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
California to vote on Same Sex Marriage
Topic Started: Jul 19 2008, 08:45 PM (2,084 Views)
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Rainman
Jul 21 2008, 12:18 AM
Quote:
 
Quirt:
And, if we're talking about the requirements of the California Constitution, those cannot be overridden by a voter initiative.


Quirt, not sure how it is in Kalifornia, but it may be similar to Oregon. We have the usual legislative process, when the legislators cop-out, they use the referendum. The initiative process was introduced in the early 20th century, and is "direct democracy" where the voters directly amend the constitution. Good idea or bad, we have 227 (maybe more) amendments to the Oregon constitution.

Edit: I see OperaTenor already covered this above.

In my view, the worst thing about the initiative process is it takes away any flexibility of legislative compromise.

No compromises, it is either a Yes or No, on one issue, direct vote of the people.

I wonder how many other states have this form of direct democracy which overrides the legislative process? The governor cannot veto an initiative, the legislature cannot change or modify it. The initiative results (if passed by the people) become part of the constitution.

Then it's part of the Constitution. Something that is part of the Constitution cannot be contrary to that Constitution. The document could have internal inconsistencies, of course, but in that case the later and the more specific language would control the earlier and more general language.

That's a crappy way to amend a Constitution ... typically, Constitutional amendments require some sort of supermajority ... but, if that's the method the creators chose, you're stuck with it unless it's changed.

Democracy at work.

There's lots of direct democracy in New England, too, on a smaller scale (town meetings). I'm not all that impressed, but I'm not impressed with local representative government either.
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!
Daniel
Jul 21 2008, 02:22 AM
ivorythumper
Jul 21 2008, 12:56 AM

You act neurotically and you attack people irrationally. That is my observation. That might be caused by your homosexuality, it might be the cause of your homosexuality, or it might be entirely independent of it. I have no way of knowing.

"That might be caused by your homosexuality, it might be the cause of your homosexuality, or it might be entirely independent of it."

Like I said, ignorance personified. You are an ignorant twit when it comes to this subject.

I am not the least bit ignorant when it comes to observing neurotic behavior or irrational attacks, Daniel. *That* was the subject of my comments, not homosexuality. You seem too emotionally bound even to realize that.

I have no idea why you act as you do. However it seems that you are deeply unhappy with yourself, and you take it out on everyone else. You make people into enemies. The problem is not everyone else, Daniel. It never is.

Quote:
 

You never comment on my sexuality or my personal life?  You just did.


Where? I did not comment on your homosexuality, I commented on your behavior. Stop the behavior, especially directed against me, and I'll stop commenting on your behavior.

Quote:
 


And don't think I've forgotten that you called me a twit, questioned my sanity, and called me "Danny Boy" the last time we spoke.  I don't pretend that I've never make personal attacks on this board.  You, on the other hand, are a self-righteous hypocrite.

I don't generally use the term twit, and don't recall calling you one -- though I do seem to recall others calling you a twit. I'l refrain from it in the future.

I don't think I've really questioned your sanity, but I do worry about your emotional health. Your behavior is episodic, and you seem to take turns selecting your target for taking offense.

Given that your name is not really Daniel, I don't see "Danny Boy" as an opprobrious term. I will however refrain from it.

Quote:
 


Obviously, you've decided that character assassination is your best bet when dealing with me.  That's fine.  I know how to deal with people like you.

Daniel -- you decided to call into question my character with your very first post in this thread. It was way out of line, and numerous people pointed that out to you. I think you act neurotically and you attack people irrationally. That is not character assassination. It is an adverse judgment, but it is the only observation I can make given your behavior.

Quote:
 


Let me know when you decide to join the modern world, IT.  I don't have any interest in pretending to like someone who spews the kind of ignorance that you spew on this board everyday.

You don't need to pretend to like me, Daniel. You should however refrain from attack me personally.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
You don't need to pretend to like me, Daniel. You should however refrain from attack me personally.


I'm going to guess that telling Daniel what he should and shouldn't do isn't going to be a successful strategy, Headmistress IT.
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!
You are probably right, Quirt, but I would be remiss if I did not at least point out to him the choice to not attack people who disagree with him.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Well, there's remiss and then there's remiss.

If you were truly trying to encourage a particular sort of behavior, it might have been more fruitful to use less inflammatory language.

Quote:
 
Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.
Benjamin Franklin


Of course, that could apply to me as much as to you.
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!
You right, of course. "Dear Jerk" letters rarely work.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dear Mr. Jones,

Fcuk you. Strong letter to follow.

Sincerly,

John Smith
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
ivorythumper
Jul 21 2008, 02:54 AM
You right, of course. "Dear Jerk" letters rarely work.

Yeah but unless the sender's a total idiot, the point of the Dear Jerk letter is to satisfy the writer, not the one who receives it.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
IT never said a single negative thing about Daniel because of his sexual perversion. He was remarking about Daniel's debilitating mental illnesses. Daniel is just not smart enough to sort it out - sort of like that black city commissioner a week ago who got offended when another city commissioner referred to their budget as a "black hole"..... he hears the words, but he can't make normal sense out of them.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jul 20 2008, 03:25 AM
Axtremus
Jul 19 2008, 10:42 PM
Larry
Jul 20 2008, 01:20 AM
In other words Daniel, what you and Kenny both are saying is that in a government of the people, by the people, what the people want doesn't matter to you, and you will support ramming the decisions of an activist court down the peoples' throat, to hell with the Constitution.

[size=5]You are an ignorant twit, Daniel.[/size] You refer to the rights of the people as "platitudes', and mock the "democratic process". All you care about is getting what you want.

It's people like you that make me that much more strongly against gay marriage.

(Just marking the start of personal attack on this thread. Carry on.)

You missed Daniel's personal attack on me, Ax. Why is that Ax?

Hi, IT,

I did not miss it. I read what Daniel wrote (up to my post that you quoted above), consciously analyzed what Daniel wrote, and came to the conclusion that Daniel has not committed a personal attack.

Had he wrote "you're a hypocrite (or an adulterer), IT," I would have called Daniel on it, but he has not.

He simply asked: "Aren't you divorced?"

I do not consider than an attack, as explained in my two other posts following the one you quoted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
But you commonly analyze things to the point of ridiculousness and then come up with the wrong conclusion.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Jul 20 2008, 07:17 AM
The ultimate recourse in a democracy is to amend the Constitution.

I may not like the result ... I may be utterly opposed to it ... but, as long as it's presented honestly, the people of California deserve the right to make a choice about what the law of the land in California should be.

Sorry, Daniel. As much as I agree with the goal, I'm a process person, and you're wrong on this one.

I hope that Kenny's right, and that it's just a matter of time (maybe a few decades, but time nonetheless). Unfortunately, I don't think many of us will be around to see it.

Maybe Riley can send us a message.

I agree with the above.

Personally, I ultimately want the government be out of the marriage business. I support homosexual's right to marry. I set the bar merely at "informed consent."

But, as a matter of process, I'll also support letting people vote on the issue, if they want to make this a Constitutional amendment. I will simply vote in a manner that will support same-sex couple's right to marry when it comes my turn to vote on such an issue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
IT, I'm not reading your posts. Seriously, I kind of/ sort of skimmed your last post. One day you might understand that when one says enough offensive things, whether one considers them personal attacks or not, the people about whom one is speaking might get offended. I'm not ignoring you as Quirt once did but I'd simply prefer it if you and I took a break from talking to each other at least about this subject. You've always been one of my favorite people here. Maybe we can reconnect some other time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
VPG
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
I read and re read this entire thread. I came up with one conclusion: Larry, you are completly wrong, THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS "TWITNESS"!
I'M NOT YELLING.........I'M ITALIAN...........THAT'S HOW WE TALK!


"People say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look."
Ronald Reagan, Inaugural, 1971

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
I'd simply prefer it if you and I took a break from talking to each other


Daniel, most of us would prefer it if you took a break from talking period.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
VPG
Jul 21 2008, 12:00 PM
I read and re read this entire thread. I came up with one conclusion: Larry, you are completly wrong, THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS "TWITNESS"!

Ah, but the democrats are in charge, and that means we get to make things up!!
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Jul 20 2008, 07:59 AM

As far as IT goes ... I've been around here a lot longer than you have, and I've jousted with IT as much as anyone ... if someone has mentioned publicly that IT has been divorced, I've never noticed it.


Jeffrey
Jul 20 2008, 10:27 AM

And your personal attack on IT, while certainly within forum rules, seems both rude, off-topic,  uncalled-for, and, AFAIK, false.


In a TNCR poll that asked how many marriages/divorces people have had, ivorythumper himself publicly posted that he has had an "annulment," something that a non-Catholic (I assume Daniel is one) would reasonably characterize as a "divorce." With that in mind, I do not believe it fair to accuse Daniel of posting falsehood.

Link: http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_New_Coffee...dpost&p=2423187
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2008, 09:28 PM
The first was annulled, so civilly 2 but really 1.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Axtremus
Jul 21 2008, 11:23 AM
QuirtEvans
Jul 20 2008, 07:59 AM

As far as IT goes ... I've been around here a lot longer than you have, and I've jousted with IT as much as anyone ... if someone has mentioned publicly that IT has been divorced, I've never noticed it.


Jeffrey
Jul 20 2008, 10:27 AM

And your personal attack on IT, while certainly within forum rules, seems both rude, off-topic,  uncalled-for, and, AFAIK, false.


In a TNCR poll that asked how many marriages/divorces people have had, ivorythumper himself publicly posted that he has had an "annulment," something that a non-Catholic (I assume Daniel is one) would reasonably characterize as a "divorce." With that in mind, I do not believe it fair to accuse Daniel of posting falsehood.

If he was in fact married, in order to marry MS in the Catholic Church, he'd have to get an annulment. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce. Therefore, in order to re-marry, you have to go through the fiction of pretending the marriage never existed in the first place.

It's possible, on limited grounds, to get a legal annulment, but that's not what the Catholic Church requires. It requires a church-granted annulment (although a legal annulment, while harder to get, might suffice ... I really don't know). Many Catholics get a legal divorce, then petition the Church for an annulment.

It used to be quite hard to get the Church to grant an annulment. Now, it's just a matter of paying the Church a sufficient bribe going through the appropriate formalities.

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
 
LadyElton
Fulla-Carp
Ya'll wonder why we get defensive when it comes to this stuff. How would you feel if a core part of who you are is under attack? Imagine being told that who you are is an abomination? Then imagine being told you can't marry the person you love. You talk about gays sleeping around and such, well heteros ain't exactly the most faithful people either. The divorce rate is, what, 50%? Oh, and I know gay people who have been with their partners longer than many straights. BTW - my parents (hetero) have been married for 41 years. Ya'll need to take a good look at yourselves before you start pointing the finger at others.
Hilary aka LadyElton
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
LadyElton
Jul 21 2008, 12:34 PM
Ya'll wonder why we get defensive when it comes to this stuff. How would you feel if a core part of who you are is under attack? Imagine being told that who you are is an abomination? Then imagine being told you can't marry the person you love. You talk about gays sleeping around and such, well heteros ain't exactly the most faithful people either. The divorce rate is, what, 50%? Oh, and I know gay people who have been with their partners longer than many straights. BTW - my parents (hetero) have been married for 41 years. Ya'll need to take a good look at yourselves before you start pointing the finger at others.

But not everyone who doesn't support gay marriage is calling you an abomination or attacking a core part of who you are.

It's not an issue of heteros walking around instigating trouble with gays. Gays raised the social issue of same-sex marriage, and that is the issue that is being discussed. Yes, sometimes personal attacks are made, but that's not the same as opposing gay marriage on non-personal grounds.

I've not wanted to participate in this thread because I think I tend to get a bit carried away (and I've already said everything in the past that I'd say here), and I'd prefer to not to participate farther than this. But I do want to point this out. When a person opposes gay marriage, that doesn't necessarily mean he opposes gays or homosexuality, and it is offensive when people assume otherwise.
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
In a TNCR poll that asked how many marriages/divorces people have had, ivorythumper himself publicly posted that he has had an "annulment," something that a non-Catholic (I assume Daniel is one) would reasonably characterize as a "divorce." With that in mind, I do not believe it fair to accuse Daniel of posting falsehood.


You have completely missed the point. This isn't an issue over the technical fine points of whether or not an annulment is a divorce. It isn't an issue of Daniel simply wanting information. It is an issue of Daniel not liking what IT posted, having a desire to make a personal dig at him, and asking the question for the purpose of slinging mud at him. If you don't see that, you're an idiot.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 21 2008, 09:51 AM
Quote:
 
In a TNCR poll that asked how many marriages/divorces people have had, ivorythumper himself publicly posted that he has had an "annulment," something that a non-Catholic (I assume Daniel is one) would reasonably characterize as a "divorce." With that in mind, I do not believe it fair to accuse Daniel of posting falsehood.


You have completely missed the point. This isn't an issue over the technical fine points of whether or not an annulment is a divorce. It isn't an issue of Daniel simply wanting information. It is an issue of Daniel not liking what IT posted, having a desire to make a personal dig at him, and asking the question for the purpose of slinging mud at him.

I agree with that.
And as far as where this thread is going, I'm not interested in having my personal life debated here, thank you.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 21 2008, 12:51 PM
Quote:
 
In a TNCR poll that asked how many marriages/divorces people have had, ivorythumper himself publicly posted that he has had an "annulment," something that a non-Catholic (I assume Daniel is one) would reasonably characterize as a "divorce." With that in mind, I do not believe it fair to accuse Daniel of posting falsehood.


You have completely missed the point. This isn't an issue over the technical fine points of whether or not an annulment is a divorce. It isn't an issue of Daniel simply wanting information. It is an issue of Daniel not liking what IT posted, having a desire to make a personal dig at him, and asking the question for the purpose of slinging mud at him. If you don't see that, you're an idiot.

YOU missed the point. I saw that Quirt and Jeffrey have a misunderstanding of the facts, so I made to post to correct that misunderstanding. That's the point of my post.

Regarding Daniel making a dig at IT for not liking what IT wrote, look into the mirror yourself. You committed a personal attack on Daniel for not liking what Daniel wrote. Your personal attack on Daniel is a lot worse than Daniel's "dig" on IT.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
musicasacra
Jul 21 2008, 12:00 PM
Larry
Jul 21 2008, 09:51 AM
Quote:
 
In a TNCR poll that asked how many marriages/divorces people have had, ivorythumper himself publicly posted that he has had an "annulment," something that a non-Catholic (I assume Daniel is one) would reasonably characterize as a "divorce." With that in mind, I do not believe it fair to accuse Daniel of posting falsehood.


You have completely missed the point. This isn't an issue over the technical fine points of whether or not an annulment is a divorce. It isn't an issue of Daniel simply wanting information. It is an issue of Daniel not liking what IT posted, having a desire to make a personal dig at him, and asking the question for the purpose of slinging mud at him.

I agree with that.
And I'm not interested in having my personal life debated here, thank you.

Would that everyone were accorded the same level of respect. (And that wasn't aimed at you, MS.)
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
When I saw the original post where IT posted about his annulment, I said to Mrs. D'Oh 'I wonder how long it is before someone brings that one up in an argument'.

I don't think it's a very nice or very clever thing to say, personally, but I guess there's a lot of stuff said here that isn't very nice or very clever. I'm not sure that really makes it OK, nevertheless.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 7