wmw999 2,584 #76 March 28, 2013 Actually, in the case of the legal world, it's something that absolutely has to be considered as we start defining marriage. If we say that consent has to enter into it, but otherwise it's open season, that's a very real case, and one that will happen. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #77 March 28, 2013 QuoteActually, in the case of the legal world, it's something that absolutely has to be considered as we start defining marriage. Agreed, but it's not that difficult. Current law allows a consenting man and a consenting woman to marry, but not if they are too closely related. New laws can allow 2 consenting adults to marry, but not if they are too closely related.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #78 March 28, 2013 The "What next? People being allowed to marry relatives and animals" Argument seems to always be brought up by southerners. I wonder why that is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #79 March 28, 2013 A drive through vacation through WVA might lead to answers. Love that new = identifier. I wonder if hetro's need a logo for what's becoming a brand war, packaged like grocery shelf products. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #80 March 28, 2013 QuoteThe "What next? People being allowed to marry relatives and animals" Argument seems to always be brought up by southerners. I wonder why that is. Our animals are better looking than most. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #81 March 28, 2013 QuoteLove that new = identifier It's been around for 18 years. Congrats for noticing it just now.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #82 March 28, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Have you tried doing something more useful than silly hypothetical reductio ad absurdums? so was this a trolling post, or were you actually sincere? Actually sincere. It's ridiculous to make the comparison of gay marriage and people marrying their daughters or dogs or whatever. It's literally an absurd argument. absurd is someone with your posting record suggesting other people get a life. No, it's not; stop being snarky. What is offensive is not knowing that the plural of reductio ad absurdum is reductiones ad absurdum. I mean, what the fuck, people; let's not be ignorami. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #83 March 28, 2013 Returning from a Self Imposed Banning. DOMA...Bill Clinton supported DOMA and signed it into law, including Don't Ask Don't Tell. Bill did not use his VETO Pen when DOMA was set before him, he signed it into law, because he supported it. Bill Clinton even tried to convience John Kerry to support traditional marriage in 2004 if my memory serves me well. Questions: Can a Christian or Muslim support only traditional marriage between One Man and One Women without being called a Bigot, homophobic or intolerant? How is it some must be tollerant of Same Sex marriage and yet the other side is not required to be tollerant of the view of Marriage between one man and one women? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #84 March 28, 2013 QuoteQuoteLove that new = identifier It's been around for 18 years. Congrats for noticing it just now. I guess you've just come out. There's been many symbols through the years and the one I remember most was the upside down triangle. The = sign is not even depicted in this grouping and recent publicity regarding the new pink = image was just redesigned. I'm not sure from what design, but this one is new. On the subject of imagery, I like the rainbows. It gives a more gentlier feeling with the movement and more inclusive. This pink = is more in-your-face IMO. Plus pink is more associated with breast cancer. So equality w/ gay and breast cancer image sends mixed message. It appear there's been some difficulty picking a image and sticking with it thruogh the years. http://www.lambda.org/symbols.htm and here, again no Pink = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_symbols Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #85 March 28, 2013 Quote I wonder if hetro's need a logo for what's becoming a brand war, packaged like grocery shelf products. Often referred to as a "Cross" Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #86 March 28, 2013 Quote Quote I wonder if hetro's need a logo for what's becoming a brand war, packaged like grocery shelf products. Often referred to as a "Cross" Come on now, they're many gay Christians... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #87 March 28, 2013 QuoteHow is it some must be tollerant of Same Sex marriage and yet the other side is not required to be tollerant of the view of Marriage between one man and one women? You're being intellectually dishonest. You've weasel-worded the question to command an answer. Your X and Y are not equivalent to each other. No gay people are telling heteros that they should not marry people of the other sex, or expressing intolerance of people who wish to marry people of the opposite sex. They're simply telling other people to mind their own damned business. But of course you knew that when you phrased the question. Perhaps you've been in your self-imposed banning so long you've forgotten that there are those in here who will see it for what it is, and call you on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #88 March 28, 2013 QuoteI guess you've just come out. Is 35 years ago long enough ago for ya? QuoteThere's been many symbols through the years and the one I remember most was the upside down triangle. Yeah, that's still around. It was adapted from the triangle badges that gay prisoners in Nazi camps were forced to wear and is displayed now as a symbol of gay pride. QuoteThe = sign is not even depicted in this grouping and recent publicity regarding the new pink = image was just redesigned. It's not "new" and it has not been redesigned. It's been the logo of the Human Rights Campaign for 18 years, just like I said. I've had one on every vehicle I've owned for just about as long. http://preview.hrc.org/about_us/13838.htm QuoteI'm not sure from what design, but this one is new. Again, nope. There's no "new" pink one. HRC simply asked supporters to adopt a red-tinted version of the logo for a period around the time that SCOTUS was hearing the Prop8 and DOMA arguments. Kinda like when a a bunch of websites darkened or blacked out their banners in protest of SOPA and then went back to status quo later. http://www.hrc.org/StandForMarriage Look guy, as I said... I've been a living, breathing, and occasionally bleeding, card carrying queer for 35 years. My experience in the gay community is not limited to once having supervised a few dozen snarky gay hairdressers. You're not an expert on gayness.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #89 March 28, 2013 Quote Look guy, as I said... I've been a living, breathing, and occasionally bleeding, card carrying queer for 35 years. My experience in the gay community is not limited to once having supervised a few dozen snarky gay hairdressers. You're not an expert on gayness. You owe me a keyboard. Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #90 March 28, 2013 Quote You owe me a keyboard. See ya at AO! Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #91 March 28, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Have you tried doing something more useful than silly hypothetical reductio ad absurdums? so was this a trolling post, or were you actually sincere? Actually sincere. It's ridiculous to make the comparison of gay marriage and people marrying their daughters or dogs or whatever. It's literally an absurd argument. absurd is someone with your posting record suggesting other people get a life. No, it's not; stop being snarky. What is offensive is not knowing that the plural of reductio ad absurdum is reductiones ad absurdum. I mean, what the fuck, people; let's not be ignorami. Don't be sexist. The absurdity could be female (absurdam). And if there are many absurdities, absurdas, absurdos, or absurda... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #92 March 28, 2013 "ROMANES EUNT DOMUS"? or "ROMANI ITE DOMUM" Now write it down a hundred times. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #93 March 28, 2013 QuoteQuoteI guess you've just come out. Is 35 years ago long enough ago for ya? QuoteThere's been many symbols through the years and the one I remember most was the upside down triangle. Yeah, that's still around. It was adapted from the triangle badges that gay prisoners in Nazi camps were forced to wear and is displayed now as a symbol of gay pride. QuoteThe = sign is not even depicted in this grouping and recent publicity regarding the new pink = image was just redesigned. It's not "new" and it has not been redesigned. It's been the logo of the Human Rights Campaign for 18 years, just like I said. I've had one on every vehicle I've owned for just about as long. http://preview.hrc.org/about_us/13838.htm QuoteI'm not sure from what design, but this one is new. Again, nope. There's no "new" pink one. HRC simply asked supporters to adopt a red-tinted version of the logo for a period around the time that SCOTUS was hearing the Prop8 and DOMA arguments. Kinda like when a a bunch of websites darkened or blacked out their banners in protest of SOPA and then went back to status quo later. http://www.hrc.org/StandForMarriage Look guy, as I said... I've been a living, breathing, and occasionally bleeding, card carrying queer for 35 years. My experience in the gay community is not limited to once having supervised a few dozen snarky gay hairdressers. You're not an expert on gayness. Let's not get all riled up now. Very true, managing a 100 gay men at work certainly doesn't give one near the experience with the gay community as someone who is gay. So what is there to know outside of the work environment where most of the lounge chatter that I was privi to included talk about the orgy parties, baths, an.d pain associated with any activity at such orgies. And if you are a lesbian, what experience have you had with gay men. Outside of demonstrations I didn't think the parties colluded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #94 March 28, 2013 Quote ...Questions: Can a Christian or Muslim support only traditional marriage between One Man and One Women without being called a Bigot, homophobic or intolerant? How is it some must be tollerant of Same Sex marriage and yet the other side is not required to be tollerant of the view of Marriage between one man and one women? You can "support" the idea of marriage being between one man and one woman all you want without being called "intolerant", "homophobic", or a "bigot." Nobody is requiring you to marry someone of the same sex, attend any weddings, send gifts to the couple or anything like that (which would be in direct support of gay marriage). But when you want to deny the benefits, entitlements, rights, whatever that a couple gets based on what sex each individual is, then you are being intolerant. I found it interesting that the business world was unanimously in support of the SC repealing DOMA. There was an amicus brief filed by someone that had more pages of businesses that supported it than pages of the actual brief. And absolutely zero that called for keeping DOMA. Their main argument was that it was a huge pain in the ass to have to have 2 different benefit packages for the different types of couples. (on NPR's All Things Considered on Tuesday)."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #95 March 28, 2013 Quote I found it interesting that the business world was unanimously in support of the SC repealing DOMA. There was an amicus brief filed by someone that had more pages of businesses that supported it than pages of the actual brief. And absolutely zero that called for keeping DOMA. Their main argument was that it was a huge pain in the ass to have to have 2 different benefit packages for the different types of couples. (on NPR's All Things Considered on Tuesday). That's an interesting twist on this. My current employer offers benefits both to spouses and to domestic partners. I'm pretty sure the packages are identical. For DPs it doesn't require a civil union or any other formal state-issued legal document; it just requires that the employee sign an affidavit stating that they are in a domestic partnership (with lots of specific terms defining what that is). That's available to both opposite-sex and same-sex DPs. I believe that by law (can't recall if it's CA or US law) if they offer DP benefits to same-sex couples they also have to offer them to opposite-sex couples. It'll be interesting to see if same-sex marriage becomes fully legal nationally whether we'll see DP benefits go away altogether (under the premise that marriage is now available to everyone), or whether employers will continue to provide benefits to those in committed relationships outside of marriage."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #96 March 28, 2013 QuoteQuote I found it interesting that the business world was unanimously in support of the SC repealing DOMA. There was an amicus brief filed by someone that had more pages of businesses that supported it than pages of the actual brief. And absolutely zero that called for keeping DOMA. Their main argument was that it was a huge pain in the ass to have to have 2 different benefit packages for the different types of couples. (on NPR's All Things Considered on Tuesday). That's an interesting twist on this. My current employer offers benefits both to spouses and to domestic partners. I'm pretty sure the packages are identical. For DPs it doesn't require a civil union or any other formal state-issued legal document; it just requires that the employee sign an affidavit stating that they are in a domestic partnership (with lots of specific terms defining what that is). That's available to both opposite-sex and same-sex DPs. I believe that by law (can't recall if it's CA or US law) if they offer DP benefits to same-sex couples they also have to offer them to opposite-sex couples. It'll be interesting to see if same-sex marriage becomes fully legal nationally whether we'll see DP benefits go away altogether (under the premise that marriage is now available to everyone), or whether employers will continue to provide benefits to those in committed relationships outside of marriage. It was a lot more complex than "It's a big pain in the ass to offer 2 packages." It was more along the lines of "It's a great big pain in the ass to offer equal benefits when the rules are different for different couples." One thing I remember was that married couples get joint benefits under different tax rules than domestic partnerships. Story: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/26/175350841/its-bad-for-business-employers-side-with-doma-opponents?ft=1&f=1001"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #97 March 28, 2013 Wasn't trying to oversimplify your point, just bringing up another angle. "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #98 March 28, 2013 Quote Wasn't trying to oversimplify your point, just bringing up another angle. Oops, missed the "other angle" part. I'm pretty tired. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #99 March 28, 2013 QuoteLet's not get all riled up now Tell ya what, instead of wasting my time any more, I'll just take the low road here and now. Suck my dick. Is that confusing to you?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #100 March 28, 2013 And now enjoy your week long vacation.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
