Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HtownWxBoy

California sees business boom from gay weddings

Recommended Posts

Do we really have to endure this thread again?

:lol: ... this is a different thread... nobody is forced to read or reply. :P

Edited by HtownWxBoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The anti-gay marriage folks are alot more intelligent than we give them credit for. Just like the old segregationists of the past, they realize that once you let something like this occur, most people will realize that the world isn't gonna fall off of its axis and they will accept it.

The segregations knew that if they allowed integration of the races, it would be that much harder for them to spread false lies about "those people." I was lucky enough to be born in 1972, thus my schooling was an integrated one. Many of "those people" were my friends so when older folks would spout their prejudiced viewpoints, I knew for a fact it was B.S.

The same thing will occur with gay marriage. Once it is allowed and average folks get used to the idea and find that it leads to a stable and open society, then the stigma of being gay will go away and the anti-gay supporters will lose a key issue with which to divide people.

I speak these words as a white straight man that learned long ago that homophobia, like racism before it, is based in ignorance. I don't want to be ignorant and I feel society progresses from stupidity to intelligence over the years.

Gay marriage is going to be legal one of these days people, its just a matter of time. Those that fight against it are like trying to push the tides back in the ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many states, and even at the US Govt level, government reports have shown that allowing gay people to get married will increase tax revenue, in many times due to the marriage (tax) penalty. The report gets turned in to committee... but no. No need for more tax dollars. Legislators just ignore the black and white facts. This just goes to show that people who get married DON'T get married for the tax benefits ("We can file jointly as married now!") - but all the other reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In many states, and even at the US Govt level, government reports have shown that allowing gay people to get married will increase tax revenue, in many times due to the marriage (tax) penalty. The report gets turned in to committee... but no. No need for more tax dollars. Legislators just ignore the black and white facts. This just goes to show that people who get married DON'T get married for the tax benefits ("We can file jointly as married now!") - but all the other reasons.

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
California sees business boom from gay weddings

Dude, I am on your team, and I know it's close to pride, but man, what's with the rainbow. Are you one of those that puts it on your car? :P

BTW, I knew we had tons of expendable cash!

Do we really have to endure this thread again?

I vote merge. It's not my thread, but I think it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I vote merge. It's not my thread, but I think it should be.

Previous thread was locked. I suppose that's my fault. Someone said "The breeders of the world beat y'all to that title (marriage). Name it something else." and I replied that made him sound like "a 6 year-old on a Jungle Jim in a public park telling other kids 'I was here first - go find your own.'" That got me a warning from "editor". Then that same person said that Pope Benedict 16 agrees that gay marriage is "pseudomarriage." I pointed out that Benedict also said noncatholic congregations weren't real churches. I said that was patronizing and demeaning for Benedict to say so. Someone else said "truth is truth. It's not Benedict 16's fault you can't see that." I replied "Dogma is dogma. Unfortunately you can't see that." At that point "editor" locked the thread. So, definitely my fault thread got locked. Sorry about that. It was not my intention, but with all of the intolerant things which had been posted in there for several pages, I don't think it was a big loss.

I'm not gay, and I'm not any kind of Christian, but I don't like to see belittling things said about any group, be they gay people, protestants, catholics, or anyone else, and so I'm going to say something about that. I guess here on HAIF, general comments about groups that border on defamation are tolerated, but my intolerance of intolerance is not tolerated. Try saying that three times fast.

Edited by Reefmonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh stop taking yourself so seriously...

I will say that appointing yourself defender of the world's "belittled" is very noble of you.

5fdfd41bc74085b39df61df2b1ec6169.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Previous thread was locked. I suppose that's my fault.

News to me, and now I know, and knowing is half the battle. . . B)

. . . so how about them gays with their expendable income. We don't need no stimulus checks to get the economy rolling. Points for us. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
News to me, and now I know, and knowing is half the battle. . . B)

. . . so how about them gays with their expendable income. We don't need no stimulus checks to get the economy rolling. Points for us. :rolleyes:

I'm all for building luxury residences for gay couples with tons of expendable income! :D

I think the biggest reason threads like these (and the topics at hand) annoy the crap out of me is my constitutionalist leanings. None of this stuff should be up to the government at all. It isn't their jurisdiction. So I get pretty flustered when people lobby for something, regardless of which side, since there should be no laws one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh stop taking yourself so seriously...

I will say that appointing yourself defender of the world's "belittled" is very noble of you.

I also pick up litter when I'm hiking and paddling, and don't laugh along with racist or sexist jokes just to "fit in". I do them because they are the right thing to do (or at least not the wrong thing to do) but I know they are little things. Doesn't make me a "self-appointed defender" of anything - just makes me someone trying to be a decent person, not a saint. Your exaggeration of it is pure defensiveness.

Back on topic, personally, I don't want to see gay marriage result in increased tax revenues. I'd like to see the tax code rewritten so that the marriage penalty is done away with for couples of all persuasions. Well, I guess it would be okay if the increased tax revenues came from more business for wedding coordinators, caterers, florists, etc.

Edited by Reefmonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being defensive. But I am amused that you see yourself as the annointed one with moral clarity on all issues large and small.

As far as the gay weddings in Cali. Well, it is the home of Mickey Mouse.

I'm going to Disney Land!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also pick up litter when I'm hiking and paddling, and don't laugh along with racist or sexist jokes just to "fit in". I do them because they are the right thing to do (or at least not the wrong thing to do) but I know they are little things. Doesn't make me a "self-appointed defender" of anything - just makes me someone trying to be a decent person, not a saint. Your exaggeration of it is pure defensiveness.

Back on topic, personally, I don't want to see gay marriage result in increased tax revenues. I'd like to see the tax code rewritten so that the marriage penalty is done away with for couples of all persuasions. Well, I guess it would be okay if the increased tax revenues came from more business for wedding coordinators, caterers, florists, etc.

Erm, I don't think I know of anyone who laughs at jokes to fit in. If they laugh, it is usually because it is funny. Something can be in bad taste and still be funny. Humor is humor and shouldn't be taken so seriously (that COMPLETELY defeats the purpose). Considering there are quite a few jokes regarding ethnicity, sex, etc that are actually funny, I take exception to your notion that anyone that tells a joke on those subjects or laughs at them is somehow inherently wrong. You can choose not to laugh, but you shouldn't judge others. If you do choose not to laugh, I'd say lighten up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not being defensive. But I am amused that you see yourself as the annointed one with moral clarity on all issues large and small.

Then again, perhaps you are...

Nuclear Family drops below 25% of US households

Those who wish to hark back to the nuclear family -- which reached a peak of 45 percent of the American population in 1960 -- face formidable odds of success. The most recent census figures show that, for the first time, the percentage of Americans living in nuclear families has declined to below 25 percent of the population. (As this figure represents married couples living with children, it also includes blended families, so the percentage of married couples living with their biological children is presumably lower.)

The simple fact is, There are more single parent households (51%) and childless households (25%) than households with children. Many of the anti-gay marriage arguments are beginning to have a "Remember the Alamo" sound to them. Speaking as if the majority of US households consist of a man, a woman, and their biologically conceived children is simply ignoring the reality of 21st Century US demographics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I am amused that you see yourself as the annointed one with moral clarity on all issues large and small.

Those are your words, not mine. You've created a straw man to attack in an attempt to put me down, I get it.

Me? Annointed? I thought that everyone was supposed to do what they could to be kind to others, and to stand up for others' rights. No, I don't see myself as anything special - I believe that most people are decent and do their best to show others kindness and stand up for their rights. Your attempt to twist my words otherwise is as transparent as it is unoriginal.

However, this does bring up my reasons, as a heterosexual man, for supporting the right of gay people to get married. I remember all the girls I dated before I met my wife who didn't fit - we either had different values, different expectations, a few weren't honest, or sometimes one or the other of us realized we just didn't have enough interests in common. When I met my wife, and as our relationship grew and we realized how compatible we were, how happy we were together, it made us so happy. We knew getting married - not the economic benefits - but the commitment to each other in front of our friends and family, would be a wonderful, joyous thing. Getting married gave us happiness. There are so many natural barriers to lasting happiness with another person. When two people find in each other someone they can be truly happy with, and want to make that next step - it seems unkind, meanspirited to deny them that just because one finds their relationship "icky". When two people have taken on all the trappings of marriage, and others say "don't let them call it marriage" for no real pragmatic reason, but just out of spite, that's not kind.

And if it gives wedding coordinators and caterers a new target market - so much the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erm, I don't think I know of anyone who laughs at jokes to fit in.

Were you homeschooled in junior high and high school? You were obviously not a member of a fraternity in college. For you to blithly suggest that there aren't people out there who do things to fit in demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of human nature.

Considering there are quite a few jokes regarding ethnicity, sex, etc that are actually funny, I take exception to your notion that anyone that tells a joke on those subjects or laughs at them is somehow inherently wrong. You can choose not to laugh, but you shouldn't judge others.

Notice I did not say I do not laugh at jokes "regarding ethnicity, sex, etc.", I specifically said I do not laugh at racist or sexist jokes. There is a difference. An example, I recently went fishing with a guide who all day long made jokes about Hillary Clinton being a d*ke. I find calling Hillary Clinton a lesbian to be offensive to lesbians. Oh, and I think d*ke is an ulgy word, too. He also used a choice word in jokes about Obama that starts with N. I explicitly said "racist or sexist". You deliberately changed my wording to a softer "regarding ethnicity, sex, etc.", - it was dishonest and proves that you couldn't actually come up with a decent retort to what I actually said, so you had to misrepresent what I had to say and attack that misrepresentation.

Also, note that I did not pass any judgement on people who tell racist or sexist jokes, I only said I don't laugh at them. so your sanctimonious accusation of me being judgmental is off the mark as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Were you homeschooled in junior high and high school? You were obviously not a member of a fraternity in college. For you to blithly suggest that there aren't people out there who do things to fit in demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of human nature.

Notice I did not say I do not laugh at jokes "regarding ethnicity, sex, etc.", I specifically said I do not laugh at racist or sexist jokes. There is a difference. An example, I recently went fishing with a guide who all day long made jokes about Hillary Clinton being a d*ke. I find calling Hillary Clinton a lesbian to be offensive to lesbians. Oh, and I think d*ke is an ulgy word, too. He also used a choice word in jokes about Obama that starts with N. I explicitly said "racist or sexist". You deliberately changed my wording to a softer "regarding ethnicity, sex, etc.", - it was dishonest and proves that you couldn't actually come up with a decent retort to what I actually said, so you had to misrepresent what I had to say and attack that misrepresentation.

Also, note that I did not pass any judgement on people who tell racist or sexist jokes, I only said I don't laugh at them. so your sanctimonious accusation of me being judgmental is off the mark as well.

I laugh at racist and sexist jokes. When they are funny. I don't have the ability to hold back if it' funny. If we can't laugh at our stupidity than we are missing out because there is a lot of it. There is a heritage of it. And sometimes it's funny. Why should I worry if it is going to offend someone who is not standing there next to me with the chance to be offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In many states, and even at the US Govt level, government reports have shown that allowing gay people to get married will increase tax revenue, in many times due to the marriage (tax) penalty. The report gets turned in to committee... but no. No need for more tax dollars. Legislators just ignore the black and white facts. This just goes to show that people who get married DON'T get married for the tax benefits ("We can file jointly as married now!") - but all the other reasons.

Interesting point. I guess homosexual couples can be considered the original DINKs. It explains why they're targeted so often by travel companies and tour operators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry editor, it's gotten off-topic again. I seem to be a lightning rod for that. Let's get it back on topic:

We've all talked about the benefits that gay couples miss out on because of bans on gay marriage, and potential benefits to tax revenues if we let them get married, but, for the sake of being a Devil's Advocate, what about the flipside to this argument? Maybe in some ways gay couples get a free ride, which is unfair to heterosexual couples? Heterosexual couples are under a lot of pressure to get married, both from inside the relationship, and from family and society in general. Gay couples have no such pressure on them, and have a built-in excuse - "oh, we'd love to get married and start paying the marriage penalty in our taxes...but no one will let us get married. Yeah, that's it." How do you who are opposed to gay marriage feel about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Previous thread was locked. I suppose that's my fault. Someone said "The breeders of the world beat y'all to that title (marriage). Name it something else." and I replied that made him sound like "a 6 year-old on a Jungle Jim in a public park telling other kids 'I was here first - go find your own.'" That got me a warning from "editor". Then that same person said that Pope Benedict 16 agrees that gay marriage is "pseudomarriage." I pointed out that Benedict also said noncatholic congregations weren't real churches. I said that was patronizing and demeaning for Benedict to say so. Someone else said "truth is truth. It's not Benedict 16's fault you can't see that." I replied "Dogma is dogma. Unfortunately you can't see that." At that point "editor" locked the thread. So, definitely my fault thread got locked. Sorry about that. It was not my intention, but with all of the intolerant things which had been posted in there for several pages, I don't think it was a big loss.

That wasn't what did it. I'm not even sure it was you that got it locked, but that wasn't what caused it.

I'm not gay, and I'm not any kind of Christian, but I don't like to see belittling things said about any group, be they gay people, protestants, catholics, or anyone else, and so I'm going to say something about that. I guess here on HAIF, general comments about groups that border on defamation are tolerated, but my intolerance of intolerance is not tolerated. Try saying that three times fast.

As I noted in another thread, you haven't been participating here long enough to be all that critical of HAIF.

If you had, you would have seen by now a dozen times the notes that I and the moderators do not patrol every message in every thread. We're more haphazard than that -- like a cop running radar on 288. Some people get caught. Some don't. Don't take it personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I laugh at racist and sexist jokes. When they are funny. I don't have the ability to hold back if it' funny. If we can't laugh at our stupidity than we are missing out because there is a lot of it. There is a heritage of it. And sometimes it's funny. Why should I worry if it is going to offend someone who is not standing there next to me with the chance to be offended.

I guess it's the Buddhist in me. The first stone on the eightfold path is Right Thought. Right thought leads to right intention which leads to right speech and right action. Wrong thought leads to wrong intention to wrong speech to wrong action. Refraining from laughing at jokes that are derogatory to other people is as much about keeping your mind free of negative thoughts about other people as it is about defending people who aren't around to defend themselves.

Edited by Reefmonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That wasn't what did it. I'm not even sure it was you that got it locked, but that wasn't what caused it.

If it wasn't the "jungle gym" comment or the "dogma" comment, then I can't think of anything else I said, so I guess I'm off the hook.

As I noted in another thread, you haven't been participating here long enough to be all that critical of HAIF.

If you had, you would have seen by now a dozen times the notes that I and the moderators do not patrol every message in every thread. We're more haphazard than that -- like a cop running radar on 288. Some people get caught. Some don't. Don't take it personally.

It's not a criticism of HAIF, specifically, it is a general observation about forums such as these where the moderators participate in discussions as well. It's not just me, there is an ongoing discussion in the internet ether about the phenomenon. It doesn't necessarily mean the moderators can't be fair or aren't being fair, the practice does however make them more vulnerable to the charge of being partisan than moderators who are silent until there is a dispute.

Don't take it personally.

Trust me, I don't, and I hope you did not take my comments personally either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry editor, it's gotten off-topic again. I seem to be a lightning rod for that. Let's get it back on topic:

We've all talked about the benefits that gay couples miss out on because of bans on gay marriage, and potential benefits to tax revenues if we let them get married, but, for the sake of being a Devil's Advocate, what about the flipside to this argument? Maybe in some ways gay couples get a free ride, which is unfair to heterosexual couples? Heterosexual couples are under a lot of pressure to get married, both from inside the relationship, and from family and society in general. Gay couples have no such pressure on them, and have a built-in excuse - "oh, we'd love to get married and start paying the marriage penalty in our taxes...but no one will let us get married. Yeah, that's it." How do you who are opposed to gay marriage feel about this?

I would say it's even worse for gay and lesbian people. To some extent all of us, from the moment we came into this world, are under pressure from society (mom, dad, and all the rest) to grow up, go to school, get a job, and get married. The problem with this is that (at least in the past) is that EVERYONE assumes that EVERYONE is straight. So what do you get sometimes? You have gay men, who haven't come to terms with themselves... they grow up, go to school, get a good job, marry a woman... have kids... and then 5-10 years into the situation, wake up as to who they really are, get divorced and then date men - who may also have kids! I want to say that I know of at least a half dozen gay couples/men who fall into this category! It is hard enough coming out to your parents in high school, college, or right after college... It is quite something else to come out to them after you've been married for several years, had kids, the house, the job, the car, everything. Talk about a messy, confusing situation.

That's why gay marriage needs to be an option: 1.) It will save straight women from the unnecessary heartbreak of a "mixed marriage," 2.) allow gay and straight people to marry into the correct orientation, to begin with, and 3.) For those who have kids, allow them to place a legal framework around themselves to protect their families, as they had previously.

Edited by BryanS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also pick up litter when I'm hiking and paddling, and don't laugh along with racist or sexist jokes just to "fit in". I do them because they are the right thing to do

Wait... You laugh at racist jokes because it's the right thing to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's why gay marriage needs to be an option: 1.) It will save straight women from the unnecessary heartbreak of a "mixed marriage," 2.) allow gay and straight people to marry into the correct orientation, to begin with, and 3.) For those who have kids, allow them to place a legal framework around themselves to protect their families, as they had previously.

someone's been watching the brady bunch again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait... You laugh at racist jokes because it's the right thing to do?

I'll laugh at this joke just to be polite.

someone's been watching the brady bunch again.

However this one I laugh at because it's actually clever and funny.

Edited by Reefmonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keep it STRICTLY on topic. I'm going to be watching this one, too.

:ph34r:

Dude, I am on your team, and I know it's close to pride, but man, what's with the rainbow. Are you one of those that puts it on your car? :P

BTW, I knew we had tons of expendable cash!

I vote merge. It's not my thread, but I think it should be.

LOL... no, don't have stuff on my car, was just bored at work and wanted to have some fun. :D

And no, this should not merged, ti's a different topic... :P .

The anti-gay marriage folks are alot more intelligent than we give them credit for. Just like the old segregationists of the past, they realize that once you let something like this occur, most people will realize that the world isn't gonna fall off of its axis and they will accept it.

The segregations knew that if they allowed integration of the races, it would be that much harder for them to spread false lies about "those people." I was lucky enough to be born in 1972, thus my schooling was an integrated one. Many of "those people" were my friends so when older folks would spout their prejudiced viewpoints, I knew for a fact it was B.S.

The same thing will occur with gay marriage. Once it is allowed and average folks get used to the idea and find that it leads to a stable and open society, then the stigma of being gay will go away and the anti-gay supporters will lose a key issue with which to divide people.

I speak these words as a white straight man that learned long ago that homophobia, like racism before it, is based in ignorance. I don't want to be ignorant and I feel society progresses from stupidity to intelligence over the years.

Gay marriage is going to be legal one of these days people, its just a matter of time. Those that fight against it are like trying to push the tides back in the ocean.

VERY WELL SAID... AND 100% TRUE. It's only a matter of time, just like it was only a matter of time for women being allowed to vote, for the end of segregation, for interracial marriage to be legal.... it's only a matter of time whether you like it or not. And as for the arguments against gay marriage... look at any country around the world that now allows gay marriage and you will see nothing "bad" happens. It does not ruin the sanctity of marriage, it leads to more people getting married... it doesn't turn people gay... gay people are born gay... you can't create gay people... it helps the economy... and the country doesn't blow up. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Were you homeschooled in junior high and high school? You were obviously not a member of a fraternity in college. For you to blithly suggest that there aren't people out there who do things to fit in demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of human nature.

Notice I did not say I do not laugh at jokes "regarding ethnicity, sex, etc.", I specifically said I do not laugh at racist or sexist jokes. There is a difference. An example, I recently went fishing with a guide who all day long made jokes about Hillary Clinton being a d*ke. I find calling Hillary Clinton a lesbian to be offensive to lesbians. Oh, and I think d*ke is an ulgy word, too. He also used a choice word in jokes about Obama that starts with N. I explicitly said "racist or sexist". You deliberately changed my wording to a softer "regarding ethnicity, sex, etc.", - it was dishonest and proves that you couldn't actually come up with a decent retort to what I actually said, so you had to misrepresent what I had to say and attack that misrepresentation.

Also, note that I did not pass any judgement on people who tell racist or sexist jokes, I only said I don't laugh at them. so your sanctimonious accusation of me being judgmental is off the mark as well.

Talk about straw men. You do seem to be pretty judgemental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh stop taking yourself so seriously...

I will say that appointing yourself defender of the world's "belittled" is very noble of you.

Just posting snide personal remarks and pictures from cartoons or movies only serves to derail conversations. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then don't participate. I assume other posters don't want to end up with another locked topic, so drop the attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Previous thread was locked. I suppose that's my fault. Someone said "The breeders of the world beat y'all to that title (marriage). Name it something else." and I replied that made him sound like "a 6 year-old on a Jungle Jim in a public park telling other kids 'I was here first - go find your own.'" That got me a warning from "editor". Then that same person said that Pope Benedict 16 agrees that gay marriage is "pseudomarriage." I pointed out that Benedict also said noncatholic congregations weren't real churches. I said that was patronizing and demeaning for Benedict to say so. Someone else said "truth is truth. It's not Benedict 16's fault you can't see that." I replied "Dogma is dogma. Unfortunately you can't see that." At that point "editor" locked the thread. So, definitely my fault thread got locked. Sorry about that. It was not my intention, but with all of the intolerant things which had been posted in there for several pages, I don't think it was a big loss.

I'm not gay, and I'm not any kind of Christian, but I don't like to see belittling things said about any group, be they gay people, protestants, catholics, or anyone else, and so I'm going to say something about that. I guess here on HAIF, general comments about groups that border on defamation are tolerated, but my intolerance of intolerance is not tolerated. Try saying that three times fast.

You're a good person. :)

Just posting snide personal remarks and pictures from cartoons or movies only serves to derail conversations. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then don't participate. I assume other posters don't want to end up with another locked topic, so drop the attitude.

Uughh... then I am going to have to find ANOTHER news story related to gay marriage in California to start another topic! ha ha :wacko: Sorry, another slow night at work... 4 and a half more hours to go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a criticism of HAIF, specifically, it is a general observation about forums such as these where the moderators participate in discussions as well. It's not just me, there is an ongoing discussion in the internet ether about the phenomenon. It doesn't necessarily mean the moderators can't be fair or aren't being fair, the practice does however make them more vulnerable to the charge of being partisan than moderators who are silent until there is a dispute.

Trust me, I don't, and I hope you did not take my comments personally either.

To Editor's credit, he and I have some basic philosophic differences, yet he lets me moderate. We both strive to be respectful and fair. It takes some mental exercise to be both passionate and polite.

Back on topic.... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just posting snide personal remarks and pictures from cartoons or movies only serves to derail conversations. If you have nothing to add to the discussion, then don't participate. I assume other posters don't want to end up with another locked topic, so drop the attitude.

I am afraid you don't get it. That comment was about understanding Reef's perspective.

His world view is that he has it all figure out. It's hard to debate with folks like that on topics like gay marriage.

Libs like that who demand understand seem to always be the least understanding of other's views.

And Red, don't worry about the Nuclear Family. They will be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talk about straw men.

It's best to actually know what a phrase means before you try to use it in an argument, gwilson:

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]"

You do seem to be pretty judgemental.

If having a dim view of racism and sexism is judgemental, then yes, I am guilty as charged.

Edited by Reefmonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how does it usually work out for the father of the bride, is there such a thing as father of the groom.

Are we back on topic. . . :rolleyes:

You think there will be an increase in cake toppers with two men. Maybe you'd have to buy two sets and cut the women out. Maybe your can donate those left women to a lesbian wedding. . .

So the official state count is Vermont, California, and partially New York. Logically, I think Massachusetts is next because of P-town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His world view is that he has it all figure out.
And Red, don't worry about the Nuclear Family. They will be fine.

Pardon me for finding these two statements in the same post utterly amusing.

I'm not worried about the nuclear family, Coog. In fact, GWB claims Iran has a loaf in the oven as we speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when is Ellen marrying that hottie Porsche? Do you think Ellen likes it when people change topics on her show? I think Ellen would rather have people take off topic discussions off the air, in the privacy of a PM. It's her show, respect the topic given or change the channel. Man Porsche is cute. That's a lipstick lesbian for ya. . . . Can't wait too see that wedding. I am sure it will be televised, at least on her show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor assumption #1:

His world view is that he has it all figure out. It's hard to debate with folks like that on topics like gay marriage.

I don't have any worldview figured out, just a consistent ethical system for treatment of my fellow people, based on - the golden rule, the categorical imperative, whatever you want to call it -treating people how I would like to be treated in their situation.

Poor assumption#2:

Libs like that who demand understand seem to always be the least understanding of other's views.

I disagree with your stance on this one issue, so therefore I must be a "Lib". I guess my desire to abolish Social Security and make everyone responsible for their own retirement makes me liberal too? How about my belief that (except for in cases of statutory rape) sex offenders who wish ever to be paroled must submit to chemical castration? How about my opposition to all affirmative action and racial quotas? How about my belief that the US nuclear weapon arsenal is the greatest peacekeeping system every devised, and we should never bow to foreign or domestic demands to reduce or dismantle it?

I have not made any assumptions about your political leanings in other areas, or about you in general, except that you haven't thought this issue through very well. I don't say that because your stance does not jibe with mine. If you disagreed with me and gave any reasons at all, that would be one thing. But you don't do that. You give flippant responses with no logic - sound or flawed - behind them. Example:

Yes I did. This is why I support Civil Unions (or whatever you want to call it) for MM or FF who need to seal the deal. Read my previous replies.

But let's just leave "Marriage" to the cheatin-Breeders.

Without Breeders there would be no gay people.

Show some respect and let's not water-down what Marriage means. Making babies for man-kind.

You just state your feelings about the issue. Okay, we get it, you don't like gay marriage. Use pragmatic, legal, heck, even moral arguments to justify them. But you don't do that. When people use pragmatic, legal and/or moral arguments to refute the positions you have forwarded but not supported, you resort to snide comebacks. It is not your position on this issue that subdude is objecting to, or even your dislike of me. Subdude and I don't know each other, I don't think he would particularly care if you insulted me, as long as most of your posts had actual substance to them (no matter how wrong we might think that substance is ;) ). It's the fact that you bring no logic - sound or unsound, so you don't contribute to the discussion. That's what subdude is talking about.

Edited by Reefmonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not worried about the nuclear family, Coog. In fact, GWB claims Iran has a loaf in the oven as we speak.

You see Red, I disagree with a ton of what you have to say. But I respect your opinions. And read them because of gems like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, how does it usually work out for the father of the bride, is there such a thing as father of the groom.

Father of the "bottom". :blush::lol: ha ha ha ha

So when is Ellen marrying that hottie Porsche? Do you think Ellen likes it when people change topics on her show? I think Ellen would rather have people take off topic discussions off the air, in the privacy of a PM. It's her show, respect the topic given or change the channel. Man Porsche is cute. That's a lipstick lesbian for ya. . . . Can't wait too see that wedding. I am sure it will be televised, at least on her show.

Seriously... you go Ellen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no right-winger, but those old hags kinda freak me out...

The worse part was seeing Gloria 'the undertaker' Steinem howling at the moon in joy. What a camera hog.

And old Mayor 'grusome' Newsom thinks this is his meal ticket to greater things. Talk about an agenda. Print It.

So far these sure don't look like any kind of weddings I've ever seen. They are more like a scripted media event/spectacle orchestrated by the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious as to what this means for the "Hundreds of Thousands flocking from all over the country", legally. If they do no live in California, is it going to be recognized legally in the state they do reside in? Or is this just something to get on a piece of paper that's not worth the coast of the paper it's printed on. If it's not legally binding outside of California, what's the use? You can stand up and take vows anywhere, and serve the same purpose if these California marriages are not legal elsewhere. I can't find where that question has been raised and or addressed. Not sure how other states will look at this so called ground breaking move by a State that has the highest divorce rate of any state, something like 80%, which implies that the majority of it's inhabitants really don't hold the act of being married so sacred anyway, since they change spouses like they change socks.

So far these sure don't look like any kind of weddings I've ever seen. They are more like a scripted media event/spectacle orchestrated by the courts.

This part of Coog's state may not be that far off... like just and act for the bragging rights more than an act of humanity. The whole thing is intriguing none the less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious as to what this means for the "Hundreds of Thousands flocking from all over the country", legally. If they do no live in California, is it going to be recognized legally in the state they do reside in?

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act gave states the right to refuse to recognize gay marriage performed in other states, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the hundreds of thousands might have been a little bit of a stretch...

I don't think I would go there just to get a marriage license. I know it would not be recognized here because of DOMA. I will be quite happy with just a marriage ceremony here in Houston with my family and friends. Sure it would be nice to have it legally recognized by the government for legal/tax reasons but I know I am just going to have to wait for that. Like they teach in first year Constitutional Law, 30 years from now gay marriage won't even be an issue.

Btw, DOMA could be the most on its face unconstitutional bill ever written...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...