Phuck Perez (No pun intended, was it?)

Miss California is a HERO in my book.

Mike

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by VRM

Not in MA - only 1 person at a time here. Of course, MA also does not let you get hitched until you are 18. I know we are not as advanced as some Southern states that practise less age or species discrimination.

Down here, we wear beagle skin thongs.

[bomelia]

OK, this particular thought line has gone on long enough. When I said Fuzzy, I wasn't talking about some dude's butt. Steve, Jamo, youse guys are on the front lines dealing with gay marriage. One thing true about Alabama, it ain't coming here anytime soon. I am glad you (MA) legalized it. Kind of like Bush's war on terror in Iraq. They "bad guys" are all heading your way. Down here, sex is still something that happens between males and females (and the occasional farm animal). I want all US humans (under the current def of "human") to have the same "access" to every thing I have "access" to. I do not think "marriage" is the only way to achieve it.

In just a couple of months I will be heading out for my second attempt to run across the state of Tenn, 314 miles (500 KM). There are many places Out There where folks just ain't right... and I have met some of them. I will be "tweeting" it and you can, if you like, "follow" along, username is mikeomelia.

Mike

[Jamo]

Honestly...I'm opposed to the gay lifestyle from an anal perspective, and it sure as hell doesn't fit within my orthodox christian religious values.

I am looking at it only from a benefits/rights perspective. I personally think the kocksuckers ought to enjoy and dread all the same sh!t as everyone else.

[Ron61]

Wow, the fuzziness here is really getting to be overwhelming. Mike, your thread has a chance to reach a record 15 pages.

Ron

[trularin]

I am amazed you dragged Jamo into this.

This thread is going to be a keeper.

[cobra bill]

http://www.indecisionforever.com/vid...videoId=224789

[Fred Douglass]

....nonetheless, I'm ecstatic that there seems to have been a climate-change.........what could have brought it on?

[Jamo]

Fred...you just don't seem to get it. Nothing's changed. What this thread has been about is an exercise of discussing polarizing issues without personal attacks.

Your intermittent lurking here with your cute little ego-based jabs has thus far been an annoyance...don't let it grow beyond that.

Any more of your commentary about how this Forum is moderated (again, read the sticky...it ain't open to discussion...period), and you'll be discussing it with yourself for a period of time.

The thread can and will continue without you. I'm sure this will immediately trigger your martyr persona...so be it.

[Fred Douglass]

Yikes! I actually don't "lurk", JAMO. Nor am I ego-driven. But you MIGHT note, I am not the one waxing personal nor proffering mischaracterizations and threats. If denigrate me (and my posts) you must, then.....you must. My skin is thick enuff to handle this trivial stuff. First, however take a look at my original "offence" then measure that against what you have sent my way, eh? My original padlock was earned in reference to the closing down of threads----by ALL the editors.

Pacis vobiscum,

[cobra de capell]

Gay bashing? No one is gay bashing here.

The unual suspects have chimed in on the ‘pro-‘ side, but they have not provided positive proof of why society needs to officially recognize same-sex relationships, since human civilization has arguably gotten along well enough without it for thousands of years.

Gay marriage is not an equal rights issue. Saying gays have fewer rights than non-gays is like saying marijuana being illegal is an ‘equal rights' issue because people who like smoking tobacco can do so legally, but people who like smoking marijuana can’t. Smoking tobacco is legal for everyone, and smoking marijuana is illegal for everyone across the board—it doesn’t make a difference if you happen to only prefer one or the other. One can still argue that marijuana should be legal, of course (or tobacco shouldn’t be), but not on an ‘equal rights’ basis, without demonstrating how the law actually treats people with different smoking preferences differently.

Traditionally, families consisted of a husband who worked outside the home and a wife who stayed home to raise children. As more and more financial benefits became tied to employment—and thus primarily to the husband, the concern became how to protect the wife and children, who inherently had no direct access to them. The majority of secular marriage benefits created by the state were for this purpose—protection for the non-working members of the family who had some financial recourse if, say, the husband died (or left) taking the family income and benefits with him.

In the 21st century, the ‘traditional’ definition of family doesn’t apply nearly as much as it used to. The pro-gay-marriage side, in fact, regularly points out this general trend, as a reason why society should be accepting of ‘non-traditional’ same-sex marriages.

But, why should society be compelled to make sure ‘non-traditional’ couples received the same protections…if they’re 'non-traditional', and the original reasons for providing those protections in the first place no longer apply.

Once again, gays can’t have it both ways: they can’t say the traditional family pattern doesn’t apply anymore, therefore same-sex couples should be accepted…but then say society has an obligation to provide those benefits to them which were entirely dependent on that traditional definition of family to begin with. If gay families are far less likely to meet the ‘traditional’ definition of family than even the modern 21st century yuppie couple—one parent working, and one parent being the ‘housewife’ with the kids—what’s society’s motivation for extending unneeded benefits to even more families nation-wide?

Legalized gay marriage (if it happens on a large scale) will not be the end of the world. Nevertheless, there are very simple reasons why both society and any given individual does not need to accept it, without feeling guilty. Not supporting legalized gay marriage is a legitimate social position to take, without automatically labeling one as a 'bigot'. But in my mind, the case that gay marriage is necessary for a successful and just society, rather than a 'nicety for a small demographic'' has not been made...

[Jamo]

Fred

Glad I got your attention...no further need for you (or anyone else) to comment on how we moderate. We are response driven.

Thanks.

Back to the thread.

[computerworks]

As the keeper of the Icon Treasure Chest, I can settle this part of the discussion.

There is no need for us "geek-types" to spend an ounce of time creating a "badge of dishonor" for those that are repeat offenders.

You see, a repeat offender will be shown the door for good, thus no profile will remain to display any padlocks or other garnish.

aaar-aaar.



(oh.... and "oooooo-gah") (note - check spelling)

[Jamo]

CdC

Totally agree with you...there has been no gay bashing as far as I'm concerned. Some humor and frank discussion...and that's all we ask.

Thanks to both you and Steve. Extremely well done on presenting both sides of the issue.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by RAZOR

Morals of the right wingers? It's the left trying to cram something down a throat, pun intended, they want to change what society has accepted since the beginning of this country.Now they want to make the change and force it on us.

May be best said by a founding father and author of the Massachusetts state constitution, he said of the U.S. constitution.

"Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other" John Adams

Razor,
Morals change.

I am curious, though. What exactly is being forced on you? Nobody is making you marry a guy. I'm very curious about this one (Mike and others - feel free to jump in as well). How exactly does gay marriage affect you personally? I have two gay friends who will be tying the knot in a couple of months - how does that negatively affect you?

Steve

[trularin]

Dang this is turning into a two bagger. I hate those little kernels at the bottom of the bag.

[Ron61]

Then quit being so cheap and buy another bag.

Ron