homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Politics/Religion/Current Affairs   » Don't Divorce us (slideshow) (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Don't Divorce us (slideshow)
Snaggy

Sir Snaggalot!
Member # 123

Member Rated:
5
Icon 14 posted December 27, 2008 09:21      Profile for Snaggy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/couragecampaign/sets/72157611501972510/show/

and regular click-on-the-pictures version:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/couragecampaign/sets/72157611501972510/

Posts: 8111 | From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted December 27, 2008 09:44      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can I just say how revolted I was during the last election with the marriage ban legislation? I just hope that all those assholes that support hate legislation like Proposition 8 are happy with the company they keep:

A woman in the San Francisco Bay area was jumped by four men, taunted for being a lesbian, repeatedly raped and left naked outside an abandoned apartment building, authorities said Monday.

Detectives say the 28-year-old victim was attacked Dec. 13 after she got out of her car, which bore a rainbow gay pride sticker. The men, who ranged from their late teens to their 30s, made comments indicating they knew her sexual orientation, said Richmond police Lt. Mark Gagan.


I mean, obviously it's okay to rape lesbians because they aren't real people. If they were, they'd have the same rights as everyone else, right?

"Anytime there is an anti-LGBT initiative, we tend to see spikes both in the numbers and the severity of attacks," he said. "People feel this extra entitlement to act out their prejudice."

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 27, 2008 10:54      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
____________________ Snaggy, FS __ I have watched and been appalled as this country has slid into this type of intolerance. Some of it I blame on the talk radio hosts that broadcast hate speech and on their networks that provide the airtime. One of the biggest offenders is ABC and Clear Channel both owned by Disney.

They seem to fill a need as they keep getting advertising money, I feel it is blood money.

Has our experiment into utopia failed and we are falling into the morass.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 27, 2008 11:55      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
fs: You can certainly say how revolted you were! [Smile]
I'm not pleased at all either, especially since the Mormons bankrolled the damn thing.

Mind you...this /looks/ like an unaffected marriage, though I could be wrong:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/couragecampaign/3131666035/in/set-72157611501972510/

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9332 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 27, 2008 12:43      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can someone explain how any of those happy couples are a threat to my marriage to Mrs Druid?

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Grummash

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 4289

Icon 1 posted December 27, 2008 13:03      Profile for Grummash     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This whole business is quite sickening. Don't the Proposition 8 supporters realise that they will blight the lives of many, many innocent children if they get their nasty legislation passed?

It is tragic that some people cannot bear the idea of other people being happy.

--------------------
...and yet, across the gulf of space, minds immeasurably superior to ours regarded this earth with envious eyes...

Posts: 2335 | From: Lancashire,UK | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 27, 2008 13:18      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
Can someone explain how any of those happy couples are a threat to my marriage to Mrs Druid?

Well, the upshot of their argument is because the gays can't make babies, their marriage is invalid and calling what they have a marriage is a slap in the face to those that have valid marriages. When asked about hetero couples without children, these people like to point out the potential is there and that's what makes a marriage valid. When asked about hetero couples that don't have children because of fertility problems, or because they never got around to it before the woman hit menopause, or because the marriage happened after the woman hit menopause (ie, a hetero marriage in which there is no potential for biological children), these people usually turn funny colors and walk away. They're trying to have it both ways - they don't want to just come out and admit that in their view marriage is for breeding because they know how unfair that sounds and also how contrary it is to the reasons why many people get married. Some are genuinely nice, you see, and really don't like it when their prejudice and intellectual dishonesty are rubbed in their face. Also, admitting that marriage is for breeders only calls into question the marriages of the breeders who didn't breed and opens the door for legislation that requires all married couples to produce offspring or lost their marriages. If that sounds extreme and silly, well, it is. About as extreme and silly as Prop 8 and the like.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 27, 2008 14:12      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Xanthine: Awesome! [Smile]

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9332 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erbo
Discontinued


Icon 1 posted December 28, 2008 17:21            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I'm of two minds about this.

On the one hand, my brother and his longtime (male) SO got married on October 19 in Sacramento, and not only did I attend, I DJ'd the wedding and reception (making use of my Second Life DJ'ing skills). I love my brother, and my new brother-in-law too, and highly approve of them using whatever means are available to them to protect each other.

On the other hand...the conservative in me is uncertain as to what long-term effects this will have on society. For example, read this post by longtime blogger Megan McArdle, writing as "Jane Galt." She illustrates three other examples from history of certain social changes (the establishment of the income tax, welfare benefits for unwed mothers, easier divorces) that had second-order effects that were wholly unanticipated and not always beneficial. What will the second-order effects of allowing gay marriage be? And what will we have next? Men demanding the right to marry underage girls? Men demanding the right to marry underage boys?

In the end, I'm not certain what to think. The situation's not as cut and dried as either the supporters or opponents of CA Prop. 8 would have it. If I had had my way, we might have started by establishing civil unions everywhere for homosexuals that provided all or most of the legal benefits of marriage, then held that gain for a few decades while we got some idea of the net effects before trying to move further, just out of sheer prudence. But events did not proceed that way, and we must now proceed from the point we're at. I hope for the application of wisdom on all sides.

IP: Logged
Grummash

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 4289

Icon 1 posted December 28, 2008 17:56      Profile for Grummash     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erbo: What will the second-order effects of allowing gay marriage be? And what will we have next? Men demanding the right to marry underage girls? Men demanding the right to marry underage boys?
I try not to react too quickly to other people's posts. I try to think and consider and then reply......but fsck! you have missed the point by so large a margin!!!!! Have you any idea how offensive your comments are?

--------------------
...and yet, across the gulf of space, minds immeasurably superior to ours regarded this earth with envious eyes...

Posts: 2335 | From: Lancashire,UK | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted December 28, 2008 18:33      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*grumbles about fucking idiotic bigots who always always ALWAYS try to connect homosexuality with pedophilia*

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 28, 2008 20:56      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ahh...but I'm going to get a good night's sleep knowing that Erbo has had to twist his world view around a Mobius strip a few times over. [Razz]

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9332 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 28, 2008 22:39      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fell through a time-warp from Alabama in the 1950's:
What will the second-order effects of allowing blacks to ride in the front of the bus be? And what will we have next? Blacks demanding the right to vote? Black men demanding the right to marry white women?

Same bigotry, different decade.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted December 29, 2008 03:08      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erbo:
In the end, I'm not certain what to think. The situation's not as cut and dried as either the supporters or opponents of CA Prop. 8 would have it.

The situation is that a bunch of people who think it's more important that you fuck someone with an innie if you have an outie (and vice-versa) want to dictate what they consider acceptable terms for who people are allowed to love and how. Pretty cut and dried.

The "second-order effects" of equality are just something society will have to deal with. Fear doesn't give you the right to deny someone else equality, the rights that you already possess. Disapproval of their lifestyle doesn't give you that right.

I'm not sure how you got from a legal recognition of partnership between two consenting adults to sexually abusing children, but that says a lot more about you than it does about gays or lesbians.

As does the implication that divorce and support systems for single mothers are somehow negative institutions, when the reality is that both are extremely important to the well-being of women. I guess they should just have to stay in abusive marriages because, you know, we all suffer when they assert themselves and leave. Or they should get married at sixteen just because they had a woopsie with a condom, because, you know, abortions are bad too. And good girls don't have sex, not even if there was a rufie in their Cherry Coke, and the bad ones just got what was coming to them. Really the problem began back when we started letting them have shoes. If we'd never given them shoes, they wouldn't have been able to go out and get themselves the vote. And now, not only can they vote, they want to be able to marry each other!

Damn shoes.

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mac Geek
Geek-in-Training
Member # 25023

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 29, 2008 05:01      Profile for Mac Geek   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Homosexuals have the right to be as miserable as everybody else.

Proposition: HATE


Jonathan

--------------------
Mac Geek Member # 25023
"I am not a Number, I am a FREE MAN"

Posts: 33 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
spungo
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1089

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 29, 2008 11:49      Profile for spungo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know about you, Erbo, but I'm looking forward to "second-order" effects. Hopefully, one day society will retreat from its hideous objection to lawful union between consenting mammals. We've^H^H^H^H^H They've been persecuted long enough, haven't they? It's time we recognized speciesism for what it is -- discrimination with a different hat.

One only has to remember the words of August Strindberg to sample the injustice handed out for this so-called crime: "The man is sentenced to two years' penal servitude. The animal is shot." [Wink]

--------------------
Shameless plug. (Please forgive me.)

Posts: 6529 | From: Noba Scoba | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stereo

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 748

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 29, 2008 12:49      Profile for Stereo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Erbo, would it help if there was someting about consenting, adult humans marrying? Children would be twice out: not adult, not consenting. And forgive me saying: Hell! forced marriages are way worse than gay marriages, yet the formers are common in "traditionnal" societies (Mormons, Shariah-ruled countries, India, etc.) I prefer a non-traditional marriage in a non-traditionnal society, hands down.

(Beside, would-be married teens could do with a couple of years of thinking before tying the knot. A divorce can be costly, too. Give them condoms and look the other way while they "live in sin"; that would give them a chance to know what they really want without all the legal - and potentially medical - troubles.)

--------------------
Eppur, si muove!

Galileo Galilei

Posts: 2289 | From: Gatineau, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
deathweaver
Geek Larva
Member # 24253

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted December 29, 2008 13:03      Profile for deathweaver     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since I'm a new California resident (for the past year and a half), I'm going to chime in on this one. I voted against Prop 8. In my biased opinion, gay people are guaranteed the same rights as any other American, including the pursuit of happiness. If that includes marriage, then they should be allowed to marry.

I say biased because I have 2 gay cousins. Just because they have a different lifestyle, doesn't make them any less of a family member, any less of an American, and any less of a human being, period.

Posts: 24 | From: CA, USA | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Erbo
Discontinued


Icon 1 posted December 29, 2008 15:01            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And, once again, everyone completely misses my point.

Go back and read the posting by Megan McArdle/Jane Galt again. Or, since it's obvious none of you bothered to do so when I posted it the first time, I'll summarize.

McArdle points out three major social changes in history (two of them marriage-related) which people thought would be a good idea, but which turned out to have plenty of drawbacks.

(1) The establishment of the income tax. It was thought that the 17th Amendment, authorizing the income tax in the United States, should contain a hard cap on the tax rate, such as 10%. "Don't be ridiculous!" the Senators said. "There's no way the American people will ever stand for having a tax rate that high!" We wound up with top income tax rates of 50% in the United States, before Reagan lowered them to "only" 28% in 1986 (and was roundly vilified for having done so). (source) OOPS!

(2) The extension of welfare benefits to unmarried mothers. Isn't it irrational, not to mention cruel and heartless, to deny those children help just because their mother's not married? And surely nobody would have babies out of wedlock just to collect a few measly government benefits? Well, after it was passed, in the early 1960's, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a report in which he expressed alarm at a black illegitimacy rate of 25% (for which he was roundly excoriated). Today, that illegitimacy rate is somewhere in the 60% range, actually having dropped from a peak of 70.4% in 1994 (source), but still far above what Moynihan called a "crisis," and creating a self-perpetuating environment of poverty and crime. What's worse, it made life harder for marriage-minded women, because now they had to compete with more women offering men sex with fewer strings attached. OOPS!

(3) The easing of divorce laws, to make divorces easier to get. "It's only for those few people that are really unhappy in their marriages now but can't get divorced otherwise," claimed the advocates. "People won't just split up now just because they can! Marriage is a bedrock institution of our society!" Today, it's an accepted truism that half of all marriages end in divorce...including my first marriage, so I'm now part of the statistics. (And just listen to how I talk about "my first marriage." You wouldn't have heard people talking that way in 1910, or even 1940.) Marriage isn't "till death do us part" anymore, it's "till we think of something better to do." OOPS!

Now, I won't deny that there have been social changes that haven't had bad effects as those three have had; the repeal of laws prohibiting interracial marriage is one of them. But the question that McArdle asks--and that I ask--is: Are we smart enough, are we wise enough, to KNOW that the change of introducing gay marriage is not going to have the kinds of detrimental effects that those three examples did?

I'm not. And it's a safe bet you're not, either.

Is that an argument for eternally denying gay people the ability to marry one another? Some might see it as such, but McArdle doesn't fall into that trap, either. I will close by making a direct quote from her:

quote:
My only request is that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes. The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can't imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant. It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways, which is why we have to have elections and stuff. And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining. If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that's either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform. If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I'm a little leery of letting you muck around with it.

IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted December 29, 2008 16:38      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Erbo wrote:
the question that McArdle asks--and that I ask--is: Are we smart enough, are we wise enough, to KNOW that the change of introducing gay marriage is not going to have the kinds of detrimental effects that those three examples did?

The same kinds of arguments were used against women's suffrage, the end of slavery and virtually every other case where long denied rights were bieng granted to an oppressed segment of the population.

The act taking away the rights of another human being is intolerable and immoral. We don't care of you're scared of gay people. We care that gay people are human beings and are entitled to the same rights as every other human. Your imaginary negative consequences are outweighed by the very real denial of rights.

Our founding fathers said it well:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
quantumfluff
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 450

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 29, 2008 18:44      Profile for quantumfluff     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, I *am* smart enough to predict the second order effects.

* Employers will eventually have to treat health benefits uniformly for ALL couples.
* More couples will have to think about the trade off of the marriage penalty (tax-wise) vs. family health plans.
* It will be harder do discriminate against gays and lesbians in the housing market.
* Teachers in the suburbs will finally have to stop assuming that every child lives in a "traditional" family.
* Gays will start to experience the fun and joy of divorce lawyers. (Insert joke about "taking it like a man" here)

In short, society will change a little, and most people will just go on with their lives.

Posts: 2902 | From: 5 to 15 meters above sea level | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 29, 2008 19:41      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Erbo the flaw in your argument is that the social changes in examples 2 and 3 were not necessarily caused either in whole or part by the legal changes that preceded them. Usually attitudes in society change first, and the law catches up later. If it does not, the law loses all respect. How those attitudes change is a complex matter, and future changes are likewise difficult to predict. However it would appear that after a swing to the lunatic fringes of extreme right fantasyland, the pendulum in America is returning to a more rational and factual view of the world. I recall that after the 2004 election, you said that the Democrats had lost because they had had been taken over by dangerous extremists. How the world turns, eh?

I would also note also that your Freudian slip appears to be showing. Racism and homophobia always seem to lurk just under the surface of extreme right attitudes.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 29, 2008 21:31      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Quoth Stereo:
(Beside, would-be married teens could do with a couple of years of thinking before tying the knot. A divorce can be costly, too. Give them condoms and look the other way while they "live in sin"; that would give them a chance to know what they really want without all the legal - and potentially medical - troubles.)

Quoth qf:
* Employers will eventually have to treat health benefits uniformly for ALL couples.
* More couples will have to think about the trade off of the marriage penalty (tax-wise) vs. family health plans.

...and again, quoth qf, but I'd like to compare this to Stereo's post:
* Gays will start to experience the fun and joy of divorce lawyers. (Insert joke about "taking it like a man" here)


Now then, my $0.02 SRNY:USD†
Per the above, I'd really like to call into question the brilliant notion of marriage, and its alleged sanctity.

My simplest rebuttal to comments about the 'sanctity of marriage' being upset by gay marriage is: Straight folks aren't doing a terribly good job of it! If gay/lesbian couples want to get married, all the more power to them - I'll likely give them more of a fighting chance of actually loving each other!

However, I rather like Stereo's comments, and wish our society didn't have such a fixation on marriage, but provided flexible means to give couples the resources they need. Shotgun marriages probably don't have fantastic odds, but in certain circles, they're not called 'shotgun marriages' for no reason -- that mentality needs to stop. Medical and financial benefits also need to exist to make things work where they utterly FAIL right now.

Second Stereo derived point: Ffs, the Catholic Church really needs to give up the whole 'birth control is wrong' schtick, and cut off the 'abstinence only' lobbying for public school education. Two 'separation of church and state' matters that badly need to be fixed: the teaching of Intelligent Design and Abstinence Only in public school classrooms.

Hmm...I started this post while iTunes was playing a song by a lesbian from LA, and now it's playing "Love Me Do." "Shuffle" my foot. [Razz]


† Sovereign Republic of New York: neé US Dollar, of course. [Big Grin]

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9332 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 29, 2008 22:59      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fell through a time-warp from Georgia in the 1850's:
If you think that slavery is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of racist bigots, I'm a little leery of letting you muck around with it.



The more things change, the more they stay the same.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
fs

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1181

Icon 1 posted December 30, 2008 03:59      Profile for fs   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erbo:
And, once again, everyone completely misses my point.

Go back and read the posting by Megan McArdle/Jane Galt again. Or, since it's obvious none of you bothered to do so when I posted it the first time, I'll summarize.

What makes you think that we didn't read it? That we didn't fall all over ourselves to agree with it?

I'm still in a state of amazement that you put the opinons of attention-whore internet pundits (and that's exactly what they are, but that's a topic for another time and place) before the happiness and well-being of your own family. Maybe you should talk to your brother about what it's like actually being gay, what problems and discrimination he and his husband and their friends face. But of course, since you were so open-minded as to DJ a family event and all, I'm sure you know all about what it's like to be gay. I'm more than a little appalled that you don't seem to care that in supporting hate legislation, you're creating a situation where people that would actually hurt your brother and his husband just because of their lifestyle feel emboldened by your approval.

That just leaves me shaking my head.

--------------------
I'm in ur database, makin' moar recordz.

Posts: 1973 | From: The Cat Ship | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0


homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam