patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Marriage might decrease it like marriage has done to heterosexual sex.

lmao ... you are one funny dude.

I do not equate a birth defect or a perversion with the race issue. But, I may be alone in that. You see, the race issue is not really about true race or ethnic background, it's about outward appearance, lingo, and style of dress. Things that Billy-Bob could see at a glance. Totally not cool. On the other hand, there is no way for Billy-Bob to know which males want to sodomize/be sodomized by other males - unless said males say they do, act like they do, or dress like they do. Even then no court in the land could convict a male of sodomy based on any of that, while a negro can be proven to be negro fairly easily. Billy-Bob was an idiot about negros coupling with non-negros. And even worse when it came to Jews.

When you tell me how the courts plan to KNOW a person is actually a life-time member of the gay community, without any chance of changing that role, then I may be able to understand what all the trouble is about. Right now, it's all hear-say. The negros that were being mistreated can be known by the court, on site. Plus, there has never been a negro that stopped being negro out of shame, conviction, personal growth, hormone theropy, testosterone theropy, or just plain boredom. Not yet, anyway. Negro is not a birth defect.

I don't like this subject much. It's a bit disturbing.

Gay folks could buddy up with pairs from the other team, have agreed marriages of convienance, and enjoy all the tax benifits of marriage, and the butt sex. Right? Or no?

seriously, your last post had some very good humor. Thanks for being a good sport.

It is true that the male/male vision is not seen in the minds eye the same way the chick/chick vision is. That could be a whole discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Dan, your lengthy post is simply much todo about nothing. Real marriage has been around for countless generations, approximately 2,000 years. Then, magically around 1995, when radical gays came out of the closet, they want to "redefine" marriage, change the meaning of the word, force everyone to accept their definition, and show zero tolerance to anyone who disagrees with their "new" definition.

I think I'm going to redefine the word "voluntary" when it comes to taxes in 2013. From now on the new definition of the word voluntary will be mandatory.

We "voluntarily" pay taxes now which is new speek for manditory (the opposite of). My new definition of voluntary
is manditory, which in double new speek actually means volunatrily.

In other words, pre-2013 I voluntarily paid taxes because I was actually forced to. Now the word voluntary means manditory...the opposite of which is NON-manditory...so I won't be paying taxes in 2013 - get it?

Oh, I have another brilliant liberal idea, lets change the definition of an automobiles brake pedal to gas pedal. From now on, each car will have two gas pedals but no brake pedal. That makes perfect (liberal) sense, right?

Kinda reminds me of the bumper sticker I saw the other day: "Both my mommies support Obama" (two gas pedals, no brake pedal - anything wrong with that picture?).

Honest Abe says

Dan, your lengthy post is simply much todo about nothing.

It is obvious by your posts that you're a complete jerk, homophobe, racist, white trash simpleton with zero intellect. The only reason why you are whining and playing the victim card is because you and your views are irrelevant, incoherent, and are simply no longer held by the majority, if they ever truly were. You are no longer able to make these rants without being called out on them. Yes, I suppose it gives you some negative energy getting all jacked up on your imagined victimization. I suppose you must feel like the white man did when apartheid was ending in South Africa in the 80s/90s. A spoiled brat who is simply running scared because laws making others 'less than' were ending, exposing who was/is truly less than.

In the end, you are simply a bad person. It must truly be difficult to be you. What is sadder is that no one even cares.

Honest Abe says

Dan, your lengthy post is simply much todo about nothing.

Then it should be trivially easy for you to go point-by-point responding to my post showing why it is "much todo about nothing". Simply asserting that is not an argument but rather a blank box labeled, "insert argument here".

Honest Abe says

Real marriage has been around for countless generations, approximately 2,000 years.

If by real marriage you mean trading a goat for a woman, then yes.

Honest Abe says

Then, magically around 1995, when radical gays came out of the closet, they want to "redefine" marriage, change the meaning of the word, force everyone to accept their definition, and show zero tolerance to anyone who disagrees with their "new" definition.

Gays don't care about the word marriage. They care about equal rights under law. If you don't want relationships between gays to be called marriage than remove that word and the word spouse from all legislation and business agreements including life and health insurance policies.

Then you can have the word marriage. Just keep that word out of the law and contracts. Gays just want, and should have, equality in all laws and contracts.

Do you have any objections to gays being equal under law just like blacks and women are? Or is your objection just to the wording of the discussion?

Honest Abe says

We "voluntarily" pay taxes now which is new speek for manditory (the opposite of). My new definition of voluntary
is manditory, which in double new speek actually means volunatrily.

The federal income tax is illegal. It wasn't passed according to the Constitution. This was ignored with some retroactive statehood bullshit. The law says that the taxes are voluntary but the government willfully and knowingly violates the law and pretends that they don't even after they lose a court case that establishes no one has to pay income taxes or be forced to fill out a tax form that says they agree to something they don't.

Furthermore, the Consitution clearly states that all tax laws must originate in the House of Representation and must be passed by Congress. Yet tax laws are written by the IRS, part of the executive branch of the government.

But all the bullshit and illegality of the federal tax system has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage.

Furthermore, the issue of gay marriage isn't about nomenclature. The state shouldn't make laws to force one vocabulary vs another on the people. The issue of gay marriage is about the real laws and equal protection under law.

Why should Buster pay $5,000 more in taxes a year just because he chooses to live with a man instead of a woman?

Buster says

Actually, civil unions did not eliminate the harmful effects of discrimination. Actually, I am legally married, but paid over $5,000 more in taxes this year because my marriage is not recognized by the federal government.

Now one could argue that single people are discriminated against by our tax law and that also violates equal protection. I'd agree with that. But that's still no excuse for discriminating against gays.

Finally, a better example of doublethink/newspeak is, as I said above, the USA PATRIOT Act, which is the most unpatriotic act ever passed and the Defense of Marriage Act, which actually attacks marriage.

Alan Turing...?

I wonder if your also including many who started Semis, Storage, and Much of the Software which run the above... Turing had little to nothing regarding our birth of the tech products you list above.

I can certainly say.. NADA... try looking up William Shockley.. Without him! not much can be said our tech industry.

Horrible Couple Really Wants Wedding To Reflect Their Personalities

Dan8267 says

In any case, here's a nice picture to end this post with. It's of Richard Loving and his wife Mildred, the interracial couple behind the 1967 Supreme Court case of Loving vs Virginia. They are the reason why anti-miscegenation laws had to be struck down as un-Constitutional.

'Till Death do us part....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States

Marital instability among interracial and same-race couples

A 2008 study by Jenifer L. Bratter and Rosalind B. King conducted on behalf of the Education Resources Information Center examined whether crossing racial boundaries increased the risk of divorce.[9] Using the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (Cycle VI), the likelihood of divorce for interracial couples to that of same-race couples was compared.

Comparisons across marriage cohorts revealed that, overall, interracial couples have higher rates of divorce, particularly for those that married during the late 1980s.[9]

The authors found that gender plays a significant role in interracial divorce dynamics:

According to the adjusted models predicting divorce as of the 10th year of marriage, interracial marriages that are the most vulnerable involve White females and non-White males (with the exception of White females/Hispanic White males) relative to White/White couples.[9]

White wife/Black husband marriages are twice as likely to divorce by the 10th year of marriage compared to White/White couples, while White wife/Asian husband marriages are 59% more likely to end in divorce compared to White/White unions.[9]

Conversely, White men/non-White women couples show either very little or no differences in divorce rates.[9]

Asian wife/White husband marriages show only 4% greater likelihood of divorce by the 10th year of marriage than White/White couples.[9]

In the case of Black wife/White husband marriages, divorce by the 10th year of marriage is 44% less likely than among White/White unions.[9]

Intermarriages that did not cross a racial barrier, which was the case for White/Hispanic White couples, showed statistically similar likelihoods of divorcing as White/White marriages

thomaswong.1986 says

'Till Death do us part....

Your point?

Buster says

Horrible Couple Really Wants Wedding To Reflect Their Personalities

Darn, I thought that Dr. Horrible was getting married.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/apEZpYnN_1g

NPH is awesome!

Dan8267 says

Your point?

huh! did you lose your reading comprehension.

No, it's just that there needs to be something to comprehend. One cannot make a bridge out of empty space.

Buster says

It is obvious by your posts that you're a complete jerk, homophobe, racist, white trash simpleton with zero intellect.

tisc tisc tisc, not allowed, homie.

Dan8267 says

One cannot make a bridge out of empty space.

BLIND!

thomaswong.1986 says

Dan8267 says

One cannot make a bridge out of empty space.

BLIND!

Thomas, no reading between lines here, I think that you are going to need to come out and state directly what conclusion you expect people to come to after reading your cut-and-paste from Wikipedia.

White women and black men appear more independent then white men and black women.
Plain as day, unless you are blinder-bound....

leoj707 says

thomaswong.1986 says

Dan8267 says

One cannot make a bridge out of empty space.

BLIND!

Thomas, no reading between lines here, I think that you are going to need to come out and state directly what conclusion you expect people to come to after reading your cut-and-paste from Wikipedia.

xrpb11a says

White women and black men appear more independent then white men and black women.

OK, so your take-a-way is couples that have a white woman and a black man are more independent? I am not sure, is independence a good thing here?

Of course you are defining independence as a higher divorce rate.

Thomas do you agree that this is the non-blinder point to your post?

Anyway, so what. What does that point have to do with gay marriage, anti-miscegenation laws and "'Till Death do us part..."?

No, "independence" is defined in the dictionary.
I said "it APPEARS", ie "Seems"

leoj707 says

Of course you are defining independence as a higher divorce rate

Wow, this thread sure took an incomprehensible turn. Wtf ?

The truth (and it's not surprising):

It's no coincidence that the people against gay marriage are the exact same people who were against
- abolition
- the right of blacks to vote
- the right of women to vote
- interracial marriages
- evolution theory
and for
- slavery
- segregation
- lynching
- creationism
- the Patriot Act
- the NDAA

Delurking says

Bap33 says

BUT, for 98% of humanity, deviant sexual behavior is intolerable.

Incorrect, of course, since gayness isn't "deviant", LOL.

As for the less intellectually-dishonest point you were trying to make, the nicer places on this planet -- Scandinavia, Germany, France, blue-state USA -- love gay partnerships (in the majority).

The real shitholes -- we're talking KSA, Iran, Afghanistan, BFE Africa -- kill gays when they find them.

That's all that needs to be said about that.

Can you really conceptualize how utterly wrong you are about this?

I have my doubts.

There are 160+ Electoral votes in US states where a large portion of the population strongly disagrees with what you say above.

It's not the United States of California and Massachusetts!

xrpb11a says

No, "independence" is defined in the dictionary.

Oh, so independent as in:

in·de·pend·ent
adjective
1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.
2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.
3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.
4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
5. not relying on another or others for aid or support.

I am still not sure how the dictionary definition of independence has anything to do with a higher divorce rate.

Marcus - OMG...we agree again!

leoj707 says

Thomas, no reading between lines here, I think that you are going to need to come out and state directly what conclusion you expect people to come to after reading your cut-and-paste from Wikipedia.

Whatever nonsense conclusion Thomas was trying to draw from the largest source of misinformation and blatant disinformation is clearly not relevant to the issue of gay marriage.

Once again, Wikipedia proves that its only useful function is as a filter. If someone quotes Wikipedia, he's post is probably not worth reading.

In most cases to marry is to enter into an arrangement where everything is 'shared'. Dependencies develop...ie..your bed gets made, meals are prepared, cleanup happens magically..etc..
Suddenly, you have someone who must be updated as to your whereabouts ..
Bills appear out of nowhere....etc etc etc blah blah blah....

bottom line, you lose some independence that you had in the unmarried state. Some people may not be able to handle this longterm...

Either that or you are just fucking around and got caught...

leoj707 says

xrpb11a says

No, "independence" is defined in the dictionary.

Oh, so independent as in:

in·de·pend·ent

adjective

1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.

2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.

3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.

4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.

5. not relying on another or others for aid or support.

I am still not sure how the dictionary definition of independence has anything to do with a higher divorce rate.

If you have a marriage, you didn't build that. Someone else performed that ceremony -- oh wait, wrong thread...

Actually, the OB theme "you didn't build that" is so ambiguous, you can make it relevant in in any thread...

Dan8267 says

If you have a marriage, you didn't build that. Someone else performed that ceremony -- oh wait, wrong thread...

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

If California and the NE had any sense, they'd leave the USA! USA! and join the Commonwealth as an independent nation. The rest of it could become a theme park.

I agree. I would suggest the new country include the following states: CA, OR, WA, NY, CT, ME, NH, RI, VT, DL, MD, IL & HI. Others could apply. Not sure what the name should be. I would suggest a Parliamentary Democracy with a President or Premier elected by the voters as well. The remaining United States then could pay their own way as Federal Dollars are pouring out of the above Blue states to Red states that are so fond of bitching about liberal states and the US government all the while taking all their cash. The states in the new country all export more money to the red states with the exception of HI and ME. In the new country, HI would no longer be such a drag on the outflow either, as a good deal of this money is to support unneeded military bases.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2

This is one I agree with in principle, though I don't actually favor breaking up the country. I'd rather see us equalize the tax disproportion as well as the electoral college skewing. Your vote for President in CA equals only about 1/8 that of someone in Wyoming, which is something abjectly against the intent of the US Constitution. It's only allowed because everyone knows that setting all votes strictly equal by proportion would make it so CA + NY decide every election.

Too bad. If that's where the people are, then that's where the votes are.

I also predict if we quit subsidizing the flyover states with coastal/metro taxes there would be a sudden wave of "socialism" sweeping over those voters as they found themselves living in 2nd world conditions.

xrpb11a says

In most cases to marry is to enter into an arrangement where everything is 'shared'. Dependencies develop...blah blah blah....bottom line, you lose some independence that you had in the unmarried state.

OK, thanks for the clarification, I see where you are going with your line of thinking. While I don't totally agree with the idea that marriage ='s a loss of independence, that is more of a philosophical debate for another thread.

However, my other questions still remain...

1. Does Thomas agree that this is the intended "non-blinder" point [when marrying people loose independence and black male/white female couples prefer their independence over marriage] to his/her post?

2. What does that point have to do with gay marriage and anti-miscegenation laws?

Randy H says

I also predict if we quit subsidizing the flyover states with coastal/metro taxes there would be a sudden wave of "socialism" sweeping over those voters as they found themselves living in 2nd world conditions.

Reticulating Splines

Many of the poorest parts of the RED states are already 2nd world. I mean, have you ever been to the poorest parts of TN, KY, WV, SC, NC, VA, LA, NM, AL, MS, etc??? And no, even if they were pushed into third world status they would still vote Republican, because, you know, they don't want the 1% Romney's of the world to pay taxes because they are convinced that they too will win the lottery one day and they don't want to pay any taxes when their fantasy becomes a reality. Of course, they will die waiting for that big payout. Just like they are now.

Buster says

they don't want the 1% Romney's of the world to pay taxes because they are convinced that they too will win the lottery one day and they don't want to pay any taxes

Well, that and they are afraid that they might catch the Gay if same sex marriages are legal.

NO, democRATS want the economy to suck, and people to be meserable and DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT. Then they have a solid base of indentured voters for additional support.

People vote in their own self interest which, by the way, is why Busters post is hogwash. The poorest parts of the above mentioned states won't be voting to make the rich richer, they'll be voting to keep the gravy train moving in their direction.

And barrack hussains "Food Stamp Army" continues to grow in numbers!! What a surprise.

Honest Abe says

People vote in their own self interest which, by the way, is why Busters post is hogwash.

Honestly Abe, get real. Do you really think that the extremely poor white trash in TN, AL, MS, GA, WV, etc. are voting for their best interests voting for the GOP? Please. This is the ONLY reason why the GOP fans the boogyman flames such as catching TeH Gay, a Muslim overthrow of the USA, etc. It is the only tool they have to get these folks to vote for even more tax breaks for billionaires. That is not voting for your best self interest when you are a person who desperately need basic healthcare, a job that pays a living wage and medicare and social security but you vote for the guys who are cutting or preventing these programs because you're afraid of whatever is on the mythical gay agenda or because you fear a President who, according to fox news is a Muslim born in Africa.

No, the GOP was brilliant to scare the ignorant into voting against their best self interests. It worked for a long time. I just think that when it comes to the gay boogyman, this has run its course and most no longer see it as a threat when their simply isn't one.

Due to this I fully expect the GOP to turn up some other scare tactics to convince the poor to vote for them. If I were the Dems, I would use the same tactic. Like telling people that Romney will raise their taxes, cut social security, give more tax breaks for the rich and invade Muslim countries further raising the national debt by a few more TRILLIONS....OH, except that that is the truth so no one will actually believe them....

Buster says

have you ever been to the poorest parts of TN, KY, WV, SC, NC, VA, LA, NM, AL, MS, etc???

Born in Evansville, IN, grew up in SW Ohio. Spent summers with grandparents in West Union, OH. My hometown currently has a 38% unemployment rate since the main employer was acquired and pulled out a few years back.

leoj707 says

Well, that and they are afraid that they might catch the Gay if same sex marriages are legal.

lol .. funny

This isn't a gay vs. straight issue - its an issue of abusive political tyranny which includes the loss of freedom and the loss of jobs.

Well done libs!

I am having a hard time following you as you make no sense at all. Honest Abe says

This isn't a gay vs. straight issue - its an issue of abusive political tyranny which includes the loss of freedom and the loss of jobs.

Well done libs!

No laws have been created to restrict Chick Fil A; where they locate or operate a store or what political views they express or otherwise. OTOH, the tyranny of the majority against the gays, which John Adams warned us about comes into play here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

"The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots.[1] In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process."

Proposition 8 in California, and similar votes of the majority which has put gay Americans into a second class citizen status by codifying into law unequal civil rights status fits this definition exactly. So stop acting like a victim when in fact you are the perpetrator of such tyrannical laws restricting my rights because it makes you feel better about yourself. Jeesh. Grow up.