|
Post by Tsavodiner on Aug 3, 2012 21:37:04 GMT -5
I'm gla(a)d to hear someone admit it's a choice for a change.
Mr. Obama's gone "all in" for November by betting putting the "plank" in the platform for marriage, "hoping against hope" the sideshow will turn the tide away from his dismal economic performance.
May you forgive him if he "goes down" swinging for you
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Aug 3, 2012 21:38:34 GMT -5
p.s.: you should ask your law school for your tuition money back
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on Aug 4, 2012 6:23:25 GMT -5
I say that if you wish to eat a chicken sandwich (or hamburger or fish sandwich or burrito) of questionable origins that has quite possibly been in a freezer for many months on a bun with more dough conditioners and preservatives than you can shake a stick at, go for it. Personally, I will go hungry for a while than eat at any fast "food" joint. Politics has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Aug 4, 2012 6:39:27 GMT -5
He was being Ironic, Tsavo. Later he parenthetically says "(supposedly)".
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Aug 4, 2012 7:54:50 GMT -5
|
|
ozzy87
Regular
Somewhere between aggravating and sarcastic.
Posts: 69
|
Post by ozzy87 on Aug 4, 2012 13:28:28 GMT -5
It's not stereotyping. His actions, not his words, are being criticized. I'm still waiting for someone to give me any reason that doesn't violate Constitutional principle or law that can be used to justify denying marriage equality. Rick Warren has it wrong. I don't give a d*mn if Mr. Cathy or anyone else disagrees with me, as I stated earlier. Its not a "lifestyle", it's MY LIFE. This impacts my life every day. My partner and I have been together over 14 years. Longer than most of my straight friends and my younger sister were married.. Every day the possibility is that if one of us is injured the other can't make medical decisions for the other or even denied knowledge of mine or his condition. Or that our shared estate, insurance, and other benefits are not exempted from full taxation. Don't talk about wills and power of attorneys. A friend is a lawyer and had all the legal papers signed and documented legally to cover everything. His partner died suddenly of a heart attack at work. His partner's parents came in and had a judge overturn everything because my friend supposedly "coerced" him into being a homosexual and signing the will. They had been together for 9 years. If they had been legally married, transfer of possessions would have happened automatically to the surviving spouse unless a prenuptial agreement or stated differently in a will. And this friend is not the only one I know that had this problem. He makes, at least, the fourth couple who have had legal issues on financial matters. I'm not a lawyer; nor do I claim to be an expert on anything; but when you've seen and live the problems caused by being denied something that is none of anyone's d*mn business, it pi$$es me off.
|
|
ozzy87
Regular
Somewhere between aggravating and sarcastic.
Posts: 69
|
Post by ozzy87 on Aug 4, 2012 13:49:05 GMT -5
Justin, at least you're being reasonable about it and being respectful. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Conservator on Aug 4, 2012 13:56:42 GMT -5
I was simply replying to Justin and pointing out that he is hardly a typical christian The Chick-Fil-Aers come from the evangelical/fundamental side, those of them that feel threatened that others are allowed to believe differently from themselves. Who are the "Chick-Fil-Aers"? You talking about the CEO/CFA Corporate folks? or those that supported them on Aug 1st? Either way, "those that feel threatened that other are allowed to believe differently from themselves" Sounds just as much like the gay/lesbian community in this case!!
|
|
|
Post by Conservator on Aug 4, 2012 15:39:06 GMT -5
As for your points ozzy, not sure if my argument is constitutional or not, but I'll try to explain the feeling of some who oppose gay marriage. Hear me out... 1st, understanding what marriage means to people, is important. For many, we think it's a religious contract/commitment... But somewhere down the road, the government got involved. Maybe that's where the problem lies honestly- as some others on here might agree. Separation of church/state etc... The other side of that is, ever since this country was founded, marriage or the family was/is the fabric of our society. It was thought what makes a good/healthy/strong community was families, and in turn tax breaks were/are given to incentivize or essentially fund those who were married or have families. This is the way it is/was, no? Now, I know a lot of people's opinions (specially over the past 10 to 15 years) have evolved on this issue... So to group all Christians into one group is foolish. I honestly have no problem with you, or any gay couple getting the hosp visitation rights, "shared estate, insurance" and other things you mention... If it wasn't gov funded (essentially by tax cuts) then we'd all live happily ever after. For some anyway, the problem is, similar to abortion, they don't want to fund something they believe to be a sin. Don't confuse benefits with rights though... The Gov incentivizes or gives some groups and not others benefits all the time... and "We the People" have the ultimate say with our vote.
|
|
ozzy87
Regular
Somewhere between aggravating and sarcastic.
Posts: 69
|
Post by ozzy87 on Aug 4, 2012 17:44:11 GMT -5
"We the people" at one time thought women shouldn't have the right to vote. "We the people" thought at one time Jim Crow laws were acceptable. "We the people" thought at one time African-Americans were three fifths a person. "We the people" thought that inter-racial marriage was morally wrong (over 75% of the people and at least 18+ states banned them). You don't get to vote on other people's civil rights. And marriage IS a civil right according to the U.S. Supreme court in the case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967, when they ruled against inter-racial marriage bans. They directly drew from the 14th Amendment. If you look at every argument they used then to defend those bans switch the words fro "race" to "gender" and they're exactly the same. If you want to level the field, get rid of ALL the 1138 benefits denied to gay couples, including not being forced to testify against your spouse in court, and others that are taken for granted today. Gluttony is also a sin. You don't see anyone trying to ban Golden Corral or Ryan's do you? Divorce is also a sin Try to ban that and see how that goes down. Considering evangelicals have the highest divorce rates of any religious affiliation, they shouldn't throw stones. Quakers are forced to pay for the military even though they're morally opposed to warfare. The Amish pay taxes to a society they (mostly) reject. The point of this: we all pay for some things in a free society that we are opposed to morally. Unless some want a theocracy, and a perfect example of how well that works out is Iran.
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Aug 4, 2012 19:01:47 GMT -5
It's the freaking HYPOCRACY. No one scratches their a$$ when talibangicals boycott companies for standing up and supporting gay rights, but let us qu**rs get national attention for boycotting a company that ACTIVELY supports hate groups and watch the sh*t hit the fan. BANG that drum! Not sure who you're trying to convince besides yourself, but you missed your chance Wednesday when you had an audience of more than six. Happy Neal Patrick Harris Day
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on Aug 4, 2012 19:30:04 GMT -5
Ok. Tsavo we get your point. Ozzy we get your point. I feel safe in saying no one here is going to change their mind(s) on this subject anytime soon. Unless I can convince somebody to quit eating fast "food".
|
|
ozzy87
Regular
Somewhere between aggravating and sarcastic.
Posts: 69
|
Post by ozzy87 on Aug 4, 2012 20:07:48 GMT -5
Krystals are Food of the Gods!!
|
|
|
Post by Conservator on Aug 4, 2012 20:11:03 GMT -5
Those were all cases that were corrected. So technically the system has worked - only flaw is they were'nt corrected fast enough. And as with the rights you're wanting (which I actually agree you should have), you'll get them; the tides are turning. You'd probably already have them if it wasnt up to each state... But the benefits, the benefits or tax breaks are not rights... and THAT is what I was talking about when mentioning its up to "we the people". What the country wants to promote/incentivize via tax breaks is what our votes can sway.
Ban Ryan's?? Really... thats funny you mention that with the libs in CA & NY currently playing the role of "the food police"...
|
|
|
Post by Conservator on Aug 4, 2012 20:16:59 GMT -5
Krystals are Food of the Gods!! I heard the VP of Krystal goes to church...
|
|
ozzy87
Regular
Somewhere between aggravating and sarcastic.
Posts: 69
|
Post by ozzy87 on Aug 4, 2012 21:09:03 GMT -5
So what? I go to church and even (gasp) pray on a daily basis.
|
|
ozzy87
Regular
Somewhere between aggravating and sarcastic.
Posts: 69
|
Post by ozzy87 on Aug 4, 2012 21:41:07 GMT -5
Ok. If you want to play the tax incentives game. I want a refund on all the taxes I've paid for education, excluding what it cost for myself. I don't have kids, so why should I pay to educate them? They're your children, you pay for them. Why is my 14 year relationship deemed legally inferior to some loser's when he goes to Las Vegas, gets drunk, and gets married to a showgirl dancer by an Elvis impersonator at a drive through chapel? As soon as he says "by the power invested in me by the state of ------, they are entitled those 1138 benefits. I'll agree, some of the ultra-liberals are off their rockers with banning trans-fats and other ridiculous stunts.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Aug 6, 2012 12:04:40 GMT -5
Another disconnect : if you don't like the mayors stand on CFA, then what's your opinion of small towns and cities blocking WalMart and other big box stores from locating in their areas? Different reasons, same result. those different reasons are the key. not wanting a big box storeb/c the citizens feel it will have a negative impact on their small town is perfectly legal. not allowing CFA b/c of their religious beliefs is illegal. I see a bunch of hypocrites rallying around a lousy chicken fast food joint (Jenkins Buffet in East Ridge and Zaxby's chicken makes CFA hang their head in shame), but I don't see any of them crying crocodile tears and blowing bulls**t indignation about the boycott and protests in front of, and believe it or not, hiring a small plane to tow anti-gay banners over Walt Disney World during Gay Day. No howling like a banshee over the boycott of J.C. Penny over hiring Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson. how does that make them hypocrites? no one said you didn't have a right to boycott. they just chose to support the company you were boycotting. likewise, you can support JCP. that doesn't mean either side are hypocrites. as for me, i eat at CFA b/c i like the food (sorry, tnbear). even antoine dodson eats there! youtu.be/LUmoTOujJ7Q
|
|
|
Post by Conservator on Aug 6, 2012 14:42:23 GMT -5
That was funny... "what about their waffle fries?"
|
|
|
Post by Conservator on Aug 6, 2012 14:47:35 GMT -5
Bet they'll probably lose there sponsorship of the Peach Bowl over all this...
|
|
ozzy87
Regular
Somewhere between aggravating and sarcastic.
Posts: 69
|
Post by ozzy87 on Aug 6, 2012 17:37:16 GMT -5
I'll quit beating this dead horse after one last comment. When Cathy's pen writes a check to support groups like the Family Research Council (who lobbied Congress to vote against a resolution condemning Uganda's new law making homosexuality punishable by execution, along with sponsoring a minister at a "defense of marriage" protest in NY where he called for the same in this country) , it's no longer merely an opinion. He is advocating violence by financially supporting groups that de-humanize homosexuals. Words have power. Demonize a group long enough and at some point in time people come to accept them as sub-human. Jews were not the only ones slaughtered during the Holocaust. Homosexuals were also murdered. They were forced to wear pink triangle armbands, so that's why the pink triangle is a sign of gay pride. I've been gay-bashed. I walked out of a bar and was jumped by three guys. No robbery, just a lot of yelling " cigarette" and "queer", so I know first hand what scapegoating and propaganda can do some people.
|
|
|
Post by Conservator on Aug 6, 2012 20:28:25 GMT -5
That's the 2nd time now I've read what you're saying about ChickfilA supporting "support groups like the Family Research Council (who lobbied Congress to vote against a resolution condemning Uganda's new law making homosexuality punishable by execution". That sounded pretty terrible... so I just went to Snopes and, just as suspected, that whole claim is not proven to be true. www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chickfila.asp
|
|
|
Post by Conservator on Aug 6, 2012 21:13:26 GMT -5
Not quite done yet. Just wanted to go back to one of your points, to prove one of mine... Why do you say polygamy is a separate issue? Sounds like it's very similar actually. Its not legal b/c its traditionally opposed by society, similar to gay marriage being opposed by most of society (tho its gained much ground in recent years). There's plenty of issues/laws that are based on societal values/morals. Are we depriving potential polygamists their rights?
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Aug 12, 2012 6:11:08 GMT -5
|
|
ozzy87
Regular
Somewhere between aggravating and sarcastic.
Posts: 69
|
Post by ozzy87 on Aug 12, 2012 9:14:31 GMT -5
Not quite done yet. Just wanted to go back to one of your points, to prove one of mine... Why do you say polygamy is a separate issue? Sounds like it's very similar actually. Its not legal b/c its traditionally opposed by society, similar to gay marriage being opposed by most of society (tho its gained much ground in recent years). There's plenty of issues/laws that are based on societal values/morals. Are we depriving potential polygamists their rights?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I didn't say similar. I said separate. There is a legal separation. And the legal ramifications of allowing three adults in a marriage are very different than just two. Personally, I couldn't care less if three people got married or not. It's none of my business. As long as all involved are of sound mind and of legal age. I don't have a clue how they'll work it out, but, that's not my problem. Marriage between two people is already legal. All we want is the law to be applied equally, regardless if the gender is male/male, female/female, or male/female. Just because there is a law banning something doesn't mean the law is just or constitutional. I've stated several examples earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Aug 22, 2012 22:21:17 GMT -5
DATELINE: Lincoln, Nebraska
"Police say former UN women's basketball star Charlie Rogers faked an alleged July 22 attack in which she claimed three masked men broke into her house and carved anti-gay slurs into her skin." --- "She said she thought it would spark 'change'...".
from USA Today
|
|
ozzy87
Regular
Somewhere between aggravating and sarcastic.
Posts: 69
|
Post by ozzy87 on Aug 23, 2012 7:30:13 GMT -5
DATELINE: Lincoln, Nebraska "Police say former UN women's basketball star Charlie Rogers faked an alleged July 22 attack in which she claimed three masked men broke into her house and carved anti-gay slurs into her skin." --- "She said she thought it would spark 'change'...". from USA Today ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I somehow KNEW this would be brought up. Talk about grasping for straw man arguments and false equivalency ( big words for trying to compare two totally different things). How does this subject connect with the legality of marriage equality? This woman needs to be prosecuted for filing a false police report and lying about the commission of a crime, at least. Anyone with at least two working brain cells should condemn her and anyone else trying this stupid stunt.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Aug 23, 2012 15:20:57 GMT -5
DATELINE: Lincoln, Nebraska "Police say former UN women's basketball star Charlie Rogers faked an alleged July 22 attack in which she claimed three masked men broke into her house and carved anti-gay slurs into her skin." --- "She said she thought it would spark 'change'...". from USA Today ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I somehow KNEW this would be brought up. Talk about grasping for straw man arguments and false equivalency ( big words for trying to compare two totally different things). How does this subject connect with the legality of marriage equality? This woman needs to be prosecuted for filing a false police report and lying about the commission of a crime, at least. Anyone with at least two working brain cells should condemn her and anyone else trying this stupid stunt. the same is true for those who use the todd akin controversy to bolster their asinine claim that conservatives are engaging in a "war on women."
|
|
|
Post by Tsavodiner on Aug 23, 2012 15:39:46 GMT -5
Then why didn't YOU bring it up and get out in front of the issue?
|
|
ozzy87
Regular
Somewhere between aggravating and sarcastic.
Posts: 69
|
Post by ozzy87 on Aug 23, 2012 16:24:46 GMT -5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I somehow KNEW this would be brought up. Talk about grasping for straw man arguments and false equivalency ( big words for trying to compare two totally different things). How does this subject connect with the legality of marriage equality? This woman needs to be prosecuted for filing a false police report and lying about the commission of a crime, at least. Anyone with at least two working brain cells should condemn her and anyone else trying this stupid stunt. the same is true for those who use the todd akin controversy to bolster their asinine claim that conservatives are engaging in a "war on women." --------------------------------------------------------------------- Tsavodiner, what issue? Some dumba$$ pulled an idiotic stunt and got caught. She's in the same boat as the woman who faked cancer and Tawana Brawley. Wheels, the big difference with Akin is that he is running for elected office and can affect public policy. I haven't said anything on either side of that issue, because it doesn't affect me. The only thing I'll say about him is that it takes real talent (or running his mouth without engaging his brain first) to royally pi$$ off both conservatives and liberals at the same time.
|
|