IC Forum Archive

finnagain · Posts: 181

dhex wrote:

Did anyone notice the Satorum ads in which he tried to claim himself as bipartisan? In the middle of a wrestling ring?

links please.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w061106&s=fairbanks110706

It is the one at the bottom of the page.

Oh man, is it great.

finnagain · Posts: 181

inmatarian wrote:

The house, the senate, and rumsfeld. Wow. I wonder how many people had a joygasm because of this development.

Now, of course, the Dems have to DO something. Best case scenario is, they don't fuck up so bad Obama runs independent.

Mr. Apol · Posts: 279

man the socialist party never wins what gives

extralife · Posts: 3316

klikbeep wrote:

Man.

So if God chooses the leaders, why'd he become all pro-gay and anti-life all of a sudden?

Except he didn't. The Democratic party has largely distanced themselves from the women's and gay rights issues. They don't want to alienate the all important asshole vote, you know.

Scratchmonkey · Posts: 2229

Mr. Apol wrote:

man the socialist party never wins what gives

What are you talking about? First socialist Senator ever.

winkerwanker · Posts: 2414

Fuck gay people.

finnagain · Posts: 181

winkerwanker wrote:

Fuck gay people.

If it's consensual.

Homophobia is gay.

Toto · Posts: 498

It is a bit upsetting that the gay people issue gets preferential treatment over, say, the issue of international aid to the poor.
Winker if this isn't what you were getting at don't correct me it makes you sound smarter.

winkerwanker · Posts: 2414

Toto this is exactly what i was getting at thank you.

Toto · Posts: 498

TOLLMASTER · Posts: 1977

Democrats: A Kinder, Gentler Police State

(voted Green-Rainbow btw, which is the kindest, gentlest police state available)

Craptastic! · Posts: 151

The Democrats have also appear to have won the Senate majority:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/election.main/index.html

BalbanesBeoulve · Posts: 2126

While I personally support gay rights, I think the Democrats should stay the fuck away from it. Trying to pass any kind of pro gay right legislation would be absolute suicide for 2008, and i'm sure they know it. I'm sure the gays are fine taking another one for the team though. And not trying to pass a constitutional amendment to ban it should be good enough. There's lots of other more important things they could do that most people support. Increasing the miinimum wage, stem cell, alternate energy, and implementing 9/11 commission recommendations for a start.

extralife · Posts: 3316

You don't concede civil liberties.

Fuck, they are the basis of the democratic party, historically. Sorry, no.

BalbanesBeoulve · Posts: 2126

extralife wrote:

Fuck, they are the basis of the democratic party, historically. Sorry, no.

Lol no.

antitype · Posts: 1148

BalbanesBeoulve wrote:

Increasing the miinimum wage

Minimum wage just went up a pretty fair amount.

extralife · Posts: 3316

BalbanesBeoulve wrote:

extralife wrote:

Fuck, they are the basis of the democratic party, historically. Sorry, no.

Lol no.

If you're so busy wanking over victory margins that you forget why you want victory to begin with (this is the majority of democrats) then I don't know what to say to you.

BalbanesBeoulve · Posts: 2126

I know exactly why I wanted the Democrats to win.

And you dont build a base on 1-5% of the population.

extralife · Posts: 3316

So only gay people should be concerned with civil liberties, eh? I guess I'd better start fucking guys.

Hell, you might as well say only 1-5 % of the country is concerned about Iraq, because that's how many people are in the Military!

dark steve · Posts: 3002

Gay rights issues are always on the ballots because the republican party puts them there to make sure shit-eating rednecks get out to vote against them.

It works pretty well.

dhex · Posts: 2963

well, it will be a bugaboo. such is the nature of democracy. it would be nice if fundamental sets of liberties were respected by the population, but that would require some kind of agreement as to what those liberties were beforehand that can't be argued over. and some kind of incentive/punishment cycle built into the structure of government that didn't rely on political power or democratic fickleness.

solution: gay-friendly supercomputer becomes rule of all the earth.

extralife · Posts: 3316

Civil liberties are supposed to be the basis of our country. I hate fuckwit flag-waving, condescending for-us-or-against-us assholes that will vote down rights for anyone that isn't them at any given opportunity, yet still have the gall to claim American patriotism for themselves. But I also hate the more level headed people that call bullshit on it, but are more than willing to concede any and everythign so long as it will give them a happy headline in their blog.

Seriously. It doesn't even matter if you don't like gay people. You could be the biggest fucking bigot on the planet--if you understand the idea of American a tenth as much as you like to claim, you ought to be willing to support it at the polls. Sometimes things you don't like are acceptable, so man the fuck up and show some responsibility.

Of course, you say that to these people, and they bring up the bible. Sigh.

BalbanesBeoulve · Posts: 2126

You know, as long as they can fuck, that's pretty much all civil liberties is. So yeah, get those sodomy laws of the books, and you've won civil liberties. Everything else is just perks.

extralife · Posts: 3316

By "civil liberties" I really mean "I shouldn't have any more or less rights than anyone else" which is clearly the case in this situation.

BalbanesBeoulve · Posts: 2126

So you mean civil rights.

dhex · Posts: 2963

well, it's a nice idea at least.

but let me give you a quick example: i think mccain feingold is the one of the worst encroachments on the first amendment since the repeal of the sedition act. it's obviously a way to keep the two party system entrenched (since who else can afford the thresholds required?) and has helped make single issue pac's incredibly powerful.

someone else would argue the exact opposite, namely that giving money to candidates is not a form of political speech, and therefore has fuckall to do with the first amendment. the removal of the influence of soft money contributions from politics is an issue of fairness and not anything do to with civil liberties.

due to the lack of the aforementioned gay-friendly omniscient robot who rules the world, the scotus consensus fell 5-4 on the second interpretation. there's not a whole lot you can do about that outside of adapt to the new giving rules.

hey, it would be nice if the government didn't have any role in marriage at all. this way people could form all the llc partnerships they wanted with whomever they wanted; so long as certain stopguards were put in place to prevent free rider abuses, it would probably become somewhat stable as a system.

i'm not certain i would call marriage a civil liberty (it's more of a contractual agreement) but i don't think it's the government's interest to treat it as anything other than a contractual obligation (and unavoidably a special tax class). obviously i'm in the minority in this view.

edit:

BalbanesBeoulve · Posts: 2126

While we're on the subject, Wikipedia sez:

Marriage remained a strictly civil institution until about the mid 5th century AD. Around that time Augustine and others theosophised about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in co-opting it. Christians began to have their marriages conducted by ministers in Christian gatherings. Having always regarded it, in practical terms as a relationship between a man and a woman, in the 12th century that the Church (the Catholic Church ), as well as other Orthodoxies, formally defined marriage as a sacrament.

Lollers

Hot Stott Bot · Posts: 2097

Toto wrote:

It is a bit upsetting that the gay people issue gets preferential treatment over, say, the issue of international aid to the poor.
Winker if this isn't what you were getting at don't correct me it makes you sound smarter.

Well, I have gay friends, but I don't have international poor friends.

extralife · Posts: 3316

dhex wrote:

By "civil liberties" I really mean "I shouldn't have any more or less rights than anyone else" which is clearly the case in this situation.

ahh, well, that's a problem. marriage is, by definition, a set of special legal privleges (as well as an extended liability partnership, financially) and tax breaks/penalties that also change drastically due to the introduction of dependent children into a family. marriage is very, very old in one sense and incredibly new and modern in another, but one thing they share in common is that it has always been about a certain set of privleges not available to two people who are merely cohabitating.

Yes, but it is also a choice. I don't reap the benefits/downsides of marriage, but there is nothing in place stopping me from doing so. For a gay person, there is. Ergo I am more special than Joe Blow gay dude because I dig the pussy and he does not. This, to me, does not compute! It's a very simple process to go down the line and see what is available to any given party and what isn't. Ideally, there would be no differences between me and anyone and we could move on, see? That's all I'm saying. Whether or not the government should have any place in marriage (and I largely agree that it should not) is irrelevant.

BalbanesBeoulve · Posts: 2126

Toto wrote:

It is a bit upsetting that the gay people issue gets preferential treatment over, say, the issue of international aid to the poor.
Winker if this isn't what you were getting at don't correct me it makes you sound smarter.

We need to stop international aid. It's a waste of money and isn't helping anyone. If we really wanted to help Africa we'd invest there.

China's going to help Africa more than the west ever did.

Toto · Posts: 498

Well that's an issue too.
INTERESTING FACT:
A friend of a mine was in Africa for a while, to do some film work, and he met a number of aid workers there, who were Italian. He is Italian also so he was able to speak to them.
Italy's aid money was going to the useful purpose of painting a train, of all things, rather than, say, feeding people or building much required infrastructure in order to have these people help themselves.

Also Balbanes:
Elaborate on the China thing.

Also also Balbanes:
(joke about racism)
(joke about self hating mexican)
(no real reason)

BalbanesBeoulve · Posts: 2126

Toto wrote:

Also Balbanes:
Elaborate on the China thing.

Stuff like this

Toto · Posts: 498

Balbanes this a good thing.
Also when you say there is not a point, there is a point. Even if you are the most hardcore right leaning person, it is in America's interests to do what China is doing according to this article.
Who doesn't want a stab at Africa's resource rich sumptousness?
Balbanes using my powers of wild mis-interpretation and generalisation, are you saying the US Government shouldn't even help Africa even if it's in their interest?
O
M
G
(racism joke)

Sawtooth · Posts: 2350

dark steve wrote:

Gay rights issues are always on the ballots because the republican party puts them there to make sure shit-eating rednecks get out to vote against them.

It works pretty well.

yeah :(

we also had some sort of advisory referendum on the death penalty. Almost overwhelmingly for it :(

dhex · Posts: 2963

aderack · Posts: 5018

dhex wrote:

well, can you extend this metaphor to explain why two men or two women can get married but clusters of three or more cannot?

Because who wants to live in Utah?

Anyway, removing government from the issue altogether isn't really feasible -- mostly due to legal issues, such as paternity and property rights. Which, incidentally, are hypothetically the major issues behind why gay couples want representation. So.

If government isn't given a set of guidelines to "recognize" marriage, I'm not sure how the above issues are supposed to be addressed, especially in weird-yet-valid cases. You know, loopholes. Lawyers.

EDIT: For example! Lots of stories you can find about gay couples, wherein one half of the couple dies and the outraged family of the dead member claims 100% of the household property and money because they're family and the partner isn't. When you add child custody into the picture, it starts getting even more revolting!

aderack · Posts: 5018

extralife wrote:

I am more special than Joe Blow Gay Dude

showka · Posts: 994

aderack wrote:

dhex wrote:

Anyway, removing government from the issue altogether isn't really feasible -- mostly due to legal issues, such as paternity and property rights. Which, incidentally, are hypothetically the major issues behind why gay couples want representation. So.

My second cousin twice removed (or something like that) is a lesbian who has spent the last decade living with a women who has bore a child using a sperm donor. They raise the child like it's their own and the kid is sharp as a damn tac. He's literally one of the most verbal and intelligent children I've ever met, and is hardly as screwed up as many of the people who opose gay marriage on the grounds that gay couples can't raise family's would think (which is to say he has no major problems at all).

Anyway, the other day my mom pointed out that if for some reason the shit ever hit the fan, my cousin's lover could just move out and take the kid with her and my cousin would have no rights to ever see him ever again.

aderack · Posts: 5018

Yeah, exactly. And see the above edit for more.

dhex · Posts: 2963

finnagain · Posts: 181

The 'slippery slope' argument is logical fallacy, but it's enough to get Rick Santorum into a hizzy...alone in his car, now.

I do think it's mostly a generational clash... even the <em>many</em> intolerant people I met while living in that stronghold of tolerance, Eugene OR (don't believe the lies! Eugene is NOT a tolerant place!) thought it was kind of fucked that same-sex couples do not receive equal protection under the law, while their parents were too busy smashing all the golden calfs and statues of Baal to give same-sex marriage all that much thought.

AND -- like most EVERY other political-hot-button the right turn open their Bibles to respond to -- the issue of homosexuality is never fully resolved. From what I've read of the Bible (old testament, King James ed.), homosexuality is both condemned and tolerated (though never encouraged), depending on which chapters one chooses to site. In 'Numbers,' it is an 'Abomination,' -- yet by 'Kings,' we have David (a lute-playing pretty-boy, no less) weeping over the death of Saul's son, a boy he almost certainly had a sexual relationship with.

extralife · Posts: 3316

dhex wrote:

marriage is, stripped of cultural baggage, a business contract - an extended liablity body, since you are liable for your partner's debts, etc. my argument would be to treat marriage as a nondescript business of two people, tax it as such, and be done with the definitions.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me. Especially since it would go some length to remove the cultural pressure to settle down, marry, have kids, move to the suburbs and invite your neighbors to your barbeque on Sunday (after Church). I honestly think marriage is probably not suited for a majority of people. It ought to be given some time, at least.

I"m honestly not sure how you could argue that gays should be allowed to marry but polygamists shouldn't without dipping into murky moral territory. Hell, were it not for the creepy submissive, mysognistic cultural that surrounds the religious groundings of polygamy, I don't even think it's worth getting up in arms about. Sure it's a little weird, but I'm pretty sure that if you remove the religious groups with a cultural prediliection towards polygamy, not a whole lot of people would ever end up married in threes. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

finnagain · Posts: 181

extralife wrote:

Sure it's a little weird, but I'm pretty sure that if you remove the religious groups with a cultural prediliection towards polygamy, not a whole lot of people would ever end up married in threes. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Polygamy only makes sense in times when a great number of children are needed to sustain and grow a tribal group. So it made sense for the Mormons in Utah, it made sense of the Hebrews outside of Egypt, it made sense for the followers of Mohammad in Mecca, and (the way things sometimes seem to be going) it will make sense for the rational, freethinking people once they've shipped all of us off, 'Brave New World,' style, to some god-forsaken bit of land.

TOLLMASTER · Posts: 1977

You know, the more I think about it, the gay-loving supercomputer ruling the world idea sounds pretty golden to me. I would have about the same amount of say in the government with the supercomputer as with Washington running the show (that is to say, "almost none") and the supercomputer could at least be expected to be fair in that the same situation would be decided the same way each time. It would also be hard to bribe a supercomputer, but Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (the original one) proves that even a machine intelligence loves chocolate.

We could also hope to be conquered by benevolent aliens. Childhood's End was a pretty good book.

aderack · Posts: 5018

dhex wrote:

marriage is, stripped of cultural baggage, a business contract - an extended liablity body, since you are liable for your partner's debts, etc. my argument would be to treat marriage as a nondescript business of two people, tax it as such, and be done with the definitions.

On the surface, that sounds really sensible. What would the tax situation be for a body of this sort? And how would personal taxes factor into this? Would any money earned or defecits sustained by either party become part of a "family pool" assumed as a single financial mass?

Mister Toups · Posts: 4943

This thread is so gay guys :roll:

dhex · Posts: 2963

Psiga · Posts: 3990

dhex wrote:

if marriage is elastic as a definition, what are the actual boundaries? who decides them?

God and the President, of course. Duh.

BalbanesBeoulve · Posts: 2126

hey guys, don't forget the other thing that the slippery slope of gay marriage leads to. Bestiality!

Psiga · Posts: 3990

Banes, it's not too late to get into law school so that you can get in on equestrian divorce defense at the ground floor.

"Your honor, the fact that my client's massive horse phallus ruptured the plaintif's colon does not mean that he is any less entitled to half of all of the plaintif's earthly worth. The defendant did not willfully intend to rupture the plaintif's colon, whereas we have clear proof that the plaintif willfully chose to violate their union of marriage by repeatedly sharing a hammock with a leather-clad sailor sporting a handlebar mustache and one very large container of Crisco. We also have several eye-witness reports of the plaintif having copious amounts of cybersex with strangers in Second Life. My client's grief over these acts of betrayal is--

Seemed funnier in my head, I guess.