Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Thats another thing. The reason I dont get stopped by the cops is I dont commit crimes or act like im gonna

I was pulled over all the time in LA. Where I lived a white boy (much less a country boy) was a rare sight indeed. They were always thinking I was trolling for drugs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I'm not surprised.

We still get people staring frequently. But hey, that's Oklahoma for you.

Maybe if you quit walking around in the Batman costume...

 whembly wrote:
I have checked my privilege. And I apologize for nothing.

“I am privileged that values like faith and education were passed along to me.»
He need to check again, he obviously did not make it right the first time. Anyhow, I skimmed through it, and I call bs on saying “My ancestors had it rough, so [anything about me]”. Like, seriously.

I should know, because… I am in the same position as he is.

Er...what?

Yes, exactly!

I want to marry my tarantula and claim tax relief, is this allowed?

 Soteks Prophet wrote:
I want to marry my tarantula and claim tax relief, is this allowed?

Is your tarantula a consenting adult? Animals cannot legally consent to enter into binding contracts, so presumably, no.

I've never understood the "if we have gay marriage then people can marry turtles" argument.

Because it's a stupid as feth argument, that's why.

Anyone who actually tries to push it needs to be educated on it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Thats another thing. The reason I dont get stopped by the cops is I dont commit crimes or act like im gonna

That's a pretty false positive.

As a white kid, you're going to get stopped far less if you're just walking around than if you're a minority kid. Plenty of facts support that, including all the NYC stop and frisk statistics (which I find an abhorrent violation of the 4th amendment). You can't help that, and nor can minorities.

Now, one could argue that minorities get stopped more because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime, but it's a pretty circular argument in that minority, and especially black, populations tend to be centered in poorer urban areas, and a great deal of crime is a necessity of the poor and doesn't necessarily fall along racial lines. Your white poor, typically, aren't in tightly packed urban centers, but are often rural.

Like I said before, I won't even argue that sentencing is prejudicial in the US. What I will say is that my "white privilege" has no bearing on me in that situation because I don't commit crimes.

I can't say whether or not my "privilege" has ever benefited me with housing as we've never rented outside of university housing.

@d-usa - blows my mind that people give you weird looks; I can't really fathom that...

 Ouze wrote:

 Soteks Prophet wrote:
I want to marry my tarantula and claim tax relief, is this allowed?

Is your tarantula a consenting adult? Animals cannot legally consent to enter into binding contracts, so presumably, no.

I've never understood the "if we have gay marriage then people can marry turtles" argument.

It's because people who don't want gay marriage have no good argument against it.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I still think the phrase "marriage" should be removed from documentation at a state at federal level, and they should all be 2-party civil union contracts, because that's exactly what they are.

I also used to be of the mind that there should be no government involvement in marriage, period - that it's essentially a private covenant between consenting adults. I'm not sure I feel that way anymore, though. For one it's not really feasible to actually implement, and for the other, it smells a lot like deciding, hey, if the gays are gonna get married, lets just burn down the institution for everyone.

I don't really know what I think anymore, other than that consenting adults should be able to marry each other.

This line of thinking bothers me... and always will.

I thought there's a large push to get religion out of government??!?! It's undeniable that the world "marriage" carries religious connotations these days (even though, it did not way back when).

So... just go all secular and call it a civil union (on ALL unions). If you want to call it a "marriage" outside of the legal binding document, amongst family/friends/work/church, go for it. Feth what other people think about it.

Won't ever happen as idiots on both sides, imo, want to keep it a hot issue. (see Cruz... he's selfishly submitting that proposal to firm up is pedigree for the republican Prez primaries... but, what he's doing is shifting attention away from things that helps republicans in the midterm).

Just wanted to get that off my chest.

That's exactly where I sit, whembly.

In regards to the "tarantula" argument: why not simply extend it to two heterosexual males that want to enter into a coupling for the benefits it provides, ala (and I'm embarrassed to cite this) the film "I now pronounce you Chuck & Larry."

Why should that type of coupling be protected any less than any other "union?"

It shouldn't have any less protection. I think that people getting marriage benefits is a little silly, unless all people who live together and rely on each-other like a couple also get those benefits. But it's cultural, so oh well.

 whembly wrote:
It's undeniable that the world "marriage" carries religious connotations these days (even though, it did not way back when).

It really doesn't. As a devout atheist I can go to the local courthouse, sign some paperwork, and be just as married as any religious couple. The fact that certain religious groups have declared that they "own" marriage does not mean that the government needs to respect that demand.

So... just go all secular and call it a civil union (on ALL unions).

The problem with this argument is that there's no reason to change the name, other than satisfying a few obnoxious bigots. I get that it might be a good strategy to get the bigots to vote for you, but I don't see why anyone else should support the idea.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's undeniable that the world "marriage" carries religious connotations these days (even though, it did not way back when).

It really doesn't. As a devout atheist I can go to the local courthouse, sign some paperwork, and be just as married as any religious couple. The fact that certain religious groups have declared that they "own" marriage does not mean that the government needs to respect that demand.

You see... this isn't either A or B proposition...

I'm talking about a middle ground here.

So... just go all secular and call it a civil union (on ALL unions).

The problem with this argument is that there's no reason to change the name, other than satisfying a few obnoxious bigots. I get that it might be a good strategy to get the bigots to vote for you, but I don't see why anyone else should support the idea.

Actually, it would piss off BOTH the Gay Marriage advocates and the religious social cons.

So, to me, if both sides don't like it... it warrants another look.

 whembly wrote:
You see... this isn't either A or B proposition...

I'm talking about a middle ground here.

But why should there be a middle ground? You wouldn't argue for a middle ground between "1+1=2" and "1+1=5", you'd just say that one side is wrong and needs to STFU. Same thing here. The only reason to remove the "marriage" name is to appease the bigots, like if the KKK demanded that we remove the "marriage" title from interracial marriage. So why should anyone care what the bigots have to say about this?

Actually, it would piss off BOTH the Gay Marriage advocates and the religious social cons.

So, to me, if both sides don't like it... it warrants another look.

And that is absolutely insane.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You see... this isn't either A or B proposition...

I'm talking about a middle ground here.

But why should there be a middle ground? You wouldn't argue for a middle ground between "1+1=2" and "1+1=5", you'd just say that one side is wrong and needs to STFU. Same thing here. The only reason to remove the "marriage" name is to appease the bigots, like if the KKK demanded that we remove the "marriage" title from interracial marriage. So why should anyone care what the bigots have to say about this?

Dude... I support gays to marry.

They deserve all the fruits/benefit that society offers to man/woman union.

We're talking about equal protection of the law.

So, when an idea to change the word on a legally binding document is floated out there as a middle ground... oh no... that's like "if we can't have it, the NO ONE CAN!"... is simply asinine, in my opinion.

However, it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell for that to occur, because both sides want to use this as hammer.

Also, for what it's worth, the straight marriages have already ruined the institution. Just look at the divorce rates.

Actually, it would piss off BOTH the Gay Marriage advocates and the religious social cons.

So, to me, if both sides don't like it... it warrants another look.

And that is absolutely insane.

Both sides are absolutely militaristic on their viewpoints.

 whembly wrote:

Dude... I support gays to marry.

Er, have you been reading your own posts?

The ones where you say to remove the name marriage or something?

About both sides having militaristic viewpoints, when one side is 1+1 = 2, and the other is 1+1 = 3, I don't give a gak how militaristic the 1+1=2 side is, they're still right. feth the other side and feth them hard.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Dude... I support gays to marry.

Er, have you been reading your own posts?

The ones where you say to remove the name marriage or something?

About both sides having militaristic viewpoints, when one side is 1+1 = 2, and the other is 1+1 = 3, I don't give a gak how militaristic the 1+1=2 side is, they're still right. feth the other side and feth them hard.

See? My point stands.

It would if one side wasn't insane bigoted nut jobs.



As Mel has said a lot in her posting, being centrist for centrists sake is not a good thing. Not all issues are solved in the middle (many are though), because in some cases one side is literally completely wrong.

 whembly wrote:
So, when an idea to change the word on a legally binding document is floated out there as a middle ground... oh no... that's like "if we can't have it, the NO ONE CAN!"... is simply asinine, in my opinion.

Again, why do we NEED a middle ground? If the KKK said "hey, let's have a middle ground between ending discrimination and lynching any black people who don't know their place" and proposed that we go back to segregation would you argue that we should take the middle ground just to spite the extremists on both sides? If not, why would you make the same argument in the case of gay marriage?

Both sides are absolutely militaristic on their viewpoints.

Since when does "militaristic" have anything to do with what the right decision is? If there's an argument about 1+1=2 vs. 1+1=5 it's a safe bet that the 1+1=2 side will be pretty militaristic about their position. And why shouldn't they be? They're indisputably right. Same thing with gay marriage. This is a case of an inevitable process which will end in gay marriage existing everywhere, opposed only by a dying generation of obnoxious bigots whose relevance in politics is quickly ending.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It would if one side wasn't insane bigoted nut jobs.



As Mel has said a lot in her posting, being centrist for centrists sake is not a good thing. Not all issues are solved in the middle, because in many cases one side is literally completely wrong.

There's two things as I see it...

One: It's a legally binding contracts that grants two people certain recognition and rights by the State.

Two: Cetain religion (Catholic, LDS, Islam, etc...)would never accept that the 'sacrament of marriage' could be redefined by judges, democracy, or anyone other than that Big Guy™. This is neither homophobic, nor does it undermine gay couple's happiness.

So, how do you ensure you decouple points one and two?

Tell them to grow the feth up and stop interfering.

Or just continue waiting for the bigoted witches to die, as Peregrine said.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is a case of an inevitable process which will end in gay marriage existing everywhere, opposed only by a dying generation of obnoxious bigots whose relevance in politics is quickly ending.

I certainly hope that's the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Tell them to grow the feth up and stop interfering.

So... Religion isn't important?

Sadly it currently is. Hopefully it'll soon stop being so.

 whembly wrote:
So... Religion isn't important?

It isn't. Remember that thing about separation of church and state? That means that the government shouldn't pay any attention when certain religious groups demand ownership of secular concepts like marriage.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Sadly it currently is. Hopefully it'll soon stop being so.

Okay... so no tolerance of their religious views. Got it.

Why should I have tolerance of the views of people who believe in an imaginary sky fairy whispering secret nothings into their ears?

(am I doing it right?)

 whembly wrote:
Okay... so no tolerance of their religious views. Got it.

Do you also demand tolerance for KKK members who think that interracial marriage is an abomination and should be called a "race-mixing union"?

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So... Religion isn't important?

It isn't. Remember that thing about separation of church and state? That means that the government shouldn't pay any attention when certain religious groups demand ownership of secular concepts like marriage.

Yeah, I get that.

But, to those groups, "marriage" is more than a secular concept. Hence, why I advocated have the State change it to Civil Union.

A) Everyone can get that and enjoy equal protection of the law

B) If the religious folks complain, tell them by saying they're not "married" by the tenets of their religion and STFU.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Okay... so no tolerance of their religious views. Got it.

Do you also demand tolerance for KKK members who think that interracial marriage is an abomination and should be called a "race-mixing union"?

They have every right to say it.

Just like you and I have every right to tell them to STFU.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Why should I have tolerance of the views of people who believe in an imaginary sky fairy whispering secret nothings into their ears?

(am I doing it right?)

Yep.

Your opinion.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Tell them to grow the feth up and stop interfering.

Or just continue waiting for the bigoted witches to die, as Peregrine said.

Plan B for those who don't want to act like dicks to each other.

Eliminate marriage as a governmental contract. Then everyone can do whatever the heck they want.