An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage

Posted by: Clark

An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/03/11 09:42 PM

Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/04/11 07:19 AM

That rocked. It's an uphill battle but he's a good man.

One day I hope we'll be long past these distinctions. But I ain't holding my breath, either.
Posted by: carp

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/04/11 12:25 PM

Very well said.
Posted by: steveg

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 04:56 AM

O'Donnell aired that wonderful speech in it's entirety the other night. The kid so totally nailed it. Yet, it fell on deaf ears. Ears hanging on the sides of skulls filled with raw sewage. Ugh! mad
Posted by: Clark

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 06:33 AM

.
Things haven't changed all that much for gays since Obama has been in office.
The only positive legislature for gays has been the repeal of DADT.
How many political leaders advocate same-sex marriage? Very few!
Even people like Obama and the Clintons who are pro-gay, endorse civil unions, not same-sex marriage.

You and I are from places (BOS, NYC) that are more open-minded toward gays.
But the attitude toward gays throughout the country hasn't changed much.
Only five states (CT, DC, IA, MA, NH, VT) have legalized same-sex marriage.
Of the top ten states with the highest percentage of gays, only one state has legalized same-sex marriage.
What has changed?

Joel Osteen heads the largest church in the US.
Just the other day, Mr. Osteen said that being gay is a sin.

Many people believe that gays should have "civil unions" with all benefits of a marriage.
But civil unions make gays second class citizens because there is no equality when you tell gays they can't be married.

It would be the same thing if Blacks were told they weren't good enough to have marriages like white people. But they can have civil unions instead.

Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 06:47 AM

True enough, Clark. Such prejudice may take a long time to fall. Too, it may never fall. You know how it is with religious issues - you can open up a holy book and find a passage to support whatever you want or admire - or whatever you fear and hate. You don't even have to be religious, of course. You just have to have never dealt with gays in anything but an abstract or distant manner. Sort of like that whole DADT thing. It's like hanging a sign that says I don't want to know, I don't care, and don't make me think about it.

As for marriage, I'm a Canadian and I think we got it right. But I know of fellow Canadians I've worked with who are upset that gays can marry here. Which face serves as a potent reminder: just because a nation enacts a particular law doesn't mean that its people still can't privately discriminate and piously call for two different types of equality - one where you can marry and one where you can have some drily technical, curiously clinical state termed "union."
Posted by: Lea

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 07:12 AM



"Joel Osteen heads the largest church in the US.
Just the other day, Mr. Osteen said that being gay is a sin"



That made the news down here, naturally, because his church is here in Houston, and I've seen the interview. Osteen was very clear ~ He believes it's a sin. But he's never preached against it, never will. It's not his place to judge, regardless of how he views the issue. There are gays in his congregation, several who publicly spoke about the interview, explaining that while they certainly disagree, they respect his position, as he respects theirs. They have no intention of leaving their church over this.

Honestly, the interviewer was mining this one. He wouldn't let it go, and why should he? Makes for great ratings, but it did Osteen an undeserved injustice. We all believe what we believe. We need to stop playing gotcha and hating each other over the differences.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 11:20 AM

Quote:
It would be the same thing if Blacks were told they weren't good enough to have marriages like white people.

No that was different because it involved racial discrimination which was wrong in itself.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 11:39 AM

I was wondering when our resident homophobe would weigh in. And here you are! Must be hard to post, though, with those sweaty palms making your mouse slick.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 11:59 AM

Quote:
No that was different because it involved racial discrimination which was wrong in itself.

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. One is not worse than the other.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 12:15 PM

No I don't agree with that.. discrimination may be right or wrong. I'm sure if you think about it you could come up with examples of discrimination you would completely endorse.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 12:51 PM

Of course you don't agree with it. Because your homophobic.
Posted by: carp

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 01:17 PM

Many people believe that gays should have "civil unions" with all benefits of a marriage.
But civil unions make gays second class citizens because there is no equality when you tell gays they can't be married.


I dunno
I mean if that civil unions carries the same benefits as marriage <-- whats the difference ? To continue a fight to just be able to say I am married is silly and childish - IMO. Might as well call marriage a civil union which in a sense thats what it is, a union between 2 people.
Posted by: steveg

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 01:35 PM

That's the point carp. If a civil union and marriage are supposedly the same, why, then, do we need two labels? But, in fact, they are not the same. And given that a civil union does not deliver all the benefits of marriage, it is the same as telling Gay couples that they are not equal to heterosexuals.

It's discriminatory. Period.
Posted by: carp

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 01:59 PM

That's the point carp. If a civil union and marriage are supposedly the same, why, then, do we need two labels?

I would not call it a label, rather a distinction. For documentation reasons, what is on paper.

Example; Missing couple.
Police would know to look for a man and a woman

given that a civil union does not deliver all the benefits of marriage, it is the same as telling Gay couples that they are not equal to heterosexuals.

Well thats just not right
Posted by: Leslie

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 02:03 PM

Quote:
it is the same as telling Gay couples that they are not equal to heterosexuals.

Bingo!
Posted by: Leslie

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 02:06 PM

Quote:
No I don't agree with that

It comes as no surprise and matters little.
Posted by: steveg

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 02:27 PM

Quote:
I would not call it a label, rather a distinction.
Then you agree it's discriminatory, yes?

Quote:
For documentation reasons, what is on paper.
You sound like a homophobe apologist.

Quote:
Example; Missing couple.
Police would know to look for a man and a woman
WTF??? No guns for you, crazy man! shocked

Quote:
Well thats just not right
Are you saying my statement is incorrect, or that what I am describing is unfair?
Posted by: carp

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/06/11 03:02 PM

Then you agree it's discriminatory, yes?

No
Well if civil union and marriage has the same benefits, it is not discriminatory.

You sound like a homophobe apologist.

LOL
Think outside the box.
Think about 3rd party, who reads documentation. I already gave one example.
Marriage = man and woman
Civil Union = man and man or woman and woman

Simply gives - say emergency responders a heads up on what to look for.
Another example, Fiery plane crash, they are looking for a married couple but only find 2 men - they continue to look for his wife for days on end.

or that what I am describing is unfair?

That is correct - civil union should have exactly the same benefits as marriage.
As mentioned above there should be a distinction between the 2, for documentation reasons.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/07/11 12:05 AM

There's no discrimination anyway because there's no inquiry into a person's sexuality.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/07/11 03:09 AM

KM Let us face the facts you are a bigoted person. I can read right through you in your posts.You put on a facade that is about it.
Posted by: Lea

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/07/11 05:47 AM


That, and he takes great delight in pushing peep buttons. My Soap Box life has really improved since I put him on ignore last year. Not worth the read, never really was.
Posted by: keymaker

Old link results... - 02/07/11 10:14 AM

No the point is that marriage is open to everyone... most society's have age restrictions and prohibited relationships but a person's sexuality doesn't come in to it.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/07/11 10:19 AM

What, no endless lists of countries that ban gay marriage? Used to be you couldn't post them often enough. Gee, next you'll come out in support of IVF.
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Old link results... - 02/07/11 10:51 AM

Obviously, he's alluding to the fact that what's being banned isn't gay marriage, it's same-gender marriage. Which is why you get to hear this, over and over again:

All together now: "We're not homophobic, we just think that marriage is between a man and a woman..."

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/07/11 11:31 AM

No you've missed the point, pad... marriage discrimination implies exclusion of a person on some test or criteria... there is discrimination, but not on grounds of a person's sexuality. That's right, since gays can and do get married the discrimination argument and analogies with racial apartheid are completely bogus.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/07/11 11:32 AM

shocked AHA! You're etc.phobic! I KNEW it! mad
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Old link results... - 02/07/11 03:30 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
...since gays can and do get married the discrimination argument and analogies with racial apartheid are completely bogus.

Only in places where they can and do. In places where they can't, and in the many places where they can get legally killed for being gay, it's a lot more unbogus.

In places where they cannot get married, but can only have a civil partnership (essentially because they're gay), it's only bogus in its degree, not its principle.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/07/11 05:40 PM

Spare us your see-through crap, Your Bogusness. May I remind you of all the times you've asserted that the parenting abilities of same sex couples are inferior to those of heterosexual couples. That the children of gay parents are "disadvantaged". All the horsh!t stats and "studies" you cited.

There's only one point here, and no one has missed it. Your a bigot and a homophobe. And the hilarity of your attempts to deny it is as rich as your BS is thick.

Bogus? Yup. That would be you.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/07/11 06:32 PM

Hmmm. I see your hypocrisy is at work on more than one level, km. If I'm not mistaken, several months ago when I was ignoring your posts, you accused me of running away from the debate. Am I to assume there is a rather stark role reversal now? Sure looks like it to me.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/07/11 11:12 PM

Quote:
Only in places where they can and do.

That's everywhere - how did old wotsisname get married, Gareth Thomas, if he wasn't allowed to for being gay?

Quote:
in the many places where they can get legally killed for being gay, it's a lot more unbogus.

Legally killed? Whereabouts?

Quote:
In places where they cannot get married, but can only have a civil partnership (essentially because they're gay), it's only bogus in its degree, not its principle.

Ah no you're getting confused between a person's decision not to get married and marriage laws themselves preventing it... as was the case with those racial apartheid rules in certain States.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/07/11 11:17 PM

Quote:
May I remind you of all the times you've asserted that the parenting abilities of same sex couples are inferior to those of heterosexual couples

Well I've pointed out the benefits of breastfeeding if that's what you mean - everyone knows that's true apart from you, apparently, and a small minority of other activists.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/07/11 11:22 PM

Quote:
several months ago when I was ignoring your posts, you accused me of running away from the debate. Am I to assume there is a rather stark role reversal now?

No, because you don't know how to debate - spewing vitriolic personal abuse at every opportunity is not the same.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: An Articulate Spokesperson for Gay Marriage - 02/08/11 03:28 AM

Truer words were never said Leah
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 03:33 AM

Look at the middle east countries where is there age restrictions by these sick people who marry off their 8 year old daughters to old men just for money.This is a horrific to read this and watch it.Gay people who are murdered by these sickos in these countries!Where are their rights KM?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 03:53 AM

You mean calling a spade a spade? Or calling a bigot a bigot? You can call it what you like. I call it the truth. Deal with it.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 03:57 AM

No, I'm referring to your well-documented, frequent assertions that the children of same-sex parents are disadvantaged. Don't try to dilute your bigotry and your homophobia. Don't try to unsay what you've said on many occasions. For example. And that's just one thread that took only seconds to locate.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 09:22 AM

All you've done there is located one of Jim's links - quite difficult backing up a lie, eh Steve?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 09:28 AM

Quote:
Gay people who are murdered by these sickos in these countries!Where are their rights KM?

Depends where you're talking about - the law varies from one country to another.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 09:57 AM

Lie? You really are delusional. You really want me to find more? I'm happy to do a little more searching in between deliverables. And I stress "little" because that's all I should need to dig up another handful of threads in which you're on record for claiming that same-sex parents do not bring the same level of quality and advantage to parenting as do straight couples.

And while I'm at it, I'm sure I can also find another diaper-load of your rants against IVF parents. How you claim that they are selfishly stealing funds from cancer research. In particular, I'll dredge up your bilious remark about how couples unable to conceive by km-approved means should just suck it up and accept their childless futures.

Backing up lies? I put that in your court — because to deny you've made such statements is one helluva whopper. You've got a couple of days to gin up another one of your half-assed diversions. And you're gonna need it, km. Because black and white proof of your Imperial Schmuckness is on the way.

Stand by, Your Minus.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 10:02 AM

Yes, homosexuals can marry, but not whom we want to marry. Case dismissed.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 10:25 AM

Well, you're putting your own spin on what I've said previously, in each attempt slightly climbing down on what you said before, but since you couldn't deal with the evidence first time around re-posting it is only likely to give you the same kind of headache.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 10:28 AM

There are generally accepted prohibitions, yes... quite rightly.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 11:11 AM

Think so? This was just too easy. Way too easy (and it's only a teeny tiny scratch on your thinly waxed surface:

(Some of these are thread starters, and others are specific posts, so apologies (not to you km, because I'm just filling your order) for any redundancy.)

km hates ivf
And
And especially this...
And this
And this

km hates parades.

km on Prop 8

km hates same sex parents.
Oh yes...
He surely does.

But he loves Carrie Prejean

And he hates women who have his number!

Want more?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 11:48 AM

Hate doesn't come into it... except on your part.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 11:58 AM

But homophobia, bigotry, and selfish, dispassionate disdain sure does. Enjoy your time in front of the mirror.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 12:23 PM

Those links proved only your own callousness and bigotry.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 12:41 PM

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 12:46 PM

Well it's not very funny - for example how indifferent you are to child victims of IVF.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 12:59 PM

No more so than I to the plight of victims of infertility.

But now I feel terrible. I said I'd give you a day or two to concoct a decent diversion. But I sucker-punched you and left you no time at all. And it shows. You've had to rifle through your dusty old files and pull out the same old moth-eaten, yellowed BS that has never worked. I'm sorry. That wasn't very nice of me. cry

But since I seem to have opened your favorite can of worms, why don't you just go fishing?
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 01:08 PM

Quote:
There are generally accepted prohibitions, yes... quite rightly.

Quite wrongly.

Prohibition

: the act of prohibiting by authority

: an order to restrain or stop

Those that have the power never want to relinquish.
So nice of you "haves" to tell homosexuals who they can and cannot marry.

Nobody likes being told what they can and cannot do, least of all you km.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 01:20 PM

I think if we bring this thread full circle and compare this young man's words to km's dour, narrow, and unimaginative postulations, the argument is pretty much over. I'd say he (km) should be humbled — even shamed — by such wisdom and compassion from one so young. But I know better.
Posted by: padmavyuha

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 02:14 PM

I should know better. Still, I got out early before it was too late.

There's no conversation to be had between people with such opposing beliefs, so of course this is always going to be the same thread, over and over. I apologise for feeding it.

Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 02:21 PM

Which is why I went back to the original post. Game over.
Posted by: Lea

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 03:49 PM


Game over . . . and over . . . and over . . .


xx


laugh laugh
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 06:57 PM

Select haikus for this thread

1.
Key is a die-hard
ill winds blow from his foul holes~
what do you expect?

2.
Define zip, evade
play the game like an old con~
black is white, is zilch

3.
Feed not the old troll
and his talk of things proper;
he craves attention
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/08/11 09:24 PM

You lot have got to do more than just convince yourselves that there's discrimination in the marriage laws - you've got to convince the people or at the very least the legislature wherever they're not buying it and I have to say you're noticeably failing in that - mainly because the case you present is so utterly feeble.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/09/11 03:41 AM


Where's the mayo?
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Old link results... - 02/09/11 03:44 AM

KM what laws are you talking about? Most of these countries are barbaric and care less about laws.Did you ever read the Koran? read it and tell me about laws than,Killing innocent people with rocks because they are different than them.Talking against their GOD where is the justice KM?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/09/11 04:02 AM

Jerry, I'm sorry, but you're way off base with that interpretation. Please don't tell me you're one of these Islamaphobes who are convinced that the U.S. is about to be taken over by Sharia Law. Seriously, while we still have the death penalty in this country, there's no legitimate criticism to be levied in that direction by us.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/09/11 04:31 AM

your imperatives~
imperious and reckless;
anger will eat you
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/09/11 04:42 AM

... And probably suffer enteritis for it. sick
Posted by: carp

Re: Old link results... - 02/09/11 12:59 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
Jerry, I'm sorry, but you're way off base with that interpretation. Please don't tell me you're one of these Islamaphobes who are convinced that the U.S. is about to be taken over by Sharia Law. Seriously, while we still have the death penalty in this country, there's no legitimate criticism to be levied in that direction by us.


Steve
As some states do have the death penalty.

But the US does not stone woman for adultery nor do we put anyone to death for blasphemy - there is a big difference
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/09/11 04:30 PM

Do you always take everything so literally? You're a pilot, fer chrissake — take a look at the issue from 10,000 feet. As long as the U.S. has just one state with the death penalty, we are in no position to criticize any other culture that also kills people punitively. One method may be more barbaric than another. One judicial system may be comparatively out of whack. But dead is dead. And it's been proven time and time again that the death penalty does not reduce crime. It may do one's sense of vengence good, but not much more than that.

Stoning, pressing, hanging, firing squad... lethal injection. Dead is dead. <--- Capice?
Posted by: carp

Re: Old link results... - 02/09/11 05:10 PM

Your broad stroking Steve, with a very wide brush. Thats the problem - capice laugh
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/09/11 07:08 PM

Quote:
Your broad stroking Steve
If I were, I wouldn't be using a brush! blush
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/09/11 10:31 PM

You're still being a bit too vague about what incidents you're talking about and in what countries.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/09/11 10:37 PM

Quote:
got out early

Just in time to avoid explaining how Gareth Thomas got married with all that discrimination going on - I was looking forward to that as well. laugh

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/09/11 10:45 PM

Quote:
Quote:
how indifferent you are to child victims of IVF.
No more so than I to the plight of victims of infertility.

You said it.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/10/11 01:09 AM

Well, I'm making specific points of principle as to why marriage laws all over the world are generally not changing as you would like - you're responding with personal slurs.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/10/11 03:37 AM

Fail. Sorry, old chap.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/10/11 03:38 AM

Fail #2.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/10/11 03:39 AM

Fail #3.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/10/11 09:58 AM

Quote:
generally not changing as you would like

Incorrect.
They definitely are changing and I sure do like it.
Methinks it is you that does not like what is changing.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 12:40 AM

Nah, in the great big outside world the discrimination argument is all but lost. What goes on in a handful of States is neither here nor there to be honest - in England one of those same sex unions wouldn't be recognised as marriage in any event no matter where it happened to be registered.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 03:30 AM

The countries are Iran, Pakistan,Yemen and also Saudi Arabia where this disgusting and horrible crimes take place.Stoning woman and some man because they talked some blasphemy is no excuse to kill people KM.This countries are fanatical and their religion is wacky and so perverse it is not fully. They kill for Allah with no questions asked.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 03:38 AM

Nah. You're confusing the "great big outside world" with the itty-bitty, oxygen starved, spider-hosting, dark, dank rabbit hole betwixt your ears. Which I'm convinced is also the closet you're afraid to come out of.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 05:47 AM

Quote:
Stoning woman and some man because they talked some blasphemy is no excuse to kill people KM

I don't really see the connection with marriage but if you want to talk about human rights in general I'd say that some nations have moral authority to point the finger, and some don't. wink

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 11:30 AM

some wags will pretend
they can judge for the masses~
such sorrry net games.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 11:39 AM

Quote:
the finger
Oh... the temptation!

Must... sit... on... hands... eek
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 01:28 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Nah, in the great big outside world the discrimination argument is all but lost. What goes on in a handful of States is neither here nor there to be honest - in England one of those same sex unions wouldn't be recognised as marriage in any event no matter where it happened to be registered.

km

Nah, my great big outside world is taking baby steps. I welcome what is going on in some States and countries.

My marriage is recognized in my country, to be honest, that is what really matters to me.

It wasn't that many years ago that England did not recognize civil partnerships; marriage will be next. All change has a beginning, be patient.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 01:59 PM

Quote:
It wasn't that many years ago that England did not recognize civil partnerships; marriage will be next

No marriage over here has to be a consummated union of one man and one woman.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 02:21 PM

1.
a man of the law
can be an ass just the same
this much is certain

2.
Cling to the meaning
of mere words, life preservers
for feeble men's minds

3.
his waistcoat too tight,
our barrister's quite undone
dreaming of the past
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 02:23 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
It wasn't that many years ago that England did not recognize civil partnerships; marriage will be next

No marriage over here has to be a consummated union of one man and one woman.

km

For now, but like I said, it has only been recently that England recognized same sex civil unions-so good on ya for that one. Marriage is just around the corner and very soon all these conversations will be buried in a load of codswallop.
Posted by: Clark

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 02:49 PM

.
"No marriage over here has to be a consummated union of one man and one woman."

You mean that an elderly man and woman can't get married if they can't consummate their marriage?
.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 03:06 PM

Good question.
He must be looking up the answer in the "oops, they got me" answer book.
Posted by: Clark

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 03:14 PM

.
I guarantee you KM has an answer.
.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 03:57 PM

You are correct, of course he does.
Don't know what got into me.
Still will be interesting to see what it is.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 04:18 PM

Or in his diary! laugh
Posted by: Lea

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 04:47 PM


Consider the legitimacy of a marriage between two disabled people who love each other very much, even though sex and children are an impossibility. By the standards that KM establishes, this couple ~ oh, and yes, they're straight ~ not only don't have a legitimate marriage, but never had the right to even assume that their love for each other was enough.

No sex = No Children = No legitimate avenue to marriage.

Man, that's even more bizarro that what probably goes on inside his HineyNess' closet.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 08:15 PM

We could make a movie. Would it be fact, fictional, or horror?
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 08:21 PM

A bit of everything. Don't forget comedy! Farce and satire come to mind, as well.
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 09:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Lea
Man, that's even more bizarro that what probably goes on inside his HineyNess' closet.
[… easy …] wink

My theory is…
Click to reveal..
he's a conservative…
Click to reveal..
… Muslim !
shocked laugh laugh laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/11/11 11:36 PM

Quote:
an elderly man and woman can't get married if they can't consummate their marriage?

Not just elderly - any unconsummated marriage is null and void.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 03:54 AM

***biting knuckle***
***biting knuckle***
***biting knuckle***
***biting knuckle***
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 06:04 AM

these definitions:
mere pixels on the display~
no weight, no great code
Posted by: Lea

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 06:40 AM


kat, I've thought the same thing for a long time now. Add this ~


Click to reveal..
gay but not even out to himself



And it explains everything. laugh





Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 07:09 AM

Quote:
mere pixels on the display ~ no weight...

Fine, stop moaning about it then.

km
Posted by: NCBird

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 08:39 AM

Quote:
any unconsummated marriage is null and void.

Guess I may as well chime in with my thoughts on that...
If you really need to get screwed then its time to see a hooker or a lawyer.
Posted by: Lea

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 09:12 AM


laugh laugh laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 09:50 AM

... glad you didn't mention some of the other possibilities... laugh

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 10:19 AM

To consummate is to have sexual intercourse.

1.Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, commonly refers to the act in which the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract.
2.The two entities may be of opposite sexes, or they may be hermaphroditic, as is the case with snails. The definition may additionally include penetrative sexual acts between same-sex pairings, such as penetration of non-sexual organs (oral intercourse, anal intercourse) or by non-sexual organs (fingering, tonguing), which are also commonly practiced by heterosexual couples.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 10:34 AM

No I think in you're getting a bit bogged down in anti-Clintonesque type sophistry there blurring the distinction between sexual intercourse and sexual relations.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 10:48 AM

Unfortunately it is not just me you must take on with this one. Here is another definition of sexual intercourse from Merriam Webster.

1
: heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
2
: intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis
Posted by: NCBird

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 10:52 AM

Quote:

... glad you didn't mention some of the other possibilities...


Trust me I thought of a few blush .....just trying to add a wee bit of humor....
when the threads get dark I think of the nature of the glowworm

A glow worm's never glum
Cause how can you be grumpy
When the sun shines out your bum? laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 10:57 AM

Quote:
just trying to add a wee bit of humor....

Fair enough... quite a few of us appreciate that... wink

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 11:01 AM

Quote:
Here is another definition...

Fine, but they're all subordinate to the legal definition.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 11:06 AM

Nope, not subordinate, inclusive.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 11:10 AM

Quote:
A glow worm's never glum
Cause how can you be grumpy
When the sun shines out your bum?




We are having a dinner party tonight and it is raining here, as in glum, so I am going to use that at some point before the day is over. I will give you credit.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 11:17 AM

Not really - in England marriage is a legal institution requiring the consummated union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 11:33 AM

Then you're off the hook, old chap! By your definition, you are not legally married to that broom! blush


It does explain a great deal, though. sick
Posted by: NCBird

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 11:34 AM

Have fun tonight...please no credit here crazy
I believe the original author is unknown...
It's just something I heard and stuck in my head...
I wish I was a glow worm,
A glow worm's never glum.
how can you be grumpy
When the sun shines out your bum!"
Lol...the thought of you working that in during the dinner conversation makes me laugh
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 11:38 AM

Not really, in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, Norway and Sweden marriage is the state-recognized, voluntary and exclusive contract for the lifelong union of two persons.

Like I said, England just recently recognized civil unions, the first step. You will catch up soon.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 11:38 AM

Q: What's the diffy betwixt a hooker, a bitch, and a lawyer?

A: A hooker will screw anyone; A bitch will screw anyone — but you; A lawyer will screw anyone — if he ever stops talking! laugh


What a great audience! Hey, I'm here all week... grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 11:46 AM

Well yeah but we know both lists - Steve was talking about 'em just the other day. laugh

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 11:48 AM

England might be on that list sooner rather than later
Posted by: NCBird

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 11:56 AM

Quote:
What a great audience! Hey, I'm here all week...




The excitement as you can see from your audience is building laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 12:01 PM

Only two problems - first of all there's no reason to suppose the court would do other than uphold the existing requirements of marriage and, secondly, if it didn't we wouldn't take any notice of the ruling. laugh

km

Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 12:12 PM

Quote:
we wouldn't take any notice of the ruling

Yup, that's pretty funny.
Wouldn't really matter if you took notice or not, the law is the law.
You should know that, unless you are an imposter. laugh
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 12:14 PM

Love the birds.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 12:20 PM

*rimshot* laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 12:22 PM

In the UK we observe the principle of Parliamentary supremacy - rulings of the ECHR in Strasbourg are irrelevant.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 12:36 PM

This is irrelevant!

Quote:
The European Convention on Human Rights

The Governments signatory hereto, being Members of the Council of Europe,

Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948;

Considering that this Declaration aims at securing the universal and effective recognition and observance of the Rights therein declared;

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is the achievement of greater unity between its Members and that one of the methods by which the aim is to be pursued is the maintenance and further realization of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Reaffirming their profound belief in those Fundamental Freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the Human Rights upon which they depend;

Being resolved, as the Governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the Rights stated in the Universal Declaration.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 12:38 PM

And, Bubelah, if anyone knows from irrelevant...

We bow to You Supreme Minusness! cool
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 12:53 PM

What you've quoted changes nothing - I'm trying to be polite in this but I must repeat that in England we observe only Parliamentary supremacy - rulings of the ECHR in Strasbourg are neither binding on Parliament nor on the courts of England.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 12:55 PM

Quote:
And, Bubelah, if anyone knows from irrelevant...

Took the words right out of my mouth.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 12:58 PM

Bowing to yourself? Is that anatomically possible?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 01:26 PM

You ought to know, Oh Master of DIY Proctology! shocked
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 01:41 PM

DIY Proctology
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 01:45 PM

Quote:
You ought to know...

Yeah, well I don't know... what I do know is that you lot are going to be disappointed in your expectations about the future of marriage because, to put it politely, the arguments you put forward for such radical changes are shallow and unconvincing. whistle

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 01:58 PM



Thank gawd you buy your own screed. Because no one else does — speaking of shallow and unconvincing.

Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 01:58 PM

The "radical change" in Canada is doing just fine thank you.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 02:52 PM

sometimes it's "you lot"
but then it's the "royal we~"
such a lonely way.
Posted by: Lea

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 03:00 PM


We need to find you
a publisher, Max. Why?
So entertaining!



(OK, so technically I'm stretching the haiku taffy, but hey . . . wink )
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 03:27 PM

MacBabes can stretch the haiku taffy anytime they like!
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 03:35 PM

let the Macbabes loose!
waves of fierce haiku coolness
to drown the lawyer
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 03:54 PM

How dare you speak of Old Dourballs that way? mad
Posted by: carp

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 08:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
MacBabes can stretch the haiku taffy anytime they like!


You got that right Doll :D]
Posted by: Clark

Re: Old link results... - 02/12/11 09:52 PM

.
LONDON — The British government is drafting plans to allow same-sex civil unions to be celebrated in churches and other places of worship, according to media reports.

Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat equalities minister, will soon outline plans to lift the current ban on civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship, The Telegraph reported.

Britain legalized gay civil partnerships six years ago but specified that partnership ceremonies have to be entirely secular and cannot contain any religious element.

As part of the new plan, the government may also propose scrapping the legal definition of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, allowing gay men and women to call their partners husbands or wives, the Sunday Times reported.

The Church of England has said it will not allow any of its buildings to be used for civil partnership ceremonies. But some faiths — including the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews — support the law change and will apply for their buildings to host same-sex ceremonies, The Telegraph said.

If passed into law the plan would bring Britain closer to countries such as the Netherlands and Canada where gays can legally marry, Reuters reported.
.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 01:18 AM

Yeah I mean the government can propose any crackpot new idea it likes but the House usually kicks 'em into the long grass.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 04:14 AM

You're bragging about institutionalized homophobia? Or is it your mind that's lost in the weeds? crazy

It's staggering — yet predictable — the lengths you'll go to to justify your bigotry.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 04:30 AM

Steve, Steve, Steve... homophobia is not defined as a viewpoint at variance with yours... this whole issue has been extensively debated in England, Green Papers, White Papers, Bills and Readings in both Houses of Parliament - the fact is that our marriage laws do not discriminate against a person on grounds of his or her sexuality. It's the same in France and Germany. To suggest that virtually the whole of Europe and indeed the world is homophobic for rejecting half-baked arguments put forward for same-sex matrimony is a perfectly ludicrous position on the issue.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 05:14 AM

denial, again:
reinforced with spite,
equals naked gall
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 05:26 AM

That IS gibberish.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 05:58 AM

if you say so key
but then again you would know~
spouter eternal
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 06:10 AM

km, km, km... obviously you don't see it. But your diversions and smoke screens don't work. I daresay everyone here has your number. Wave bye-bye, Sir Dourballs, because the world has left the station without you. Deliberately.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 06:14 AM

key acts alone, yes
he prefers it, truth be told:
giant in own mind.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 06:15 AM

grin
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 06:20 AM

what next from the key?
more dry words, emoticons?
how hollow his ruse
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 06:59 AM

Stepping away from haikus for a minute while our persnickety friend across the pond cooks up a fresh rejoinder... we've been watching a lot of HBO stuff lately. First we ripped through all of The Wire and now we're slightly better than half-way through Rome.

Both series are astonishing, period. At the end of the first season of Rome we checked out the special features material and one of the pieces focussed on Roman society and culture in that era. It was noted that the events depicted (with dramatic license, naturally) are in keeping with a set of cultural mores that are pre-Judeo-Christian. Meaning that the people prayed to multiple gods and that while many sects flourished and commingled with varying degrees of ease, just as they do in our own times, relations between the sexes and gender identity itself was far more fluid in that era. No one raised an eye if the same sex happened to turn your particular crank, or if you were bi. There weren't same set of strictures and taboos imposed on people's behaviour in that regard. It was more taken for granted, or so the people behind the series postulate.

Not to sugarcoat things and say it wasn't a barbaric time. But it's been interesting nonetheless to consider how different societies in various historical eras tended to deal with the very same all-too-human issues which entangle us.... deliberations on what is natural, what is proper, what is permissible but not to be encouraged, etc.

Over the course of the next several decades I expect the role of gender will continue to be deconstructed as we move, along with technology, into an era when we will be able to ever more easily change our appearance, extend our lives, alter our bodies radically for whatever reason we wish to invent. Seeing as it's the full slate of medical tech we're also talking about, that means birthing technologies and strategies will be changing up. Meaning challenges to old school notions of marriage will only continue to flourish. And yet despite all of that, most men and women will continue to be attracted to the opposite sex and will continue to make babies the usual way. The sky will not fall due to a failure to achieve a consensus definition of "marriage" which satisfies all parties.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 07:22 AM

Quote:
I daresay everyone here has your number

You're a real weirdo Steve with that fixation - not everyone is as obsessive as you.

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 09:04 AM

and there you appear
with a withering response~
our legs quivering
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 09:06 AM

You could say that the Roman Empire was, in that era, barbaric. But at the same time — and you could also say this is most incongruous — brimming with intellectualism. The Romans were, despite their apparent bloodthirstiness, an enlightened people. And in my book, enlightened also means tolerant.

Today, we're living in yet another incongruity: Despite so many rapid global advances in technology, intellectualism has been herded into only a few small pens around the world. And outside those pens — intolerance. At least that's my POV.

Having said that, I will from now on refer to km as "fr", which means Free Range. Because he's obviously not in one of those pens.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 09:12 AM

Better a weirdo than a bitter, homophobic bigot like your own sad self. And I'm not so sure I'm the obsessive one here. To be obsessed means to have hang-ups. And the grommets on your waistcoat are hard to miss.

However, if you want to define my calling you out whenever you need calling out "obsessive", I'll wear the title with a big sh!t-eating grin. Happy now, fr?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 09:24 AM

How does ancient Rome suddenly attract the accolade of 'tolerant' with its prohibition of same sex 'marriage'?

km
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 09:32 AM

"Grommets on the waistcoat... " nice one. That's an image I can hang my hat on.

One would hope that intellectualism breeds tolerance but there's just as much evidence that intellectuals are as much subject to manipulation by ruling elites as any other class. In our times, we have cherry-picked faux-intellectuals stepping up to the plate to protect certain ingrained religious power systems. Hence the "intelligent design" spokespeople and their repeated attempt to stymie scientific thought with pretzel logic. Some pretty convoluted machinations there. Mind you, some contemporary trends in physics seems pretty daunting too - string theory, dark matter, quantum mechanics, etc.

I will sooner agree that advancements in science and technology do not at all equate with advancements in enlightened thinking. Most of the time, we are hastening to play catch-up with the broader and deeper implications of the new tools we have so brilliantly devised.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 10:19 AM

Ever hear the expression, "If you have to ask, you can't afford it."? Allow me to edit the portion following the comma to "...you weren't paying attention."

But thanks for playing, fr.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 10:20 AM

Ok, wiseguy. Put that into Haiku! laugh
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Old link results... - 02/13/11 10:28 AM

I cannot do that
it just compute, eh
sorry but that's it