|
Post by Chris on Nov 6, 2008 12:39:49 GMT -5
"To HELL with gay marriage"
Ehhh, WHY Tom? What skin is it off your nose? Do you think that because two rump-rangers want to wear rings on their fingers, co-habitate, behave in the economical landscape equivalently to the way a married man and a women behave, enjoy the same married tax perks that a man and woman enjoy.....does that somehow taint the sanctity of your own "traditional" marriage? Gimme a break with that.
The ONLY merit is I see to this de-legalization of gay marriage is that it prevents the slippery slope potential that church's who would choose not to perform gay marriage ceremonies in a state where it is legal, can then be accused of discrimination. One of the requirements that the churches must adhere to in order to enjoy their tax exemption is that they not discriminate. I wouldn't ask that the churches lose their tax exemption (not that I wouldn't like it...but it would just be too much of a can of worms to deal with....better off left alone) so perhaps instead of banning gay marriage, they should have left some clause in there to allow churches to not entertain or recognize gay marriage as part of their freedom of religion.
But from a moral standpoint...it affects ME and MY family not one bit, so who the fuck cares.
I think that it is flabbergasting that California voted for Obama, and at the same time essentially legalized civil rights violations. This is far from over....at least here in Cali, the lawyers are armed to the teeth and ready to take this to court.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 6, 2008 12:39:46 GMT -5
We covered that pretty much yesterday. It's off a little here and there, but it has to be, because some states need SOME representatives. The breakdown is actually very fair.
I just wish they would go with the split electors method. Maine does it.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Nov 6, 2008 13:57:24 GMT -5
at least here in Cali, the lawyers are armed to the teeth and ready to take this to court.
Good for them, it wont work, the people have spoken. Now we are going to take every election we lose to court?
I dont even need to defend my position on this, I speak with the majority. Let the gays play gay behind closed doors, they can get one of those girls that hang around gay guys to play Priest for the night and hold a mock wedding.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 6, 2008 14:03:53 GMT -5
"Good for them, it wont work, the people have spoken."
You don't know Cali very well, I guess.....better research the highly controversial Prop 187 from a few years back.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 6, 2008 14:04:58 GMT -5
The problem is that it does in some cases go beyond just wearing rings and buttfucking.
It can affect wallets. For example, if two gays get marital rights, and are legal spouses, do employers have to cover the spouses the way they would if they were male/female? If so, then you just added a significant cost for employers, lest they face discrimination charges.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 6, 2008 14:13:13 GMT -5
"if two gays get marital rights, and are legal spouses, do employers have to cover the spouses the way they would if they were male/female?"OK...so what? Again, if a man and a man are co-habitating and AGAIN if a man and a man are behaving in an economic sense in the exact same way that a man/woman couple are.....why the need to discriminate? The financial benefits of being married (whether those benefits are government-based or employer-based) are there for a reason. If a same-sex couple is economically every bit as viable as a opposite-sex couple, then what's the big deal? Your argument ALMOST implies that corporations would benefit by knowingly hire more gays in order to save on health benefit costs....that's just silly. You can't hire or fire based on sexual orientation discrimination. What if corporations decided to only hire straight people - they would open themselves up to higher overhead because the potential for marriages would be much greater. Either way it's an illogical argument. You're telling me that this is all based on Corporate America wanting preserve some alleged financial benefit of saving money on health benefits by employing more gays? Come on...seriously?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 6, 2008 14:26:07 GMT -5
You can say so what, but that can prove to be very costly for the employer. It's significantly cheaper to pay for a single employee.
And paying for spouses of gay people can add a significant enough cost to make employers reconsider various health plans. I know at my place, we already stopped covering full families because the cost is too great.
You're right that you can't hire and fire based on sexual discrimination, but the point is that there is more to same sex marriages and their legality than simply two guys wearing rings.
And no, that's not the only reason for no gay marriages, but spousal benefits is one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 6, 2008 14:44:44 GMT -5
"And no, that's not the only reason for no gay marriages, but spousal benefits is one of them."
YEAH, but Balls...can't you see that the underlying theme here is discrimination? The Conservative right don't want to ban gay marriages, they want to ban GAYNESS. Of course they can't publicly come out and say it....but just look at Tom's response as proof of that....he basically dehumanized them in a mocking way. Gays are less than human to most conservatives. You think that the conservative base is looking at this issue from purely a fiscal point of view? Hell no. The religious right thinks that homosexuality is about as sacrilegious, un-god-like, and morally bankrupt as can possibly be....and if they had their druthers ALL people would feel that way and there'd be no homosexuality.
So what if they got their wish - then all people would be straight, which would increase the amount of potential husbands and potential wives exponentially....and employers would have to cover them.
This is not a fiscal issue - this is a disguised discrimination issue.
Employer health benefit costs have no bearing here....so what's next....employers will start discouraging people from having children because of the costs to cover a family? You see what you're implying here Balls....you're implying that discrimination and/or intimidation intended to steer people's personal behavior in the workplace is OK in order to cut down on health benefit costs. If employers don't like the health costs they are faced with, then don't offer as much coverage. But don't imply that legalizing discrimination in the name of savings on benefit costs is a viable solution.
Frankly, to be honest, this Prop 8 in California has been a highly public, highly contested issue for a LONG TIME, and you are the first person I've ever heard on either side even vaguely imply that this was at all related to health coverage.
Ohhh, and by the way, not to stereotype, but I can only imagine that the large majority of existing or would-be GAY MARRIAGES would not have a stay-at-home-spouse situation.....probably both are working in viable jobs with viable health coverage opportunities....so it would all balance out anyway.....one employer would cover the "couple", on employer wouldn't have to cover any benefits whatsoever.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 6, 2008 14:50:58 GMT -5
It's not discrimination if you don't accept that marriage is anything other than that between a man and a woman. Pretty much everything in life has some form of discrimination, but a lot of that is semantics based on definition.
Not everyone is or should be a protected class. And not every term is meant to be all encompassing.
For example, look at our tax code. It clearly discriminates against Americans who make more money. Whether you believe that's right or wrong, that's the way it is.
There's also accepted forms of age discrimination.
You can't vote until you're 18 or drink until you're 21.
If a society doesn't want to expand the definition of marriage to encompass that, that's their call.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 6, 2008 15:06:42 GMT -5
The tax code doesn't discriminate against people who make more money...it asks them to pay more taxes. You aren't deprived of any civil rights based on your paycheck.
And the other examples - drinking, voting - there's a basis for it. Presumably people under a certain age don't have the maturity and responsibility to enjoy those rights - that's a psychological/biological based form of discrimination - no different than preventing blind people from getting driver's licenses.
This is discrimination against a person's personal choice....this is not a case of legal vs. illegal, not a case of potential endangerment ... this is a case of irrational discrimination. You don't have to agree with homosexuality...I don't...I don't get it, I don't even remotely understand it....but what I won't do is dehumanize those who do. Which consenting adult you choose to stick your dick in is every bit as irrelevant to civil and human rights as the color of one's skin or one's religious affiliation.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Nov 6, 2008 15:16:17 GMT -5
Whats next, Cho? If you are going to extend married rights to gays, why not extend them to a man and his dog?
Again, the public has spoken. Stop blaming the ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES. The same retards that put Obama in office out West had enough of this gay marriage crap as well. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.
If the gays want to put on a show, they can go jump into the Halloween parade in the village like they always do.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 6, 2008 15:19:41 GMT -5
"why not extend them to a man and his dog"
Yes, because it's completely rational to equate a GAY-HUMAN BEING to a DOG, right?
In the days of civil rights movements for African-Americans, it was ultimately deemed wrong to equate a BLACK-HUMAN BEING to being something less than human.....but it's OK for you to do the same with gays?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 6, 2008 15:35:44 GMT -5
Chris--with the tax code, you're getting into semantics. The tax code discriminates against people who make more money by forcing them to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. It doesn't ask--it tells.
And yes, that's discrimination based on class. And yes, there are public policy reasons for the other forms of discrimination I came up with, and at the same time, it's arguable that there are policy discriminations to not have gay marriage. Most importantly, it's what the people want. Some times are socially acceptable. Hell, killing babies is socially acceptable when you call it abortion. And as barbaric as abortion is, it's allowed and not going anywhere.
As for gays, no one is saying that sticking your cock in the ass of consenting buttslammer is not allowed. That's not the same thing as treating someone as less human. Gays are allowed to do anything heterosexuals can do. But that doesn't mean that society needs to alter definitions of various institutions to cater to them.
But legally recognizing them as a spouse is another story, and it's important to recognize the other side of the argument, even if you don't agree with it. There may come a time when public sentiment changes. I think that's inevitable. But if this can't win on the ballot in California, it's not happening just yet.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Nov 6, 2008 15:38:38 GMT -5
Im just wondering where it will alll end. I personally have nothing against gays. I have gay friends, and maybe have had more than I have known about. I've shared a drink and a laugh with them. They can do as they please, they do not disgust me in the least. However, enough of this marriage crap. If it ain't broke, dont fix it.
One problem with the gays is they cant leave well enough alone. They are flamboyant to a fault, and sometimes I think most of them want to get married not cause they think it will cement their love, and not cause they are trying to filch benefits that our traditional married friends have, but cause they are in, "hey, look at us, we're here! we're queer! Recognize us!" mode.
None of us want to hear it, really. That is why it was voted down, it is always voted down, even by other hardcore liberal sorts outside of the dense like FPY.
You are making me out to be a pariah when I simply think marriage should be between a man and a woman. Nothing odd about that, my friend!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 6, 2008 16:58:29 GMT -5
I totally understand the other side of the argument.....as I have even admitted that I do see some merit to this movement against gay marriages as it relates to the church and their tax exemption status.
And I totally agree with YOU, Tom. I have absolutely no shame in admitting that I find the over-the-top and even antagonistic personalities toward heterosexuals, which many many gay people display, to be quite distasteful. I don't walk around the mall with my wife blatantly and graphically advertising the idea that I'm gonna bang her later....and I think a frequent mindset of gay (men in particular) is to do just that. I'm on board with you there. But we can sit here and write out a laundry list of distasteful personality traits of all sorts of groups of people.
The idea that I am trying to convey here is that I interpret this piece of legislation to be, essentially, legalized civil rights violations. And I am far from alone in this interpretation.
It is true - the people of California have spoken. By a slim majority they oppose the idea that the legal definition of marriage should accommodate same-sex couples. Marriage is a long-time widely held, sacred (to some), social institution. But guess what...slavery was once a long-time widely held, sacred social institution. Society once agreed in overwhelming numbers that the definition of a "person" ("person" is the language used in the Constitution to define the member of the group that is afforded Constitutional rights) did not include blacks. Ultimately it was determined that, despite the will and/or personal interpretations of the people, it was not up to nor was it fair for society to exclude blacks from the definition of "people" via the vote.
This is the same thing - yes, the people have voted. But the legal argument that will follow is that it is simply not within compliance with the law and the constitution that people can put the blatant denial of civil rights to a vote. The attorneys will argue that the people of California should not have been able to vote on this in the first place, as it is a (perceived) violation of Constitutional rights. That is what you will see coming in the courts....and that defense has already worked in California with Prop 187 several years back.
Even if it doesn't pan out in favor of gays right away, look for this initiative to be like the marijuana legalization initiative in California - it'll be on the ballot EVERY SINGLE ELECTION.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 6, 2008 17:04:05 GMT -5
By the way, off the gay topic...
I'm a little surprised by the sentiment on this board that we were all completely expecting Obama to win Cali.
Cali was by no means perceived a case of shooting ducks in a barrel for Obama.
I know Cali has the stereotype of being flaky, hippy-dippy.
But, you all DO realize that historically this is one of the most conservative states in the nation....yes? You do realize that it was a MAJOR MAJOR shocker in 2000 when Gore took this state....people were floored.
This is the home of the patriarch of the Republican Party - Ronald Reagan. We have a staunchly conservative governor, and I myself live in one of the most conservative strongholds in the entire nation - Orange County (which by no coincidence, hosts Newport Beach - the city with the most millionaires per capita in the nation).
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 6, 2008 18:35:44 GMT -5
I don't know what California you live in, but the GOP hasn't won in California since 1988, and that was by a small margin. McCain never competed there. It was never in play--no more than in NY. Obama won the state by almost a whopping 24 points (61-37).
California might as well be named New New York it's so liberal now.
And I don't see the shock of Gore winning in 2000 either. He beat Bush handily, 53.5-41.7.
BEFORE 1988, the state was a GOP stalwart state, but not for 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 6, 2008 18:49:00 GMT -5
That's true....but largely we are a conservative state.
In fact, from 1952 through 1988, Republicans won every presidential election except the landslide loss of Barry Goldwater in 1964.
In fact, we have only voted for three Dems since then: Clinton only because Bush was perceived as being so bad, Gore because he was thought to be an extension of Clinton, and again Kerry because Bush was perceived as being so bad.
Aside from urban pockets of minorities, this state LOVES its right wing politics.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 6, 2008 19:27:24 GMT -5
I believe the dems have been gaining ground every single election since 1984, even in 88 when Bush won, it wasn't by as big a margin as Reagan.
You are right about the history, but 20 years and 4 straight elections tends to shift the pattern the other way.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Nov 6, 2008 19:59:23 GMT -5
Cho, are you fucking nuts? When they said on the news,"Breaking news, Obama wins California", I thought they were reading it from 4 months ago. It's fucking silly to think McCain had a chance, what are you going to say next, Obama wasn't a shoe in for NY either? It's crazy talk.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 7, 2008 13:59:20 GMT -5
POST ELECTION STUFF:
So the shit has really hit the fan in the Republican Party. Undisclosed members of McCain's own staff are launching grenades at Palin, accusing her of lacking basic, grammar-school-level geography knowledge, and lacking a clear understanding of American government knowledge. A lot of the accusations seemed pretty outlandish to me - sounds like a lot of sour grapes and someone looking to paint a scapegoat.
But here's an interesting take - some folks are angry with McCain for exposing Palin to the national scene prematurely, exposing her experience flaws and possibly damaging her potential growth to become a major player in the party.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Nov 7, 2008 14:02:19 GMT -5
Palin will have plenty of time over the next few years to ingratiate herself to the bulk of the party. Shes a player, and that is why some people are ringing sour grapes. The whole situation right now is truly ludicrous. McCain needs to step up and tell people to zip lip. Either way, Palin will get through it. Along with Bobby Jindal, in the next couple of years they will be the "fresh" voices of the party.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Nov 7, 2008 14:03:58 GMT -5
she's not that smart
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 7, 2008 14:08:58 GMT -5
Dude, McCain won Orange County by 30,000 votes. Time for a California history lesson, James. If you look at the county-by-county breakdown of election results, McCain won a tremendous number of counties, but he lost the over-populated urban counties with populations composed densely with minorities, students, and homosexual communities. I haven't counted them up, but I don't think it would be a stretch to say that McCain actually took more counties in California than Barack did. You can see the results - vote.sos.ca.gov/The unfortunate thing for McCain is that so goes L.A. and the Bay Area counties, so goes the state. Orange County and much of the Central and Southern California counties went in favor of McCain, and he crushed Barack in many of these counties by something like a 65/35 split (not counting the small number of votes for fringe candidates).
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 7, 2008 14:09:55 GMT -5
First of all, Palin IS that smart. These are the same people that questioned Reagan's intelligence, and he was the best president in our lifetime.
Not every President needs to sound like a snob and go to Harvard to show that they are capable.
I don't know what Palin's future is, but she helped McCain by energizing the base, and she will only gain more polish from here on out. And Tom's right about Jindal. The key is getting new leadership out there and actually being more than a lesser evil version of the democrats. They need to be Republicans again.
Obama is going to start off with a big honeymoon period. He got elected by talking like a centrist and even taking a Republican like stance on issues like taxation (at least with that 95 percent shit).
Let's see if he pulls it off or acts like the leftist nutjob he has been his whole life. If he governs from the center, he will likely get 8 years. If he gets pulled into the muck by the Nancy Pelosis of Congress, he will fuck up this country for a long time.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 7, 2008 14:12:48 GMT -5
And Chris--what happened in California is exactly why I favor splitting up the electoral votes. Big cities like LA and NYC and Chicago essentially disenfranchise surrounding counties.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 7, 2008 14:13:03 GMT -5
Tom, if the demise and ostracization of once bright stars like Jack Kemp and Pat Buchanan should have taught you anything...it's that the Republican Party is not all that accommodating toward fresh faces and fresh ideas.
This is a party that, up until just a few years ago, considered Strom Thurmond a charter member.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 7, 2008 14:30:43 GMT -5
Nancy Pelosi has already thrown down the gauntlet, making some veiled threats/challenges toward Barack Obama.
Pelosi is FAR from centrist. Obama is trying to promote the idea that he will "dictate" from a centrist standpoint.
Pelosi has made remarks about Obama having a tough road to hoe, not having ever remembered a President coming in with more weight and expectation on his shoulders, and has really in a vague backhanded way, kind of implied that SHE'S the liberal Sheriff in town...almost commanding that the new President will have to placate her in order to be successful.....that's what I'm reading into anyway.
Nancy Pelosi is such a twat. - typical limousine liberal.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Nov 7, 2008 14:49:19 GMT -5
I realize Pelosi is far from centrist. But so is Obama. The question is will Obama actually govern more to the center than his personal feelings.
Obama basically ran as a centrist. He had to if he wanted to win. But will he stand by that ideal or will he be the leftist nutjob he has been to date?
If he does abandon the left and rule from the center (left of center but still not the socialist so many are afraid of), he can plan for 8 years.
The Republicans can't touch Obama right now. But Pelosi can become a target the same way Gingrich was when the dems lost it all.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Nov 7, 2008 15:03:41 GMT -5
"First of all, Palin IS that smart. These are the same people that questioned Reagan's intelligence, and he was the best president in our lifetime."
OK Balls...I get your point....but please don't draw analogies to Palin and Reagan. Sarah Palin would be insulted by you equating her intelligence to Ronald Reagan.
You DO realize that it is now an established medical fact that Ronald Reagan suffered from some level of Alzheimer's symptoms during his Presidency, and even more severely toward the end.
You do realize that the extent to which handlers pulled the strings for Reagan like a puppeteer, make George W. Bush and Dick Cheney look like equals.
Balls, I don't think Sarah Palin is anywhere near a Mensa member. But she is infinitely smarter (and I'm talking inherent intellect here) than Reagan was.
You remember those caricatures and SNL skit portraying Reagan taking meetings with heads of state, unknowingly dressed in tie/jacket and his boxer shorts - you do realize that was prompted be real incidents. Ronald Reagan may not have been a dumb man in his day....but during his Presidency he was, factually, intellectually and physically impaired to a significant degree.
I understand that he is the holy grail of the Republican Party. But you MUST realize that it is the romantic concept of "The Reagan Era" that is revered, not the man himself.
|
|