Jack

[gardenweasel]

The country was split on slavery. Half were wrong. Those opposed look like assfaces in retrospect.

Then the country was split on women's rights. Half were wrong. Those opposed look like assfaces in retrospect.

The country is now divided on gay rights.

right or wrong,the defense of marriage act was thought appropriate by some very intelligent and honorable people...you couldn`t have immigrants coming into this country involved in polygamous marriages recognized for federal tax benefits,could you?....is it too narowly focused?...maybe....

what i`ve said thoughout this entire clusterfuck of a thread isn`t that you need some structure in law on issues like this and that decisions like this are complicated ,difficult and can`t be accomplished with a snap of your fingers....

it`s such a nuanced issue and jthere are so many peripheral issues involved that it takes time and a serious,deliberative process to hash through it all and come out witth an equitable outcome.....

i honestly haven`t taken a position on the issue and i`m being attacked like i`m typhoid fricking mary walking into times square on new years eve.....

good grief...

 

[Mr. Poon]

The country was split on slavery. Half were wrong. Those opposed look like assfaces in retrospect.

Then the country was split on women's rights. Half were wrong. Those opposed look like assfaces in retrospect.

The country is now divided on gay rights.

:00x33

 

[Mr. Poon]

i honestly haven`t taken a position on the issue and i`m being attacked like i`m typhoid fricking mary walking into times square on new years eve.....

Many people throughout this country's history have sat silently on the sidelines. You are more than free to do that.

However, when you step foot on the field and point to the scoreboard that the majority is winning, and they have 'won' all the recent games pitted between the two foes, and their must be a good reason for that. Well then you have kind of put yourself in the game/debate.

 

[Cie]

right or wrong,the defense of marriage act was thought appropriate by some very intelligent and honorable people...you couldn`t have immigrants coming into this country involved in polygamous marriages recognized for federal tax benefits,could you?....is it too narowly focused?...maybe....

what i`ve said thoughout this entire clusterfuck of a thread isn`t that you need some structure in law on issues like this and that decisions like this are complicated ,difficult and can`t be accomplished with a snap of your fingers....

it`s such a nuanced issue and jthere are so many peripheral issues involved that it takes time and a serious,deliberative process to hash through it all and come out witth an equitable outcome.....

i honestly haven`t taken a position on the issue and i`m being attacked like i`m typhoid fricking mary walking into times square on new years eve.....

good grief...

How am I attacking you? I haven't even addressed you. My parents are openly opposed to gay marriage. Good people are on the wrong side of the fence sometimes. Good grief is right.

 

[gardenweasel]

You really are this dense huh?

I don't find it illogical that people disagree on a topic. I find the logic 'the majority voted this way or wants it this way' on a matter completely flawed.

Shall we look up how America and the majority voted on key issues throughout time?

Or are you too busy trying to find all those posts where I called people other than Hedgehog a bigot? I'm still waiting on that. Was giving you the benefit of the doubt for awhile. Perhaps my wife logged onto my computer while I was sleeping and posted under my name calling people bigots. Plausible I guess though I doubt it would happen. But as further time passes and you don't address this, I'm leaning more and more in the camp of you are full of shit. Feel free to prove me wrong.

you "can`t believe" that i`m not a frothing at the mouth proponent of any issue that you feel strongly about.....therefore i`m ridiculous or illogical...


i think you`re still you`re still butthurt because i defended hedgehog being gangbanged by yourself and t.u......

i find adults stalking people on the internet a little "illogicall....whatttaya think?

 

[gardenweasel]

How am I attacking you? I haven't even addressed you. My parents are openly opposed to gay marriage. Good people are on the wrong side of the fence sometimes. Good grief is right.

gotcha.....:0074

 

[Cie]

My wife just told me that her receptionist ---who is a 50-something white gay male --- is openly opposed to gay marriage. Who woulda thunk it?

 

[Mr. Poon]

you "can`t believe" that i`m not a frothing at the mouth proponent of any issue that you feel strongly about.....therefore i`m ridiculous or illogical...


i think you`re still you`re still butthurt because i defended hedgehog being gangbanged by yourself and t.u......

i find adults stalking people on the internet a little "illogicall....whatttaya think?

I never said you were illogical for not being on the same side of an argument. I would ask for you to show me where I said that to you as well, but at this point your laundry list is getting kind of long and it appears you are having a hard time getting any chores done.

"butthurt because i defended hedgehog being gangbanged..." - take the blinders off. You actually think that I'm against you because of that thread? If you want to rehash that thread, pull it up. Don't try to muck up your wild accusations in this thread by throwing some unrelated matter. You know who else was on your and Hedgehog's side in that thread, fatdaddycool. Guess how Cris and I have interacted since then both on here and through personal communication? Quite fine.


You can find whatever you want to be illogical. Considering what you have shown to be your logic/basis, I would expect you to find many things illogical.

 

[gardenweasel]

Many people throughout this country's history have sat silently on the sidelines. You are more than free to do that.

However, when you step foot on the field and point to the scoreboard that the majority is winning, and they have 'won' all the recent games pitted between the two foes, and their must be a good reason for that. Well then you have kind of put yourself in the game/debate.

where did you get this "majority is winning" strawman?....did you make that up?....

i pointed out that it`s a divided country on the issue and that, imo,inertia is clearly on the side of gay marriage becoming law at some point....

did you miss all that during your hysterical breakdown?..

i`m thinking there may be a new substance added to the elemental table...".mr poon-ium"..the densest material on earth....

:facepalm:

 

[fatdaddycool]

you "can`t believe" that i`m not a frothing at the mouth proponent of any issue that you feel strongly about.....therefore i`m ridiculous or illogical...


i think you`re still you`re still butthurt because i defended hedgehog being gangbanged by yourself and t.u......

i find adults stalking people on the internet a little "illogicall....whatttaya think?

Weasie,
I promise you that neither I nor Cie is attacking you. Poon is just getting a bit pissed at you but only because he is frustrated. Poon is a very intelligent cat and, if you haven't noticed, a very literal person as well. Just like I am a stickler for certain things, he is a deductive reasoning, but this is what you said type of dude. So don't get upset and bail or let it get to you. I am positive nobody means you any harm.
Now, here is my immediate concern and question with your post. What are some of the peripheral issues that you are referencing? I only ask because I see very few to be honest. I don't think that anything will change culturally or socially, but I am interested to hear what you think.

 

[gardenweasel]

Weasie,
I promise you that neither I nor Cie is attacking you. Poon is just getting a bit pissed at you but only because he is frustrated. Poon is a very intelligent cat and, if you haven't noticed, a very literal person as well. Just like I am a stickler for certain things, he is a deductive reasoning, but this is what you said type of dude. So don't get upset and bail or let it get to you. I am positive nobody means you any harm.
Now, here is my immediate concern and question with your post. What are some of the peripheral issues that you are referencing? I only ask because I see very few to be honest. I don't think that anything will change culturally or socially, but I am interested to hear what you think.

i honestly didn`t want to get back into this,but poon addressed me so i obliged...

issues within the law...states rights....federalism....religious doctrinal issues...

it`s complicated....anybody that thinks it isn`t is misinformed....

 

[Mr. Poon]

i honestly didn`t want to get back into this,but poon addressed me so i obliged...

I also addressed you asking where I have called people that simply disagree with me a bigot, but you seem perfectly content to ignore that one.

 

[Mr. Poon]

where did you get this "majority is winning" strawman?....did you make that up?....

Here:

would basically make many of our parents bigots...would also include (until very recently)hillary clinton and barack obama.....

polls are basically all over the place(you get the result you want based on the pollsters agenda in many cases) but certainly until very recently a majority of blacks and hispanics opposed gay marriage.....

truth is,when put to a referendum,it`s been voted down in the majority of states the issue`s been broached(including california)...

And here:

we have three separate and (supposedly) equal branches of government..and a constitution...theres a framework for making decisions...a process involved and that`s why we live in the country that more people around the world would like to live in than any other....

issues don`t get decided on emotion....

i pointed out that it`s a divided country on the issue and that, imo,inertia is clearly on the side of gay marriage becoming law at some point....

Aww, so 'at some point' it will be fine, ok I will calm down. I guess its just going to sort itself out. Guess more of us can just go ahead and move over to the sideline.

 

[gardenweasel]

:facepalm:

It is amazing what you are trying to use for 'logic'. I really thought you were smarter than that.

Or did you simply not put the / in there to let people know you were being sarcastic?

I also addressed you asking where I have called people that simply disagree with me a bigot, but you seem perfectly content to ignore that one.

you initiated our exchange by insulting a perfectly harmless,logical post..a post that apparently differed with your personal p.o.v(how,i`m not sure...but that`s par for the course)....

somehow i offended by not being enough of an activist(in your opinion)....

maybe next time you should shoot me a red box and let me know what i should be thinking and saying?.....

 

[Mr. Poon]

you initiated our exchange by insulting a perfectly harmless,logical post that...a post that apparently differed with your personal p.o.v(how,i`m not sure...but that`s par for the course)....

somehow i offended by not being enough of an activist(in your opinion)....

maybe next time you should shoot me a red box and let me know what i should be thinking and saying?.....

I found your ?logic? of: 1) it is has been voted on; 2) people have made laws; and 3) what has been the historical consensus opinion, therefore there is a reason where we are at, to be flawed. I?ve said that multiple times, not sure how else I can point that out.

You not being an activist has never offended me. In fact, this was just posted a bit ago, thought you saw it since you quoted it:

Many people throughout this country's history have sat silently on the sidelines. You are more than free to do that.

Not sure why I would care to do that in a red box.

 

[gardenweasel]

I found your ?logic? of: 1) it is has been voted on; 2) people have made laws; and 3) what has been the historical consensus opinion, therefore there is a reason where we are at, to be flawed. I?ve said that multiple times, not sure how else I can point that out.

You not being an activist has never offended me. In fact, this was just posted a bit ago, thought you saw it since you quoted it:



Not sure why I would care to do that in a red box.

thank you...and that is exactly where the" stickiness" of the issue that i keep alluding to comes into play...

if doma gets struck down the supreme court needs "grounds" or a reason to do so...most seem to think that it might involve a conflict with states rights....the issue has been put to referendum in many states...so if doma is struck down and it reverts to a states rights issue,there are many states that voted along the same lines that california did....that doesn`t really solve the gay marriage issue and may even complicate it....leading to potential constitutional issues(10th amendment and federalism issues)...


so if the supreme court strikes down the parts of doma they`re reviewing,they may have to get very creative if they want to have an all encompassing decision and have a clean,satisfactory outcome...

it`s involved...that`s just the tip of the iceberg...that`s all i`ve been saying...huge decisions like this don`t happen in a vacuum....doesn`t mean that it can`t or won`t get done...i believe it will...

that`s it....i have to hit the road and get some work done.....

please don`t bring me into this again...i don`t want to spend any more time rehashing "yes you did"/"no you didn`t" ....

don`t like what i posted?...very sorry to disappoint..

:sadwave: :lol:

 

[Mr. Poon]

please don`t bring me into this again...i don`t want to spend any more time rehashing "yes you did"/"no you didn`t" ....

So are you going to continue to ignore my requests for you to point out where I labeled someone a bigot for simply disagreeing with my opinion on this matter?

 

[fatdaddycool]

i honestly didn`t want to get back into this,but poon addressed me so i obliged...

issues within the law...states rights....federalism....religious doctrinal issues...

it`s complicated....anybody that thinks it isn`t is misinformed....

This is exactly what I mean. What "rights" do States have over Federal benefits now? What part of the Federal Government governs religious doctrine now? I don't think they have any authority to dictate doctrine and never have, so how will this change that?
As far as I know, State government has nothing to do with distribution and regulation of Federal funds or benefits, so how will this change that?

It isn't complicated unless you confuse the issue. As I have stated a number of times, nothing in the proposition has anything to do with the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. The only thing that any religious sect has to do with this proposition is when it is used to try to complicate and obfuscate the issue. The conservative right would like you to think that this is a religious and moral issue, because that is what they do. Any and all religious discussion initiated by anyone on this subject is done so only because that person is confused as to the dichotomy of church and state or is simply throwing things at the wall to see if it will stick and gain momentum. The supreme grand dragon of the Conservative Republican party Rush Limbaugh has even said that same sex marriage will be legalized in time regardless of how this decision goes. I believe he said that because he also realizes that this is a personal liberty/civil rights issue. We cannot deny any class of or type of person the inalienable rights afforded them by our Constitution. Secular issues are only raised by those that have no logical argument against that.

For instance, do you remember all the accusations made against POTUS by the GOP accusing him of war crimes, prior knowledge, cover up, and the list goes on and on, yet the same GOP members (Senator Lindsey Graham for instance) were provided with the full disclosure of all documents and reports concerning the attack a month ago and not a peep? Nothing. Do you think it they are silent because they are now part of the conspiracy, or do you think maybe that all the accusations and insults were always nothing more than a propaganda ploy to sway public opinion against the POTUS? At some point, it is each citizen's responsibility to educate themselves on the things that are important to them and make a decision from there. You need to look past the rhetoric and address the issue, in my opinion, and not let outside influences mar your choices. Ask yourself if you want to be a part of a segregated society and go from there.



Cheers bro.



Hope this helps,
FDC

 

[fatdaddycool]

thank you...and that is exactly where the" stickiness" of the issue that i keep alluding to comes into play...

if doma gets struck down the supreme court needs "grounds" or a reason to do so...most seem to think that it might involve a conflict with states rights....the issue has been put to referendum in many states...so if doma is struck down and it reverts to a states rights issue,there are many states that voted along the same lines that california did....that doesn`t really solve the gay marriage issue and may even complicate it....leading to potential constitutional issues(10th amendment and federalism issues)...


so if the supreme court strikes down the parts of doma they`re reviewing,they may have to get very creative if they want to have an all encompassing decision and have a clean,satisfactory outcome...

it`s involved...that`s just the tip of the iceberg...that`s all i`ve been saying...huge decisions like this don`t happen in a vacuum....doesn`t mean that it can`t or won`t get done...i believe it will...

that`s it....i have to hit the road and get some work done.....

please don`t bring me into this again...i don`t want to spend any more time rehashing "yes you did"/"no you didn`t" ....

don`t like what i posted?...very sorry to disappoint..

:sadwave: :lol:

I typed my last post before I saw this so I won't keep dragging you back in, but I do want to say that there is no discussion of amending DOMA. The only discussion is on the Constitutionality of it. I expect it to be repealed in it's entirety.

Again, Cheers bro.

 

[gardenweasel]

I typed my last post before I saw this so I won't keep dragging you back in, but I do want to say that there is no discussion of amending DOMA. The only discussion is on the Constitutionality of it. I expect it to be repealed in it's entirety.

Again, Cheers bro.

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog

here...this is intereting reading...particularly regarding the effect on states rights issues.....i think you`ll enjoy it....

i`m out...

take care,my dude...