Prop 8 jesus christ!

I don't apologize for celebrating people losing their employment when that employment involves actively working to deprive other people of their civil rights.

daver wrote: ...or a time to state that they got their "just deserts."

And who said anything about deserts?

daver wrote: Seeing as that the medical field actively works to deprive other people of their very lives through the evils of birth control and abortion.

Embryos =/= people.

daver wrote: Yer missing the point. You say embryos aren't people, they say marriage is only between a man and a woman. You have your reasons, they have theirs.

No.

I say a non-viable clump of cells doesn't have the same rights as a person.

They say a person (or group thereof) doesn't have the same rights as other people.

They are oppressing a group of people and I celebrate any setbacks they suffer in that effort.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=daver]Yer missing the point. You say embryos aren't people, they say marriage is only between a man and a woman. You have your reasons, they have theirs.

No.

I say a non-viable clump of cells doesn't have the same rights as a person.

They say a person (or group thereof) doesn't have the same rights as other people.

They are oppressing a group of people and I celebrate any setbacks they suffer in that effort.
Alright then, how about affirmative action then? I don't have the same rights as other people due to the color of my skin. When I tried to go to university, I had to score higher on my SATs for entrance than a black or Hispanic in order to gain admission to a state run school. (On the flip side, I could score less than the horribly oppressed Asians.) Once admitted, had I had a different skin color, I would have had the right to all sorts of financial aid, but I didn't because my group didn't have the same rights.

Another debate here, or course, would be as to wither yer clump of cells is a potential person or not. Which is of course a whole 'nother kettle of fish that there are obviously many that would not agree with you about. *shrug*

[quote=Carnivore]

Some people -especially in the midwest- believe that jews have rejected christ. If your little girl is correct, jews should receive bacon.

....yet, good Jews (as all new yorkers know) are not supposed to have bacon.

So, your little girl carrying a sign (I'm sorry, "young woman") is a threat to both christianity and judiasm?!

Perhaps a proposition is needed to ban her.

I don't think affirmative action prevents you from going to college. That's not at all analogous to the situation of a gay couple that wants to marry but are now prevented by law in California from doing to.

As to the debate about whether a clump of cells has civil rights, bring it on!

Carnivore wrote: I don't think affirmative action prevents you from going to college. That's not at all analogous to the situation of a gay couple that wants to marry but are now prevented by law in California from doing to.

It is analogous to "They say a person (or group thereof) doesn't have the same rights as other people. They are oppressing a group of people". If you want to go to state run college in CA, a white or Asian has to score higher than a black or Hispanic. Additionally, a black or Hispanic is eligible for all sorts of financial aid that a white or Asian is not. It does not prevent them from going to college, they have to score higher and have more money than blacks or Asians, is all. Not being legally married in CA won't prevent a gay couple from being happy, but they will have to travel to another state to marry, and pay more in income taxes than a non-gay couple. How is the the abridgment of rights not analogous?

Not that I disagree with either affirmative action or gay marriage, FWIW. But all sorts of groups are granted rights that other groups are not. Parents get to extra deductions on their income taxes, all the while consuming more of the tax money by having children in school. Shouldn't _non_ parents be the ones getting those deductions? Etc.

Carnivore wrote: As to the debate about whether a clump of cells has civil rights, bring it on!

Yah, I'll get right on that. I know that I've been through that one enough times to know that there is _no_ end. There is a base difference of opinion, and no amount of evidence from one side can possibly convince the other.

daver wrote: Not being legally married in CA won't prevent a gay couple from being happy, but they will have to travel to another state to marry, and pay more in income taxes than a non-gay couple.

oh yes, all those other states where gay people can get married.... let's see, there's

alabama? -- hilarious. no
alaska? -- ha! nope
arizona? -- not so much
arkansas? -- you're killin' me here. no.
california? -- not anymore, suckers.
colorado? -- nope
connecticut? -- yes. this one yes.
delaware? -- no, but please leave your $ in rehoboth beach!
florida? -- nope. rosie can't even keep her kids.
georgia? -- the indigo girls are from here, yet no.
hawaii? -- nice beaches, but no.
idaho? -- c'mon. no.
illinois? -- no change here.
indiana? -- you're kidding again. no.
iowa? -- nope.
kansas? -- no can do.
kentucky? -- no. good bourbon, though.
louisiana? -- way too moral.
maine? -- no.
maryland? -- you'd think, with that name, but no.
massachusetts? -- yes! oh wait, NO NO NO, unless you live here. gotcha! thank heavens for anti-miscegenation laws!
michigan? -- M go NOPE.
minnesota? -- ya bet no.
mississippi? -- you're being funny again.
missouri? -- show me your bits...no.
montana? -- nope.
nebraska? -- never.
nevada? -- only men may marry britney spears.
new hampshire? -- live free or die, unless you're that way. then just die.
new jersey? -- nope.
new mexico? -- not gonna happen.
new york? -- soooo liberal we don't even have no-fault divorce. that's a no.
north carolina? -- wrote its laws careful back in the 1890s. no.
north dakota? -- nope.
ohio? -- gateway to indiana. no.
oklahoma? -- not OK.
oregon? -- next thing you know, spotted owls will want to marry redwoods. no.
pennsylvania? -- no, but please buy a confederate flag anywhere you like.
rhode island? -- hello? it's not mr. and mr. potato head. no.
south carolina? -- HA HA HA. no.
south dakota? -- you kidder. no.
tennessee? -- you're killin' me here. no
texas? -- please, please, stop. no.
utah? -- in the state founded to avoid federal marriage laws? of course not!
vermont? -- socialist senator, check. man on man matrimony? gross!
virginia? -- how dare you suggest any such thing about good queen bess! never!
washington? -- back to vancouver with you! no!
west virginia? -- there's an incest joke in here somewhere. no.
wisconsin? -- no, but maybe the cheese will make up for it.
wyoming? -- ask matt shepard.

so you see, california gays could go to any one of the one-twelfth of a dozen states to get married instead! no problems here!

and as for "happiness".... sorry, but i don't really think it's your place as a straight man to make that kind of determination.

i'm still trying to figure out who converted me to gayism. must have been some subtle persuasion.

sweet tea wrote: and as for "happiness".... sorry, but i don't really think it's your place as a straight man to make that kind of determination.

Well shit sweetie, I had _no_ idea that one needed the government's stamp of approval to be happy! I've been doing it wrong! Arg!

And who are you to put my in my place as a straight man? Are you outing me? How rude. You've never met me. You have no idea of my straight or curved-ness. Additionally, since you've outed _yourself_ as a gayist person, I will remember to remind you that you cannot make any determination as to things pertaining to "straight" people. Well, not really. But come on. Really.

daver wrote: [quote=sweet tea]and as for "happiness".... sorry, but i don't really think it's your place as a straight man to make that kind of determination.

Well shit sweetie, I had _no_ idea that one needed the government's stamp of approval to be happy! I've been doing it wrong! Arg!

And who are you to put my in my place as a straight man? Are you outing me? How rude. You've never met me. You have no idea of my straight or curved-ness. Additionally, since you've outed _yourself_ as a gayist person, I will remember to remind you that you cannot make any determination as to things pertaining to "straight" people. Well, not really. But come on. Really.


fine. as a man in a relationship that can legally end in marriage, then. you've outed yourself that far on the board. if your past and/or fantasy life encompasses other possibilities, goodie for you.

but as much as i love straight allies (and i do -- heck, i even love my parents, even though they're straight), no, i do not think that straight folks get to be the experts on the gay experience, any more than i'm interested in men telling me what it's like to be female, or russians telling me what it's like to be american. i'll do my best to return the favor.

in case you're actually interested, here is what i meant about "happiness", more or less.

i've heard from many people about how i'm confused or damaged or man-hating or going to hell (or all of the above!). this is what i get to risk being told if i tell the truth about my life. that's not counting the fear of violence, which exists, too. it's awesome. (try not to be jealous.) would legal marriage fix all that? no, but i do think it would tend to help. but it certainly DOES have a negative impact on my happiness level to reminded every election day that the majority of some number of states or other thinks i'm broken, unnatural, or worse.

nice post carn.

It all reminds me of what I consider to be most recent, certainly my favorite "big scare that turned out to be completely false": Y2K.

Here's a few things that were supposed to happen:
1. Everything from shovels to computers was supposed to stop working; and jokers were selling their services to ensure you that things were y2k compliant.

2. Aliens were going to land in the desert (just to clear up the record, my brother went to the desert to watch people wait for aliens. He did not go there to actually wait for aliens.)

3. Judgement day/rapture/armageddon (sp?) was to occur.

4. We'd all get around via jet backpacks.

Needless to say, some were very disappointed. ...however, some made lots of money stating that the world would end.

...this time they might be making lots of money by making lots of people go to church. Regardless, they are crazed zealots I avoid.

Jon Stewart OWNS Mike Huckabee on this issue:

.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}