Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 7
Do I hear Wedding Bells for Kenny?
Topic Started: May 15 2008, 10:11 AM (1,676 Views)
blondie
Bull-Carp
Jolly
May 15 2008, 07:35 PM
If that be the case, I need to start stockpiling ammo now. It's going to be bad, it's going to be brutal, and it's going to make the first one look like a walk in the park...

Huh?

I just hope this ruling makes Kenny a happy boy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Me too. I just wish Kenny was here to share his thoughts and feelings about this, but I'm going to link to all of these threads for him if he doesn't get back in time to see them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Jolly
May 15 2008, 11:35 PM
If that be the case, I need to start stockpiling ammo now. It's going to be bad, it's going to be brutal, and it's going to make the first one look like a walk in the park...

By 'the first one' I assume you mean Waco... :lol:
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 02:31 AM
Jolly
May 15 2008, 11:35 PM
If that be the case, I need to start stockpiling ammo now. It's going to be bad, it's going to be brutal, and it's going to make the first one look like a walk in the park...

By 'the first one' I assume you mean Waco... :lol:

Nah, I meant the War of Northern Aggression.

I'm not dumb enough to get caught up in a static firefight against numerically superior forces....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Bernard
May 15 2008, 06:27 PM
Luke's Dad
May 15 2008, 12:08 PM
Can someone tells me the difference in regards to the State of California's recognition of married couples and their already approved civil unions? It seems a matter of semantics to me.

It goes beyond semantics and law. In the words of Andrew Sullivan today:

"What is critical in this ruling is that the court understands that granting gay couples a "separate and distinct" institution, domestic partnership, inherently asserts our inferiority as family members and citizens. It violates our core dignity. The m word matters -- not just in law, not just for the federal government, but also in our souls and psyches.

I don't buy the rhetoric, but it is good rhetoric.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jolly
May 16 2008, 11:12 AM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 02:31 AM
Jolly
May 15 2008, 11:35 PM
If that be the case, I need to start stockpiling ammo now. It's going to be bad, it's going to be brutal, and it's going to make the first one look like a walk in the park...

By 'the first one' I assume you mean Waco... :lol:

Nah, I meant the War of Northern Aggression.

I'm not dumb enough to get caught up in a static firefight against numerically superior forces....

Yeah, I understood that you meant The War Against Amoral Slaveowners.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Bernard
May 15 2008, 07:07 PM

Yes, different kinds: straight marriage and gay marriage, but marriage none the less.


I suspect you would be quite pissed if people ever said "Oh they have a gay marriage" to denote a different *kind*. If it is such a different *kind* why not just give it a different *name*?
Quote:
 

I do not view gay relationships and straight relationships as necessarily being the 'same', which is why I would call one gay marriage and the other straight marriage. But the question is 'same as what?' Keep in mind that there is not one type of gay relationship. There are many many kinds, just as there are many kinds of straight relationships that are recognized as marriage by the state.

I have no idea what you mean by that. There are *not* many kinds of straight relationships that are recognized as marriage by the state (at least in the monogamous West). There is one kind, between one and one woman that is basically presumed to be exclusive, faithful and permanent. I don't think you are using "type" and "kind" very clearly.

Quote:
 

However, as the state is unable to make any compelling argument against gay marriage I would find it unacceptable to not have the same benefits as are bestowed upon married straight couples, including the recognition of being married. Exactly what concern the state has in not calling it 'marriage' is unfathomable to me and it certainly looks mean and petty.

You presume that the state is unable to make an compelling argument against gay marriage for reserving marriage to heterosexuals. You can't just do a lot of handwaving about this and expect everyone to agree. The rationale for the State to reserve a particular understanding to a particular *type* of relationship has to do with the basic nature of the relationship.

This happens in all sorts of ways: you can't go around calling yourself a policeman and acting like one if you are not actually one. The policeman has a basic relationship to society at large involved with the protection of the civic order.

You can't go around calling yourself a medical doctor and acting like one if you are not actually one, nor a lawyer, etc.

You can't call yourself a publicly traded company and sell stocks if you are not incorporated as such. etc.

The reason marriage is historically reserved for heterosexual couples has to do with the basic nature of the relationship and the role of such relationships in society -- the begetting and rearing of children. It has nothing to do with whether the relationship is actually fertile or not, since that is a proper matter of privacy. A homosexual couple is incapable of engendering a child between them. A homosexual couple requires the contribution of DNA from a third party, outside the relationship.

The state has a vested interest in promoting stable, exclusive, life engendering relationships for its survival. There are *strong* arguments -- you would find none of them compelling but that is already a given.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Jolly
May 16 2008, 12:12 PM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 02:31 AM
Jolly
May 15 2008, 11:35 PM
If that be the case, I need to start stockpiling ammo now. It's going to be bad, it's going to be brutal, and it's going to make the first one look like a walk in the park...

By 'the first one' I assume you mean Waco... :lol:

Nah, I meant the War of Northern Aggression.

I'm not dumb enough to get caught up in a static firefight against numerically superior forces....

I of course knew you meant The War Against Amoral Slaveowners, I was just tweaking your chain.


But I was also making a point. You won't find a lot of people who would go to war because some human beings love people of the wrong gender. Its not like your entire economic foundation (and self-image) is under threat, like in 1860.

And the one's who do make money off of gay marriage (and of course I mean the bigoted pastors and politicians who raise money fear mongering) will make even more once gays can marry in a few states.

Face it, Jolly, you're on the wrong side of history.

Again.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 11:00 AM
Its not like your entire economic foundation (and self-image) is under threat, like in 1860.

So what do you think about Sullivan's rhetoric that *his* self image is under threat by not being allowed to call himself "married"?
Quote:
 


And the one's who do make money off of gay marriage (and of course I mean the bigoted pastors and politicians who raise money fear mongering) will make even more once gays can marry in a few states.


My, you are able to stretch logic to a gossamer thinness. You should post that in the Weird Skills thread. :P
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 02:08 PM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 11:00 AM
Its not like your entire economic foundation (and self-image) is under threat, like in 1860.

So what do you think about Sullivan's rhetoric that *his* self image is under threat by not being allowed to call himself "married"?
Quote:
 


And the one's who do make money off of gay marriage (and of course I mean the bigoted pastors and politicians who raise money fear mongering) will make even more once gays can marry in a few states.


My, you are able to stretch logic to a gossamer thinness. You should post that in the Weird Skills thread. :P

Sullivan has a point.



Re my logic, I suppose its only thin for those who can't follow it, I never would have put you in that category.

(do you think it was coincidence that so many anti-gay plebiscites made it on the ballot in 2004?)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 11:12 AM
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 02:08 PM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 11:00 AM
Its not like your entire economic foundation (and self-image) is under threat, like in 1860.

So what do you think about Sullivan's rhetoric that *his* self image is under threat by not being allowed to call himself "married"?
Quote:
 


And the one's who do make money off of gay marriage (and of course I mean the bigoted pastors and politicians who raise money fear mongering) will make even more once gays can marry in a few states.


My, you are able to stretch logic to a gossamer thinness. You should post that in the Weird Skills thread. :P

Sullivan has a point.



Re my logic, I suppose its only thin for those who can't follow it, I never would have put you in that category.

(do you think it was coincidence that so many anti-gay plebiscites made it on the ballot in 2004?)

Why does he have a point that *his* self image is damaged because "marriage" has been reserved to heterosexuals, and married heterosexuals' self image is not damaged by allowing other different *kinds* of relationships to be considered "marriage"? Do you think that any cohabiting couple or menage-a-beaucoup should have all the rights of married *couples* and likewise be called "marriage"?

Re: your logic -- that would work if it were too thick, not too thin. :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 02:21 PM
Why does he have a point that *his* self image is damaged because "marriage" has been reserved to heterosexuals, and married heterosexuals' self image is not damaged by allowing other different *kinds* of relationships to be considered "marriage"? Do you think that any cohabiting couple or menage-a-beaucoup should have all the rights of married *couples* and likewise be called "marriage"?

When I said "Sullivan has a point", I was referring to the argument Sullivan made, not the straw-man replica of it you constructed. (again, I would have thought that would be obvious, I'm learning I really need to be explicit with you :lol: )
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 11:31 AM
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 02:21 PM
Why does he have a point that *his* self image is damaged because "marriage" has been reserved to heterosexuals, and married heterosexuals' self image is not damaged by allowing other different *kinds* of relationships to be considered "marriage"?  Do you think that any cohabiting couple or menage-a-beaucoup should have all the rights of married *couples* and likewise be called "marriage"?

When I said "Sullivan has a point", I was referring to the argument Sullivan made, not the straw-man replica of it you constructed. (again, I would have thought that would be obvious, I'm learning I really need to be explicit with you :lol: )

Nice try, but the "point that *his* self image is damaged because "marriage" has been reserved to heterosexuals" is not a straw man of what he actually wrote.

Quote:
 
"What is critical in this ruling is that the court understands that granting gay couples a "separate and distinct" institution, domestic partnership, inherently asserts our inferiority as family members and citizens. It violates our core dignity. The m word matters -- not just in law, not just for the federal government, but also in our souls and psyches.


That *is* his argument. So why shouldn't cohabiting couples likewise be called "married" so that they are not wounded in the souls and psyches, so that they are not considered inferior as family members and citizens?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
May 16 2008, 11:26 AM
Jolly
May 16 2008, 11:12 AM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 02:31 AM
Jolly
May 15 2008, 11:35 PM
If that be the case, I need to start stockpiling ammo now. It's going to be bad, it's going to be brutal, and it's going to make the first one look like a walk in the park...

By 'the first one' I assume you mean Waco... :lol:

Nah, I meant the War of Northern Aggression.

I'm not dumb enough to get caught up in a static firefight against numerically superior forces....

Yeah, I understood that you meant The War Against Amoral Slaveowners.

Slave owners, or not, I suspect their interpretation of Federalism more closely matched what the Consitution intended, than anything Mr. Lincoln may have conjured up.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Jolly
May 16 2008, 12:33 PM

Slave owners, or not, I suspect their interpretation of Federalism more closely matched what the Consitution intended, than anything Mr. Lincoln may have conjured up.

Call me a Suthuhn Sympathizer but I agree with Jolly.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 12:00 PM
Jolly
May 16 2008, 12:12 PM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 02:31 AM
Jolly
May 15 2008, 11:35 PM
If that be the case, I need to start stockpiling ammo now. It's going to be bad, it's going to be brutal, and it's going to make the first one look like a walk in the park...

By 'the first one' I assume you mean Waco... :lol:

Nah, I meant the War of Northern Aggression.

I'm not dumb enough to get caught up in a static firefight against numerically superior forces....

I of course knew you meant The War Against Amoral Slaveowners, I was just tweaking your chain.


But I was also making a point. You won't find a lot of people who would go to war because some human beings love people of the wrong gender. Its not like your entire economic foundation (and self-image) is under threat, like in 1860.

And the one's who do make money off of gay marriage (and of course I mean the bigoted pastors and politicians who raise money fear mongering) will make even more once gays can marry in a few states.

Face it, Jolly, you're on the wrong side of history.

Again.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Over 60% of Californians voted on a referendum that called for marriage to be defined as one man/one woman. I understand that they will soon be getting a chance to vote on a California Constitutional Amendment basically stating the same thing.

If this plebicite passes, and the state constitution is amended, what happens to the court's ruling?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jolly
May 16 2008, 03:33 PM
QuirtEvans
May 16 2008, 11:26 AM
Jolly
May 16 2008, 11:12 AM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 02:31 AM
Jolly
May 15 2008, 11:35 PM
If that be the case, I need to start stockpiling ammo now. It's going to be bad, it's going to be brutal, and it's going to make the first one look like a walk in the park...

By 'the first one' I assume you mean Waco... :lol:

Nah, I meant the War of Northern Aggression.

I'm not dumb enough to get caught up in a static firefight against numerically superior forces....

Yeah, I understood that you meant The War Against Amoral Slaveowners.

Slave owners, or not, I suspect their interpretation of Federalism more closely matched what the Consitution intended, than anything Mr. Lincoln may have conjured up.

Yeah, and the Founders also made explicit provisions for slavery.

It just goes to prove that the Founders and the document they drafted were not perfect.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Jolly
May 16 2008, 03:37 PM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 12:00 PM
Jolly
May 16 2008, 12:12 PM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 02:31 AM
Jolly
May 15 2008, 11:35 PM
If that be the case, I need to start stockpiling ammo now. It's going to be bad, it's going to be brutal, and it's going to make the first one look like a walk in the park...

By 'the first one' I assume you mean Waco... :lol:

Nah, I meant the War of Northern Aggression.

I'm not dumb enough to get caught up in a static firefight against numerically superior forces....

I of course knew you meant The War Against Amoral Slaveowners, I was just tweaking your chain.


But I was also making a point. You won't find a lot of people who would go to war because some human beings love people of the wrong gender. Its not like your entire economic foundation (and self-image) is under threat, like in 1860.

And the one's who do make money off of gay marriage (and of course I mean the bigoted pastors and politicians who raise money fear mongering) will make even more once gays can marry in a few states.

Face it, Jolly, you're on the wrong side of history.

Again.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Over 60% of Californians voted on a referendum that called for marriage to be defined as one man/one woman. I understand that they will soon be getting a chance to vote on a California Constitutional Amendment basically stating the same thing.

If this plebicite passes, and the state constitution is amended, what happens to the court's ruling?

Nothing happens to the court's ruling, per se. It just no longer has any effect because it's been superseded by a subsequent amendment to the Constitution.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

UPDATE: South postpones rising again for yet another year
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
The 89th Key
May 16 2008, 03:52 PM

That was in 2000. You're so eight-years-ago.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
If the South rises again, will that mean that what's left over of proper America gets to elect someone with a slightly less silly accent? That would be real nice, y'all.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
May 16 2008, 01:42 PM
Jolly
May 16 2008, 03:33 PM
QuirtEvans
May 16 2008, 11:26 AM
Jolly
May 16 2008, 11:12 AM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 02:31 AM
Jolly
May 15 2008, 11:35 PM
If that be the case, I need to start stockpiling ammo now. It's going to be bad, it's going to be brutal, and it's going to make the first one look like a walk in the park...

By 'the first one' I assume you mean Waco... :lol:

Nah, I meant the War of Northern Aggression.

I'm not dumb enough to get caught up in a static firefight against numerically superior forces....

Yeah, I understood that you meant The War Against Amoral Slaveowners.

Slave owners, or not, I suspect their interpretation of Federalism more closely matched what the Consitution intended, than anything Mr. Lincoln may have conjured up.

Yeah, and the Founders also made explicit provisions for slavery.
I don't see them making explicit provisions for slavery, it would be more accurate to say that they recognized that reality in determining a formula for proportional representation.

Quote:
 


It just goes to prove that the Founders and the document they drafted were not perfect.

I am not sure of your point. I don't know anyone who would suggest the Constitution was a perfect document, so it needs no evidence to show it is not a perfect document. It is obviously the result of compromise, and as such agreements go it is pretty darn good.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
May 16 2008, 02:42 PM
Jolly
May 16 2008, 03:33 PM
QuirtEvans
May 16 2008, 11:26 AM
Jolly
May 16 2008, 11:12 AM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 02:31 AM
Jolly
May 15 2008, 11:35 PM
If that be the case, I need to start stockpiling ammo now. It's going to be bad, it's going to be brutal, and it's going to make the first one look like a walk in the park...

By 'the first one' I assume you mean Waco... :lol:

Nah, I meant the War of Northern Aggression.

I'm not dumb enough to get caught up in a static firefight against numerically superior forces....

Yeah, I understood that you meant The War Against Amoral Slaveowners.

Slave owners, or not, I suspect their interpretation of Federalism more closely matched what the Consitution intended, than anything Mr. Lincoln may have conjured up.

Yeah, and the Founders also made explicit provisions for slavery.

It just goes to prove that the Founders and the document they drafted were not perfect.

So...why did the South go to war when slavery was still legal?
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
May 16 2008, 04:15 PM
QuirtEvans
May 16 2008, 01:42 PM
Jolly
May 16 2008, 03:33 PM
QuirtEvans
May 16 2008, 11:26 AM
Jolly
May 16 2008, 11:12 AM
jon-nyc
May 16 2008, 02:31 AM
Jolly
May 15 2008, 11:35 PM
If that be the case, I need to start stockpiling ammo now. It's going to be bad, it's going to be brutal, and it's going to make the first one look like a walk in the park...

By 'the first one' I assume you mean Waco... :lol:

Nah, I meant the War of Northern Aggression.

I'm not dumb enough to get caught up in a static firefight against numerically superior forces....

Yeah, I understood that you meant The War Against Amoral Slaveowners.

Slave owners, or not, I suspect their interpretation of Federalism more closely matched what the Consitution intended, than anything Mr. Lincoln may have conjured up.

Yeah, and the Founders also made explicit provisions for slavery.
I don't see them making explicit provisions for slavery, it would be more accurate to say that they recognized that reality in determining a formula for proportional representation.

Quote:
 


It just goes to prove that the Founders and the document they drafted were not perfect.

I am not sure of your point. I don't know anyone who would suggest the Constitution was a perfect document, so it needs no evidence to show it is not a perfect document. It is obviously the result of compromise, and as such agreements go it is pretty darn good.

Quote:
 
Yeah, and the Founders also made explicit provisions for slavery.
I don't see them making explicit provisions for slavery, it would be more accurate to say that they recognized that reality in determining a formula for proportional representation.


You say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe. Same difference. The point is, they were enablers. It was a horrific, detestable practice. And they chose to perpetuate it because it was a fight they weren't ready to have.

In truth, all they did was make Lincoln's fight inevitable.

Quote:
 
It is obviously the result of compromise, and as such agreements go it is pretty darn good.


My point isn't about the Constitution, it's about the Founders. There are things that the Founders were willing to accept that, today, we'd find utterly unthinkable. Slavery is a good example. Barring women from voting is another. So, to say that the Founders would never have conceived of marriage as including a same-sex marriage is, afaic, utterly meaningless. The Founders weren't the pinnacle of morality.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
Quote:
 
There are things that the Founders were willing to accept that, today, we'd find utterly unthinkable.


Yep, like chamberpots. :puke:
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 7