NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought I have seen it all. This will be thrown out in court I believe. Wife told me about this and I didn't believe it. Read on and comment.

http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html

Yet another thread on this, as if the ones we've already had weren't enough and equally as filled by people who missed the point as the OP... :rolleyes:

We've done this, but it is just to show the stupidity of the argument that marriage is for procreation solely.

If they get the required amount of signatures... I will shoot my toe.

its an excellent idea. im sick and tired of heterosexual couples taking advantage of the law to get the benefits of marriage without doing the hard work of having children. its about time someone put a stop to it.

I thought I have seen it all. This will be thrown out in court I believe. Wife told me about this and I didn't believe it. Read on and comment.

http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_020507WABinitiative957SW.546c6a4d.html

I was right about gays being bigoted towards us! Not only do they want same-sex marriages but now they want to discourage hetero marriages through legality! Think about it! If you had to have kids or your not considered married! Hmmm...I guess that means only homos are the one's going to be married because most heteros will either be invalidated or avoid marriage because they don't want kids!

Yet another thread on this, as if the ones we've already had weren't enough and equally as filled by people who missed the point as the OP... :rolleyes:

Another snarky response from our favorite jackass I see. How is it I missed the point? Please if you respond use English words or would you rather have this coversation in French?

If this helps fundies stop saying marriage is about procreation then I wouldn't mind giving this a little nudge of support. Those hypocrites need to be exposed and their bullshit silenced.

Another snarky response from our favorite jackass I see. How is it I missed the point? Please if you respond use English words or would you rather have this coversation in French?

I see your proficiency in English is still lacking, which explains the point missed, I suppose. I forgot you were the chap who didn't know most of the words in English are of French origin and that them being French from the beginning in no way precludes them from being English as well (words like "response" and "favourite" and "point" and "conversation" and so on).

In any case, practice your English on someone else. I've better things to do than improve your vocabulary. I recommend a "day of the word" calendar or some such aid. Bonne chance!

If this helps fundies stop saying marriage is about procreation then I wouldn't mind giving this a little nudge of support. Those hypocrites need to be exposed and their bullshit silenced.

BINGO

thats the point of the bill. to highlight the stupidity of those who oppose gay marriage on the grounds that they cant procreate (with each other).

Yet another thread on this, as if the ones we've already had weren't enough and equally as filled by people who missed the point as the OP... :rolleyes:

Is it a bad thing that I've been away for three months, and could recognize you without looking looking at the new name you have?

I thought you left, for good or something like that?

If this helps fundies stop saying marriage is about procreation then I wouldn't mind giving this a little nudge of support. Those hypocrites need to be exposed and their bullshit silenced.

Washington state is a very liberal place. Wouldnt say the state is full of fundie hypocrites. However in 98 they basically banned gay marriage. Was even held up by the supreme court.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003152467_webdoma26.html
This move by the gay marriage supporters will backfire on them in a big way.

Another snarky response from our favorite jackass I see. How is it I missed the point? Please if you respond use English words or would you rather have this coversation in French?

I'm not sure how you missed the point, but you did.

The article makes clear this is an attempt to expose the bogus argument that marriage is for procreation. If that were true, then this iniative would make sense.

That the iniative is absurd and people like you think it would be "thrown out in court" shows that the banning of same-sex marriage is also absurd and should be thrown out of court.

Capiche?

If this helps fundies stop saying marriage is about procreation then I wouldn't mind giving this a little nudge of support. Those hypocrites need to be exposed and their bullshit silenced.

Think about the centrists and non-fundies who'll be hurt, I'm sure things will be more complicated for people who are married but no recognized as a couple. You are really willing to allow a ridiculas bill which will only frustrate and anger all straight people for the sake of ticking off a few fundies? Find another way of exposing these hypocrites without inflicting damage on those uninvolved. Trust me if I was with the woman I loved and we got married then suddenly it was invalid just to get back at a few fundies I'd be pissed. Is knocking a religion more important than the stability of a straight relationship? Does ANYONE have any right to infringe on any relationship?

Washington state is a very liberal place. Wouldnt say the state is full of fundie hypocrites. However in 98 they basically banned gay marriage. Was even held up by the supreme court.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003152467_webdoma26.html
This move by the gay marriage supporters will backfire on them in a big way.

Eastern Washington is not particularly liberal.

The fact that the state banned same-sex marriage and the WA Supreme Court acquised is part of the point of this initiative. No one really wants to see it succeed, but it exposes the hypocrisy of same-sex marriage opponents.

Why and how would this backfire?

Washington state is a very liberal place. Wouldnt say the state is full of fundie hypocrites. However in 98 they basically banned gay marriage. Was even held up by the supreme court.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003152467_webdoma26.html
This move by the gay marriage supporters will backfire on them in a big way.

I wasn't thinking of Washington state alone but the entire country. This is a message to the entire United States of the hypocricy of what some claim what marriage "really is about".

I see your proficiency in English is still lacking, which explains the point missed, I suppose. I forgot you were the chap who didn't know most of the words in English are of French origin and that them being French from the beginning in no way precludes them from being English as well (words like "response" and "favourite" and "point" and "conversation" and so on).

In any case, practice your English on someone else. I've better things to do than improve your vocabulary. I recommend a "day of the word" calendar or some such aid. Bonne chance!

I type fast and dont normally use spellcheck. So oh well.

beaucoup de mots que nous utilisons aujourd'hui sont d'origine latin.

Capiche?

OMGZ, no! You used an Italian word that English has adopted. Watch him go ballistic over that - he's apparently still bitter over the time I used "gauche", poor thing.

Think about the centrists and non-fundies who'll be hurt, I'm sure things will be more complicated for people who are married but no recognized as a couple. You are really willing to allow a ridiculas bill which will only frustrate and anger all straight people for the sake of ticking off a few fundies? Find another way of exposing these hypocrites without inflicting damage on those uninvolved. Trust me if I was with the woman I loved and we got married then suddenly it was invalid just to get back at a few fundies I'd be pissed. Is knocking a religion more important than the stability of a straight relationship? Does ANYONE have any right to infringe on any relationship?

This proposition is a statement not something that has any chance or even any intention of passing. It is simply making a point.

Think about the centrists and non-fundies who'll be hurt, I'm sure things will be more complicated for people who are married but no recognized as a couple. You are really willing to allow a ridiculas bill which will only frustrate and anger all straight people for the sake of ticking off a few fundies? Find another way of exposing these hypocrites without inflicting damage on those uninvolved. Trust me if I was with the woman I loved and we got married then suddenly it was invalid just to get back at a few fundies I'd be pissed. Is knocking a religion more important than the stability of a straight relationship? Does ANYONE have any right to infringe on any relationship?

its not going to pass.


no one even wants it to pass.


its just making a point.

Think about the centrists and non-fundies who'll be hurt, I'm sure things will be more complicated for people who are married but no recognized as a couple. You are really willing to allow a ridiculas bill which will only frustrate and anger all straight people for the sake of ticking off a few fundies? Find another way of exposing these hypocrites without inflicting damage on those uninvolved. Trust me if I was with the woman I loved and we got married then suddenly it was invalid just to get back at a few fundies I'd be pissed. Is knocking a religion more important than the stability of a straight relationship? Does ANYONE have any right to infringe on any relationship?
Good question--why are the fundies fucking with gays who want to get married anyway?

I wasn't thinking of Washington state alone but the entire country. This is a message to the entire United States of the hypocricy of what some claim what marriage "really is about".

The United States should be enlightened and allow gay marriage because some think the nation is full of hypocrites? Last time I checked we voted in and out laws. We are not run by a religious Theocracy. So what the pro-gay marriage groups have done is made proposals to allow gay marriage. Some agreed and alot did not. So why would after being shot down in a particular state then try and punish those that did not agree? Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I hope they get this on the ballot. Just to get it shot down at the ballot box.

The United States should be enlightened and allow gay marriage because some think the nation is full of hypocrites? Last time I checked we voted in and out laws. We are not run by a religious Theocracy. So what the pro-gay marriage groups have done is made proposals to allow gay marriage. Some agreed and alot did not. So why would after being shot down in a particular state then try and punish those that did not agree? Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I hope they get this on the ballot. Just to get it shot down at the ballot box.

We should allow same-sex marriage because the ability to marry who you wish is a personal right as defined in Loving v. Virginia. Civil rights should never be put on the ballot, because it begs for discriminatory treatment.

And you've still missed the point--the idea is not that this will ever actually become law. The point, my dull friend, is that the legislation points out the logically absurd end to which the Washington Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage can be taken.

I type fast and dont normally use spellcheck. So oh well.

beaucoup de mots que nous utilisons aujourd'hui sont d'origine latin.

"Origine" est un nom féminin, donc origine latine.

That settles it then, your French is no better than your English. Unsurprisingly, seeing as you don't even seem to know about "Anglo-French/Norman" whence most of the French words in English come and not directly from Latin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_phrases_used_by_English_speakers)

Good question--why are the fundies fucking with gays who want to get married anyway?

Then why do they want to rape straight marriage?!

The United States should be enlightened and allow gay marriage because some think the nation is full of hypocrites? Last time I checked we voted in and out laws. We are not run by a religious Theocracy. So what the pro-gay marriage groups have done is made proposals to allow gay marriage. Some agreed and alot did not. So why would after being shot down in a particular state then try and punish those that did not agree? Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I hope they get this on the ballot. Just to get it shot down at the ballot box.

You're completely missing the point. Even the pro-gay-marriage folks don't want this to pass. It's a statement, nothing more.

OMGZ, no! You used an Italian word that English has adopted. Watch him go ballistic over that - he's apparently still bitter over the time I used "gauche", poor thing.

i know it wasnt that long ago but we are still talking about it at my house. we were very amused by the complete absurdity of your opponents.

The United States should be enlightened and allow gay marriage because some think the nation is full of hypocrites? Last time I checked we voted in and out laws. We are not run by a religious Theocracy. So what the pro-gay marriage groups have done is made proposals to allow gay marriage. Some agreed and alot did not. So why would after being shot down in a particular state then try and punish those that did not agree? Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I hope they get this on the ballot. Just to get it shot down at the ballot box.

The fundies are the hypocrites, not the entire country. You are taking this way to seriously, I see no reason why a message can't be sent to pricks who claim that marriage is all about having kids when that is untrue. This proposition is simply pointing out how weak the arguement actually is. And you seem to keep missing the fact that those who started this HAVE NO DESIRE TO SEE IT PASS!!!!!

i know it wasnt that long ago but we are still talking about it at my house. we were very amused by the complete absurdity of your opponents.

As was I, ma chérie. As was I. :)

Eastern Washington is not particularly liberal.

The fact that the state banned same-sex marriage and the WA Supreme Court acquised is part of the point of this initiative. No one really wants to see it succeed, but it exposes the hypocrisy of same-sex marriage opponents.

Why and how would this backfire?


The majority of the population in Washington State is in the Puget Sound region. This area is very liberal. A initiative is majority rule in Washington. So it wouldn't matter if a small portion of the population is conservative.

The reason I think it would backfire is because they did have a chance to in Washington for same sex unions. Which is more accepting to the masses.

Eastern Washington is not particularly liberal.

Eh... Sorta?

Eastern Washington is more akin to Montana or Idaho than it is to South Carolina or Tennessee. Believe it or not, the Dems could take Eastern Washington if they bothered to work for it. They just never do.

Compared to Western Washington, of course, Eastern Washington is a Conservative stronghold, but that doesn't make it all that Conservative.

Washington politics are very interesting. The age of Tim Eyeman populism is being flushed out of the suburbs, and the East is facing the same Green/Blue wave that Montana has gone through.

The United States should be enlightened and allow gay marriage because some think the nation is full of hypocrites? Last time I checked we voted in and out laws. We are not run by a religious Theocracy. So what the pro-gay marriage groups have done is made proposals to allow gay marriage. Some agreed and alot did not. So why would after being shot down in a particular state then try and punish those that did not agree? Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I hope they get this on the ballot. Just to get it shot down at the ballot box.

Even if people ACTUALLY wanted this law past, which they do not, your post is nonsensical.

What you just said was "laws get passed in this country because people want them, and after people passed the laws which they wanted, which hurt the gays, how DARE those gays try to get laws passed that they wantthat hurt straight people?"

Democracy works both ways doesn't it? People have the right to promote the legislation of what they choose (absent constitutional problems). If people against gay marriage can put that question to a legislative vote, certainly people against straight marriage can do the same.

The fundies are the hypocrites, not the entire country. You are taking this way to seriously, I see no reason why a message can't be sent to pricks who claim that marriage is all about having kids when that is untrue. This proposition is simply pointing out how weak the arguement actually is. And you seem to keep missing the fact that those who started this HAVE NO DESIRE TO SEE IT PASS!!!!!

I get the point. Washington state clearly defeated gay marriage. Why keep trying to make a point if the populace doesn't want it? If they want to throw another initiative for gay marriage on the next round of elections then fine. Maybe some will change there mind and they will get a majority. However you don't get your way by trying to insult the voting public by proposing this garbage initiative.

I get the point. Washington state clearly defeated gay marriage. Why keep trying to make a point if the populace doesn't want it?

Because....they can? And they feel like it? That's their right.

If they want to throw another initiative for gay marriage on the next round of elections then fine. Maybe some will change there mind and they will get a majority. However you don't get your way by trying to insult the voting public by proposing this garbage initiative.

I'm willing to bet they're not losing any votes here. People who agree with them probably find what they're doing pretty right on.

Then why do they want to rape straight marriage?!

THEY FUCKING DON'T

How many goddamn times do we have to tell you this before you comprehend it?

THEY FUCKING DON'T

How many goddamn times do we have to tell you this before you comprehend it?

A large, nonzero number, based on the way this is going, and the previous thread on this topic went.

I get the point. Washington state clearly defeated gay marriage. Why keep trying to make a point if the populace doesn't want it? If they want to throw another initiative for gay marriage on the next round of elections then fine. Maybe some will change there mind and they will get a majority. However you don't get your way by trying to insult the voting public by proposing this garbage initiative.

If Martin Luther King Jr. had thought, "Gee, I don't like this whole segregation thing, but all the politicians and talking-heads are for it, so I'd better just lay low and do nothing about it." Where would we be? What if he hadn't "insulted" insular whites by daring to march on their capital building?

Civil activism means getting your hands-dirty.

"Origine" est un nom féminin, donc origine latine.

That settles it then, your French is no better than your English. Unsurprisingly, seeing as you don't even seem to know about "Anglo-French/Norman" whence most of the French words in English come and not directly from Latin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_phrases_used_by_English_speakers)

Alors MR Jaque Chirac, tu peux me corriger mes fautes d'orthographe mais je sais que tu ne peux meme pas ecrire un seule mots tout seule sans utiliser altavista lol ...

By the way I know "Origine" is a feminine word and I know that people can make mistakes typing. Write me in French a whole paragraph and will see how you do.

" N'utilise pas altavista ;) "

Alors MR Jaque Chirac, tu peux me corriger mes fautes d'orthographe mais je sais que tu ne peux meme pas ecrire un seule mots tout seule sans utiliser altavista lol ...

By the way I know "Origine" is a feminine word and I know that people can make mistakes typing. Write me in French a whole paragraph and will see how you do.

" N'utilise pas altavista ;) "
Why are you so hellbent on giving him the opportunity to ridicule you? He is fluent in French, so your little challenge will lead you nowhere but down the road of ever greater embarrassment. Even your first sentence is utterly incorrect (should be "tu peux corriger mes fautes...").

If Martin Luther King Jr. had thought, "Gee, I don't like this whole segregation thing, but all the politicians and talking-heads are for it, so I'd better just lay low and do nothing about it." Where would we be? What if he hadn't "insulted" insular whites by daring to march on their capital building?

Civil activism means getting your hands-dirty.

I don't think we can draw an equal comparison to the civil rights movement. I don't think this is of equal legitimacy.

I don't think we can draw an equal comparison to the civil rights movement. I don't think this is of equal legitimacy.

So a group denied civil liberties based on certain personal characteristics is not "equally legitimate" as the black civil rights movement...why?

What do you want, that the gays just...go away and don't bother anyone until people decide to give them rights?

If Martin Luther King Jr. had thought, "Gee, I don't like this whole segregation thing, but all the politicians and talking-heads are for it, so I'd better just lay low and do nothing about it." Where would we be? What if he hadn't "insulted" insular whites by daring to march on their capital building?

Civil activism means getting your hands-dirty.

Thank you! Though I am a little irritated that I didn't think of this myself. :)

I don't think we can draw an equal comparison to the civil rights movement. I don't think this is of equal legitimacy.

That you don't think same-sex couples are equal is exactly the problem. :headbang:

I don't think we can draw an equal comparison to the civil rights movement. I don't think this is of equal legitimacy.

Conservatives often say that while they engage in an act of civil opression. It wasn't true when colonies worldwide demanded their independance, it wasn't true when women declared their equal right to vote, it wasn't true when African Americans demanded equal rights, and it isn't true now.

Why are you so hellbent on giving him the opportunity to ridicule you? He is fluent in French, so you're little challenge will lead you nowhere but down the road of ever greater embarassment. Even your first sentence is utterly incorrect (should be "tu peux corriger mes fautes...").

I'm not embarrassed at all. In fact your "corrected" version is no different then mine. I wrote that correctly. As did you so there is more then one way to write something in French. Is that what you are trying to prove.

Why is it your answering in English anyway if you know the proper French way?

So should I also point out that you spelled embarrassment wrong?

I'm not embarrassed at all. In fact your "corrected" version is no different then mine. I wrote that correctly. As did you so there is more then one way to write something in French. Is that what you are trying to prove.

Why is it your answering in English anyway if you know the proper French way?
You miss the point. You surely ought to know he is fluent in French by now. So what is the point of issuing silly little challenges? Masochism?

So should I also point out that you spelled embarrassment wrong?
Corrected.

Alors MR Jaque Chirac, tu peux me corriger mes fautes d'orthographe mais je sais que tu ne peux meme pas ecrire un seule mots tout seule sans utiliser altavista lol ...

By the way I know "Origine" is a feminine word and I know that people can make mistakes typing. Write me in French a whole paragraph and will see how you do.

" N'utilise pas altavista ;) "

On n'épele pas "Jacques" de cette facon-là, et vouz ne devriez pas changer de genre et de pluralité comme ca non plus ("un seule mots tout seule") (avant que vous ne le remarquiez, les cedilles manquent, je sais, mais le mien est un clavier suédois). Vous ne cessez de me décevoir... euh oui, à propos, je ne me rappelle pas vous avoir permis de me tutoyer.

Conservatives often say that while they engage in an act of civil opression. It wasn't true when colonies worldwide demanded their independance, it wasn't true when women declared their equal right to vote, it wasn't true when African Americans demanded equal rights, and it isn't true now.

Absolutely true. Hopefully this proposition will be one more step in the slow quest for true equal rights.

Then why do they want to rape straight marriage?!

*Points into the distance*

Look! The point! It's going... going... GONE! Ah, never mind, you missed it again. It'll come back.

As said, the point is not to get this passed. Nobody in their right mind would. They know it won't pass, and their intention is not even to get it passed.

Their intention is to raise a question about the justification for banning gay marriage.

LOOK! The point has returned!

That you don't think same-sex couples are equal is exactly the problem. :headbang:

Actually I don't have a problem with same sex couples in a civil union. I think there should be a provision in the law for that. However if the majority of the populace votes it down then you have to live with it.
The oppression of blacks was in all manners of life. Wasn't that we were not allowing them to get married. It was far more of a systematic oppression that needed to be dealt with.

Actually I don't have a problem with same sex couples in a civil union. I think there should be a provision in the law for that. However if the majority of the populace votes it down then you have to live with it.
The oppression of blacks was in all manners of life. Wasn't that we were not allowing them to get married. It was far more of a systematic oppression that needed to be dealt with.

1) if something is against the constitution the majority of the population can suck on it

2) you don't think being barred from getting married is part of a systematic oppression of gay people in our society? Where the fuck are YOU from?

On n'épele pas "Jacques" de cette facon-là, et vouz ne devriez pas changer de genre et de pluralité comme ca non plus ("un seule mots tout seule") (avant que vous ne le remarquiez, les cedilles manquent, je sais, mais le mien est un clavier suédois). Vous ne cessez de me décevoir... euh oui, à propos, je ne me rappelle pas vous avoir permis de me tutoyer.

Your first mistake is: On dis pas "On epele ;) ca s'ecris "On apelle" Doesn't matter how I spell a name Fass. Apres avoir chatter avec toi "vous" tout ce temps je peux me permettre de te tutoyer.
En ce qui concerne les cedilles, tu sais bien que tu parles a quelqu'un aux USA. On utilisent des claviers americains.:rolleyes:

I don't think we can draw an equal comparison to the civil rights movement. I don't think this is of equal legitimacy.

You have an odd definition of the word "think" then. :rolleyes:

1) if something is against the constitution the majority of the population can suck on it

2) you don't think being barred from getting married is part of a systematic oppression of gay people in our society? Where the fuck are YOU from?

So defining marriage is against the constitution?

I am for civil unions which are basically marriage. Would be the same as getting married in a civil ceremony. Have no problem with that.
Gays are not systematically oppressed in American society today. Is there problems? Sure you could find cases. There are plenty of laws enacted to protect gays and other minority groups from discrimination. They work for the most part. Why are you asking me where the fuck I'm from. Is there a need for it?

So defining marriage is against the constitution?

Loving v. Virgina thought so, yes.


Gays are not systematically oppressed in American society today. Is there problems? Sure you could find cases. There are plenty of laws enacted to protect gays and other minority groups from discrimination. They work for the most part. Why are you asking me where the fuck I'm from. Is there a need for it?

Absolutly there is a need for it, because if you truly believe the first bolded part, the answer "the planet earth" is obviously not the answer to the second.

Frankly anyone who believes that gays are not systematically oppressed in our society is either a liar, a bigot, or a fool.

Which one do you want to be today?

There are plenty of laws enacted to protect gays and other minority groups from discrimination.

Actually, no, there aren't.

Most states have no laws prohibiting discrimination by sexual orientation, and the situation with regard to gender identity is even worse.

You have an odd definition of the word "think" then. :rolleyes:

Do we have gay only bathrooms? Do we make gays sit at the back of the bus? Do we bar gays from colleges? Do we have signs in restaurants saying heterosexuals only? Do we have help wanted signs with the added gays need not apply? Do we actively bar gays from renting a home or apartment? When that happens then I will buy the comparison to blacks. You are insulting black Americans if you think that it is a similar situation. It isn't even close.
:rolleyes:

That you don't think same-sex couples are equal is exactly the problem. :headbang:

CAT!:fluffle:

Do we have gay only bathrooms? Do we make gays sit at the back of the bus? Do we bar gays from colleges? Do we have signs in restaurants saying heterosexuals only? Do we have help wanted signs with the added gays need not apply? Do we actively bar gays from renting a home or apartment? When that happens then I will buy the comparison to blacks. You are insulting black Americans if you think that it is a similar situation. It isn't even close.
:rolleyes:

O RLY?

Although Congress has outlawed discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin", it has not yet seen fit to include "sexual orientation".

Except in the handful of states and cities with sexual orientation laws, a landlord can refuse to rent and a homeowner can refuse to sell to a gay or lesbian in most parts of the country. Many leases contain clauses that strictly prohibit certain "immoral" activities and/or restrict occupancy to those related "by blood or marriage". Places that operate under rent control laws, like NYC, are especially strict, in some cases calling for eviction if the tenant or anyone living with the tenant contracts AIDS. Condominium, coops, and homeowner associations also tend to reserve the right to review prospective tenants for appropriateness. Gay and lesbian couples who live together and seek public housing find themselves at the bottom of the eligibility list because they are not considered a "family" which gets first crack at any vacancies.

Even with palimony and community property laws, gay and lesbians will often find their wills challenged by family members if they try to leave anything to their surviving partner. The courts have also been reluctant to grant gays and lesbians their child custody

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/soc/355lect07.htm

that's the first page I can find.

Here's the second:

If you have a business selling your services to the public, can you refuse to work for black people? No, that's illegal racial discrimination. Can you refuse to work for Hispanics? No, that's illegal ethnic discrimination. Can you refuse to work for Jews? No, that's illegal religious discrimination? Can you refuse to work for gays? In many places, yes you can. Gays are inferior citizens.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258379.htm

Your first mistake is: On dis pas "On epele ;) ca s'ecris "On apelle"

ROFL...where did you take French??euh oui, à propos, je ne me rappelle pas vous avoir permis de me tutoyer.
Translation:
Bitch, please.

Do we have gay only bathrooms? Do we make gays sit at the back of the bus? Do we bar gays from colleges? Do we have signs in restaurants saying heterosexuals only? Do we have help wanted signs with the added gays need not apply? Do we actively bar gays from renting a home or apartment? When that happens then I will buy the comparison to blacks. You are insulting black Americans if you think that it is a similar situation. It isn't even close.
:rolleyes:

What, because the discrimination gays are receiving isn't as serious as what African Americans experienced, what they deal with doesn't matter? If they aren't experiencing full equality, they deserve to try to get that equality and this is a way that it could eventually happen.

So defining marriage is against the constitution?


Men and women are equal so stopping a woman from marrying a person who is a woman is not ok

Loving v. Virgina thought so, yes.



Absolutely there is a need for it, because if you truly believe the first bolded part, the answer "the planet earth" is obviously not the answer to the second.

Frankly anyone who believes that gays are not systematically oppressed in our society is either a liar, a bigot, or a fool.

Which one do you want to be today?

Well then why don't pro-gay marriage groups use that case in there arguments with state supreme courts? But it is a supreme court ruling on racial classifications. However the used the equal protection and due process of the 14th amendment. So that equates to gays being married too? Why isn't this used to overturn the anti-gay marriage laws if it applies?

Let's see you gave me three choices. How about I pick neither and I'm not going to buy into victim status of gays. Sorry not going to sell me on that one.

Well then why don't pro-gay marriage groups use that case in there arguments with state supreme courts? But it is a supreme court ruling on racial classifications. However the used the equal protection and due process of the 14th amendment. So that equates to gays being married too? Why isn't this used to overturn the anti-gay marriage laws if it applies?

Because the supreme court has routinely denied hearing the cases? A shit ton of legal scholars, including myself, have argued that the holding in loving applies equally to gay marriage.

And by the way, in case you haven't noticed, 2 state supreme courts have ruled on similar grounds (on state constitutions truly, but ones largely analogous to the 14th amendment).

You will also note that many civil rights cases the supreme court ruled on, DIRECTLY over-ruled previous supreme court cases, on 14th amendment grounds, even though the original case was decided AFTER the 14th was ratified.

In other words, it took decades fo the courts to apply the 14th amedment to black american rights, and in doing so overruled cases that, by the very fact that they were decided after the 14th was passed, were wrong.

it takes time.

Let's see you gave me three choices. How about I pick neither and I'm not going to buy into victim status of gays. Sorry not going to sell me on that one.

Bigot, liar, AND idiot, ok.

Your first mistake is: On dis pas "On epele ;) ca s'ecris "On apelle".

Epeler ("spell") != appeler ("call"). Tout de même, on n'utilise pas "appeller" ainsi en francais - "traiter quelqu'un de" correpond à "call someone something" en Anglais.

Doesn't matter how I spell a name Fass.

Well, since you don't seem to be able to spell correctly in any of your posts thus far, I find it quite amusing that you should think yourself able to comment on anyone's language, and that's even without the glaring grammatical errors you make in French as well as in English or how obviously silly you were to object to "gauche".

Apres avoir chatter avec toi

Le passé composé se construit avec le participe passé (pas l'infinitif), donc "avoir chatté".

"vous" tout ce temps je peux me permettre de te tutoyer.

Vous vous êtes trompé. Ne le faites plus, s'il vous plaît.

En ce qui concerne les cedilles, tu sais bien que tu parles a quelqu'un aux USA. On utilisent des claviers americains.:rolleyes:

C'est moi qui m'en suis excusé - franchement, je me branle des vôtres.

Look it is apples and oranges. Basically what I am trying to say in response to Nazz. It isnt of equal severity.

I also am for civil unions and would vote for them if they were on the ballot.

ah, big fan of seperate but equal I see.

Go on, try to claim to not be a bigot again. Give it a shot.

Or you could answer why somehow you're in favor of gays not getting the same instititution straight folks get, and getting a seperate classification having been made for them, which is "just as good as marriage" and not getting, you know...marriage?

Why dothey have to be seperated into "civil unions"? If it's just as good as marriage, why not make it marriage?

What, because the discrimination gays are receiving isn't as serious as what African Americans experienced, what they deal with doesn't matter? If they aren't experiencing full equality, they deserve to try to get that equality and this is a way that it could eventually happen.

Look it is apples and oranges. Basically what I am trying to say in response to Nazz. It isnt of equal severity.

I also am for civil unions and would vote for them if they were on the ballot.

Look it is apples and oranges. Basically what I am trying to say in response to Nazz. It isnt of equal severity.

I also am for civil unions and would vote for them if they were on the ballot.

Would it be OK if we decided that black people are in all ways equal except marriage? Je n'comprende pas. (Are we still speaking french here?)

Well, since you don't seem to be able to spell correctly in any of your posts thus far, I find it quite amusing that you should think yourself able to comment on anyone's language, and that's even without the glaring grammatical errors you make in French as well as in English or how obviously silly you were to object to "gauche".




I didn't make any grammatical errors in my French Fass. However you did. Keep talking to yourself. Also Gauche is not used in English once again. Keep thinking your smart. :rolleyes:

Keep thinking your smart. :rolleyes:

*chuckles*

Je n'comprende pas. (Are we still speaking french here?)
We seem to be having difficulty in both languages, yes :D

ROFL...where did you take French??

I should hope not France, and even Québec is hard to believe at this point... Louisiana, though...

Translation:
Bitch, please.

Succinct. :)

But the original posting was about a law to punish heterosexuals for not allowing gay marriage. Which I don't think is the proper way to go about it.

Why don't you like democracy, or, why is it ok for people to vote to deny homosexual rights, but not heterosexual rights?

Would it be OK if we decided that black people are in all ways equal except marriage? Je n'comprende pas. (Are we still speaking french here?)

There is a proper way through legal channels to settle this in my opinion. I actually hope they do. However the oppression of blacks was in so many ways against the constitution. The constitution doesn't clearly deal with same sex unions. Does it need to be cleared up? Yes, I think it does. However they seem to have left it up to the states at this point. If a state wants it then great if they don't then keep trying. But the original posting was about a law to punish heterosexuals for not allowing gay marriage. Which I don't think is the proper way to go about it.

I didn't make any grammatical errors in my French Fass. However you did. Keep talking to yourself. Also Gauche is not used in English once again. Keep thinking your smart. :rolleyes:

Hilarious (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?gauche).

Perhaps not in use by mouth-breathing knuckle draggers, but definately in use.

Why are you making such an ass out of yourself here?

Or should I say...why are you being so gauche?

*chuckles*

Now, now. :D

I didn't make any grammatical errors in my French Fass. However you did. Keep talking to yourself. Also Gauche is not used in English once again. Keep thinking your smart. :rolleyes:

the last time you made that stupid claim i turned to my husband and son, neither of whom speak french, and asked "have you heard the word gauche?" they both looked at me like i was asking a trick question and said "yes". we've been laughing at you ever since.

I didn't make any grammatical errors in my French Fass.

You formed the passé compośe with an infinitive and not a perfect participle. You kept changing not just the gender of "mot", but also its number and you seemed to think one could use "appeler" when the correct usage would clearly have been "traiter de" (when I wasn't even using "appeler" but instead was using "epeler" which has no connection to "appeler" at all!). And those are just a few of them.

However you did. Keep talking to yourself. Also Gauche is not used in English once again. Keep thinking your smart. :rolleyes:

Well, I won't be thinking the same thing of your English and French (both atrocious), so it evens out.

I should hope not France, and even Québec is hard to believe at this point... Louisiana, though... I suspect from no place at all, frankly...

We seem to be having difficulty in both languages, yes :D

We can make typos and flame grammar in all languages!:)

You formed the passé compośe with an infinitive and not a perfect participle. You kept changing not just the gender if "mot", but also it's number and you seemed to think one could use "appeler" when the correct usage is clearly "traiter de". And those are just a few of them. He clearly did not understand this lesson when given IN French...odd...

ah, big fan of seperate but equal I see.

Go on, try to claim to not be a bigot again. Give it a shot.

Or you could answer why somehow you're in favor of gays not getting the same instititution straight folks get, and getting a seperate classification having been made for them, which is "just as good as marriage" and not getting, you know...marriage?

Why dothey have to be seperated into "civil unions"? If it's just as good as marriage, why not make it marriage?

Just because you claim I'm a bigot does not make me one. There are two forms of marriage. There is the state type which is based in law. This is what gays should be allowed to do. There is the religious ceremonial type which recognized by the state. They are different. I think what the religious people are up in arms about is the religious part of it. They think that if a law passes to allow "marriage" then it will force churches to marry gays. I don't personally agree with that perspective but that's what I hear people talk of on the radio. However if a state allows civil unions then it is the same as a civil union for heterosexuals.

Look it is apples and oranges. Basically what I am trying to say in response to Nazz. It isnt of equal severity.

I also am for civil unions and would vote for them if they were on the ballot.

I would think that it would be pretty damn serious if you were told that you weren't allowed to get married. I would certainly be pissed off if someone tried to tell me that. It might not be on the same severity as what blacks faced in their fight for civil rights but I think it is still something that needs to be fought for.

Just because you claim I'm a bigot does not make me one. There are two forms of marriage. There is the state type which is based in law. This is what gays should be allowed to do. There is the religious ceremonial type which recognized by the state. They are different. I think what the religious people are up in arms about is the religious part of it. They think that if a law passes to allow "marriage" then it will force churches to marry gays. I don't personally agree with that perspective but that's what I hear people talk of on the radio. However if a state allows civil unions then it is the same as a civil union for heterosexuals.
Out of curiosity, why should the State legislate on Church matters? If a church wants to marry two homosexuals, why is further consent even necessary?

Alright I can agree with that. There is a legal method of making it legal. I would say to pro-gay marriage groups is to not give up. But I did take exception to what they propose in Washington state. That is not the proper way to get people on your side.

and you still think this is an effort to "get people on their side" and not what it is blantantly obviously intended to be.

Piss off the people against you already.

I would think that it would be pretty damn serious if you were told that you weren't allowed to get married. I would certainly be pissed off if someone tried to tell me that. It might not be on the same severity as what blacks faced in their fight for civil rights but I think it is still something that needs to be fought for.

Alright I can agree with that. There is a legal method of making it legal. I would say to pro-gay marriage groups is to not give up. But I did take exception to what they propose in Washington state. That is not the proper way to get people on your side.

He clearly did not understand this lesson when given IN French...odd...

Oh, le pauvre. Je doute que ce soit trop facile de le parler comme une vache éspagnole... ca m'a fait rire, quand même.

Just because you claim I'm a bigot does not make me one. There are two forms of marriage. There is the state type which is based in law. This is what gays should be allowed to do.

And that is called mariage. The "form that is underlaw" is legally a marriage. So why if two straight people can go to a judge, without any religious ceremony at all, still have it called a marriage, why the hell should we call it a "civil union" for gays?

That is, by definition, "seperate but equal".

If straight people can go and get, legally, a MARRIAGE, without any religious ceremony what so ever, than gay people should be ableto go get a MARRIAGE, all the same.

None of this "we'll give it to you as long as we still get to treat you differently" crap.

Whatever makes you feel smart.

Um, there are other French speakers here Marrakech...and you are making a fool of yourself. Fass is quite correct on your glaring grammatical errors, no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise.

Out of curiosity, why should the State legislate on Church matters? If a church wants to marry two homosexuals, why is further consent even necessary?

So you can have a legal contract. (Not everyone cares about that part, just like not everyone cares about the religious contract made with god)

Loving v. Virgina thought so, yes.



Absolutly there is a need for it, because if you truly believe the first bolded part, the answer "the planet earth" is obviously not the answer to the second.

Frankly anyone who believes that gays are not systematically oppressed in our society is either a liar, a bigot, or a fool.

Which one do you want to be today?

The two hospitalizations I have had because I was bi are enough to show me that any one who thinks this shit dont happen is a fool

You formed the passé compośe with an infinitive and not a perfect participle. You kept changing not just the gender of "mot", but also its number and you seemed to think one could use "appeler" when the correct usage would clearly have been "traiter de" (when I wasn't even using "appeler" but instead was using "epeler" which has no connection to "appeler" at all!). And those are just a few of them.




Well, I won't be thinking the same thing of your English and French (both atrocious), so it evens out.

Whatever makes you feel smart.

So you can have a legal contract. (Not everyone cares about that part, just like not everyone cares about the religious contract made with god)
Obviously - but I mean why should it refuse to form recognise it?

Whatever makes you feel smart.

Wait wait you started this little "lets talk French at each other" hijack and continued to rip into his small errors in a language other then what this board uses and then you just blow it off with "Whatever makes you feel smart" when he points out YOUR mishandling of that linguistic challenge YOU issued?

What a cop out

Whatever makes you feel smart.

Whatever makes you think you can "speak" French.

Out of curiosity, why should the State legislate on Church matters? If a church wants to marry two homosexuals, why is further consent even necessary?

Because it requires the state to make it legal. I don't believe a church that wants to marry gays would be blocked. It is the state legal part of it that is required for it to hold in the courts. Hence if there is civil unions it would essentially be the same as any other marriage.

Alright I can agree with that. There is a legal method of making it legal. I would say to pro-gay marriage groups is to not give up. But I did take exception to what they propose in Washington state. That is not the proper way to get people on your side.

This method is perfectly legal. And this is a message sent to the people in Washington and Americans at large. Further, I am perfectly prepared to believe that anyone who can think just a little will know what this proposal is all about. If someone sees this proposal at face-value then that individual is too stupid to be voting anyway.

Because it requires the state to make it legal. I don't believe a church that wants to marry gays would be blocked. It is the state legal part of it that is required for it to hold in the courts. Hence if there is civil unions it would essentially be the same as any other marriage.

So gays would have the ability legally to get "married" and if they find a church to marry them why can they not have the title that goes along with it?

Why all the run around to do the same god damn thing

The two hospitalizations I have had because I was bi are enough to show me that any one who thinks this shit dont happen is a fool

I could give examples of white on black crime, black on white, asian on whomever and so on and so on. You could draw examples for any group all day long. However that doesnt make it more then what people do to each other in this country every day.

I could give examples of white on black crime, black on white, asian on whomever and so on and so on. You could draw examples for any group all day long. However that doesnt make it more then what people do to each other in this country every day.

True but your mind gets made up for you as your ribs crack while they are yelling fag ...

Whatever makes you think you can "speak" French.

I can speak French just fine Fass. I don't need your blessing to make it so.

I could give examples of white on black crime, black on white, asian on whomever and so on and so on. You could draw examples for any group all day long. However that doesnt make it more then what people do to each other in this country every day.

how many people in this country are attacked for the sole, and direct reason that being straight?

how many people in this country are attacked for the sole, and direct reason that they are gay?

One of these is bigger than the other. Far bigger once you consider one group outnumbers the other by about 10 to 1.

how many people in this country are attacked for the sole, and direct reason that being straight?

how many people in this country are attacked for the sole, and direct reason that they are gay?

One of these is bigger than the other. Far bigger once you consider one group outnumbers the other by about 10 to 1.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/images/content_images/2.17.gif

Second biggest grouping by the fbi behind race

Sexual Orientation: 1,197 1,406 1,482 1,258
Anti-Male Homosexual 738 855 902 832
Anti-Female Homosexual 164 201 212 163
Anti-Homosexual 245 297 314 224
Anti-Heterosexual 33 35 36 22
Anti-Bisexual 17 18 18 17

Anti Male Homosexual makes by far the biggest chunk

I can speak French just fine Fass. I don't need your blessing to make it so.

If you speak it as badly as you write it, then you should be apologising about now. Actually, I think that apology is due based on that poor writing alone.

I can speak French just fine Fass. I don't need your blessing to make it so.

You obviously don't need spelling, grammar or syntax either, so be my guest. I'll be here, giggling like a schoolgirl.

how many people in this country are attacked for the sole, and direct reason that being straight?

how many people in this country are attacked for the sole, and direct reason that they are gay?

One of these is bigger than the other. Far bigger once you consider one group outnumbers the other by about 10 to 1.

Are there laws to convict the attackers of a hate crime like there are in racial violence?

I guess: no. But maybe in some places

So gays would have the ability legally to get "married" and if they find a church to marry them why can they not have the title that goes along with it?

Why all the run around to do the same god damn thing

Because marriage is not valid until it is validated through the state. When I say validated I mean in the legal arena. However if two gay individuals want to have a marriage ceremony exchange vows and devote each other to one another then there is nothing stopping them. Again I understand what you are saying. I have to agree. Why all the fuss really. But one thing I have learned is that the law is the law. If one group doesnt like it then change it. Keep working on it in the right manner though. Not making some garbage initiative that is going to go down in flames and potentially create animosity against gays.

Because marriage is not valid until it is validated through the state. When I say validated I mean in the legal arena. However if two gay individuals want to have a marriage ceremony exchange vows and devote each other to one another then there is nothing stopping them. Again I understand what you are saying. I have to agree. Why all the fuss really. But one thing I have learned is that the law is the law. If one group doesnt like it then change it. Keep working on it in the right manner though. Not making some garbage initiative that is going to go down in flames and potentially create animosity against gays.

Sometimes the most pointed steps are the ones that make the biggest splash ... not always but sometimes

I hate to admit it, but I didn't read the article to start off, I just was too entertained by the French side discussion.

But having read it now, I just have to laugh.

Can you honestly not see the point of this? You can't seriously be that thick.

It's fucking hilarious! And even the people that ARE that thick? Well, common sense isn't going to change their minds, and I doubt this is going to make them even more bigoted than they already are.

I could give examples of white on black crime, black on white, asian on whomever and so on and so on. You could draw examples for any group all day long. However that doesnt make it more then what people do to each other in this country every day.

You don't think that homosexuals are more liable to be met with violence then other groups of people?

how many people in this country are attacked for the sole, and direct reason that being straight?

how many people in this country are attacked for the sole, and direct reason that they are gay?

One of these is bigger than the other. Far bigger once you consider one group outnumbers the other by about 10 to 1.

I see the pie chart that was put up but how many people in the US are gay? That would be a good question.

Also I did not say that people were not attacked because they were gay. However I did not agree that it was as big of a problem as the black civil rights issues.

You don't think that homosexuals are more liable to be met with violence then other groups of people?

No I don't. I think the biggest group prone to violence is still blacks.

Because marriage is not valid until it is validated through the state. When I say validated I mean in the legal arena. However if two gay individuals want to have a marriage ceremony exchange vows and devote each other to one another then there is nothing stopping them. Again I understand what you are saying. I have to agree. Why all the fuss really. But one thing I have learned is that the law is the law. If one group doesnt like it then change it. Keep working on it in the right manner though. Not making some garbage initiative that is going to go down in flames and potentially create animosity against gays.

It is supposed to "go down in flames" because it is just a statement, not meant to be an attempt to get it on the ballot and to pass. Further I would believe a proposed law to legalize gay marriage would also "create animosity against gays". :rolleyes:

You don't think that homosexuals are more liable to be met with violence then other groups of people?
No I don't. I think the biggest group prone to violence is still blacks.

This is hilarious.

He just asked if you believed that homosexuals were not disproportionately victims of violence.

And you answer with...blacks are more likely to commit violence.

Is this the language Twilight Zone?

It is supposed to "go down in flames" because it is just a statement, not meant to be an attempt to get it on the ballot and to pass. Further I would believe a proposed law to legalize gay marriage would also "create animosity against gays". :rolleyes:

It's like a law that would make it legal to eat the children of the poor...

No I don't. I think the biggest group prone to violence is still blacks.

Blacks are mostly met with black on black crime, gays can be assaulted by anyone. Race, economic status, ideologies, none of that matters as homophobia covers all of it. Makes me believe that gays are a group especially vulnerable to violence, especially when advertising their sexuality. That they are threatned can not be doubted.

It is supposed to "go down in flames" because it is just a statement, not meant to be an attempt to get it on the ballot and to pass. Further I would believe a proposed law to legalize gay marriage would also "create animosity against gays". :rolleyes:

Well yes animosity against gays will be created by trying to legalize gay marriage. However that is with the anti-gay groups. However you know that elections in this nation are decided by the middle. This is the group that can go either way on this issue. Pardon the pun. But this is the group of voters that gays should be careful not to piss off. The hardcore anti-gay groups are not going to be convinced either way.

It's like a law that would make it legal to eat the children of the poor...

Too highbrow, sister. You should have seen the ignorance the last time that reference came up.

This is hilarious.

He just asked if you believed that homosexuals were not disproportionately victims of violence.

And you answer with...blacks are more likely to commit violence.

Is this the language Twilight Zone?

Did you read what he asked? I suggest reading it again.

Too highbrow, sister. You should have seen the ignorance the last time that reference came up.

Yes, it is only gays that are not ignorant. This is why Fass thinks he is so superior.

Well yes aninmostiy against gays will be created by trying to legalize gay marriage. However that is with the anti-gay groups. However you know that elections in this nation are decided by the middle. This is the group that can go either way on this issue. Pardon the pun. But this is the group of voters that gays should be careful not to piss off. The hardcore anti-gay groups are not going to be convinced either way.Ah....gays should...go slow (http://boscarol.com/nina/html/where/mississipigoddamn.html)...

"...
Don't tell me
I tell you
Me and my people just about due
I've been there so I know
They keep on saying "Go slow!"

But that's just the trouble
"do it slow"
Washing the windows
"do it slow"
Picking the cotton
"do it slow"
You're just plain rotten
"do it slow"
You're too damn lazy
"do it slow"
The thinking's crazy
"do it slow"
Where am I going
What am I doing
I don't know
I don't know


You don't have to live next to me
Just give me my equality..."

This is hilarious.

He just asked if you believed that homosexuals were not disproportionately victims of violence.

And you answer with...blacks are more likely to commit violence.

Is this the language Twilight Zone?

Wow, I just reread his post and you're right. :D

I believe though that he simply wrote it wrong and meant that they are met with the most violence.

Yes, it is only gays that are not ignorant. This is why Fass thinks he is so superior.

I don't think I'm superior. I just know I'm better than you, which is not all that much a task, really.

Did you read what he asked? I suggest reading it again.

I suggest adding to being victoms of somewhere in there.

Did you read what he asked? I suggest reading it again.

Oh I did, I couldn't believe my eyes.

Look up the meaning of 'prone'.

Hilarious :D

Yes, it is only gays that are not ignorant. This is why Fass thinks he is so superior.

Fass knows I'm not gay, so clearly ignorance is not dependent upon sexuality.

You'll have to look for another excuse I think.

I don't think I'm superior. I just know I'm better than you, which is not all that much a task, really.

Hardly Fass. Keep thinking that. Your ego is a bit large don't you think?

Wow, I just reread his post and you're right. :D

I believe though that he simply wrote it wrong and meant that they are met with the most violence.

Oh I agree...but for someone who has been harping on language...you can't just let something like that go by, can you?

Did you read what he asked? I suggest reading it again.
When someone is prone to violence, it means they are likely to commit violent acts. Not that they are likely to be aggressed.

Hardly Fass. Keep thinking that.

I keep knowing that.

Your ego is a bit large don't you think?

That's the sad part, one needn't a large ego at all for it.

When someone is prone to violence, it means they are likely to commit violent acts. Not that they are likely to be aggressed.

*howls*

I'm sorry, this is just mean...but...

*howls some more...tears in eyes*

Well yes animosity against gays will be created by trying to legalize gay marriage. However that is with the anti-gay groups. However you know that elections in this nation are decided by the middle. This is the group that can go either way on this issue. Pardon the pun. But this is the group of voters that gays should be careful not to piss off. The hardcore anti-gay groups are not going to be convinced either way.

I'm sure if gay marriage came on the ballot, Christain fundies would sound the alarm and try to get every bigot out of the woodwork to vote. I don't doubt this for an instant. Further, if someone is going to get pissed off so easily over this when they know it isn't going to come close to passing to begin with then I doubt that they are the type of person to vote for somethin so "radical" as gay marriage anyway. Besides, the middle seems to be leaning anti-gay at the moment so they need to spread awareness first anyway. One way to do this is to attack one of the traditional views of what marriage is. So they are calling the fundies bullshit. With the middle educated, a serious attempt to get gay marriage proposed can be done.

Oh I agree...but for someone who has been harping on language...you can't just let something like that go by, can you?

No, I have no arguement with that. It would be foolish if I attempted it.

I know what prone means. The context I used it made my point. you trying to make a stupid point on nothing is hilarious.

Unless you want people to think that you were making a racist statement about the inherent violence of blacks, then you ought to edit your comment, as has been suggested, to include the words, 'to be victims of'. Or for the very least, to actually be answering the question that was addressed to you in a coherent manner.

Context can not change the meaning of the worde 'prone' in the way you seem to wish it could. Sorry. It just doesn't work that way. Words are only so flexible you see.

Did you read what he asked? I suggest reading it again.

Alright, I'll read it again.

how many people in this country are attacked for the sole, and direct reason that they are gay

are attacked for the sole and direct reason that they are gay.

I still don't see where the fuck you got what you got from it.

I asked who was likely to be the VICTIM of violence, and you told me who was more likely to COMMIT violence.

And even if you DID get it right, I still asked who was more likely, straight, or gay. Black had nothing to do with it. I'm not trying to prove that gays are discriminated against more than blacks. I'm trying to demonstrate that gaysare discriminated for being gay a LOT more than straights are for being straight.

You're just a bit too thick to get it.

Unless you want people to think that you were making a racist statement about the inherent violence of blacks, then you ought to edit your comment, as has been suggested, to include the words, 'to be victims of'. Or for the very least, to actually be answering the question that was addressed to you in a coherent manner.

Context can not change the meaning of the worde 'prone' in the way you seem to wish it could. Sorry. It just doesn't work that way. Words are only so flexible you see.

He's just not going to change it out of spite now. ROFLROFL

It's like a law that would make it legal to eat the children of the poor...

I like your views and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

This sounds like a very modest proposal.

When someone is prone to violence, it means they are likely to commit violent acts. Not that they are likely to be aggressed.

I meant in a way that says inclined to violence. I had to look it up because of the postings on here. Could I have worded it differently for all those out there that want to think its funny? Sure but in the context I said it the person asking the question understood exactly what I meant.

I meant in a way that says inclined to violence. I had to look it up because of the postings on here. Could I have worded it differently for all those out there that want to think its funny? Sure but in the context I said it the person asking the question understood exactly what I meant.
IN SPITE of your completely wrong use of the word, yes...no points to you though for clarity of communication.

You're like the Energizer Bunny...just keep going, and going, and going...even when you're just walking into a wall...:D

I meant in a way that says inclined to violence. I had to look it up because of the postings on here. Could I have worded it differently for all those out there that want to think its funny? Sure but in the context I said it the person asking the question understood exactly what I meant.

So it isn't the word prone you have a problem with its the word violence. You made the same mistake when you said inclined to violence. Violence is doing the hurting, not getting hurt.

PS- we're all picking on you for no real good reason. Sorry.

He's just not going to change it out of spite now. ROFLROFL

Don't need to change it really. It was understood by the person asking the question. It was someone coming behind trying to make a dig that distorted it.

Don't need to change it really. It was understood by the person asking the question. It was someone coming behind trying to make a dig that distorted it.

yeah, I understood what you said exactly fine.

Except what you said wasn't even close to WHAT I ASKED.

You did the intellectual equivalent to answering the question of "what color is the sky?" with "I like burritos"

PS- we're all picking on you for no real good reason. Sorry.

I know, it's so bad...but if only he would be man enough to just ADMIT it was a mistake and move on without all the excuses and finger pointing....

IN SPITE of your completely wrong use of the word, yes...no points to you though for clarity of communication.

You're like the Energizer Bunny...just keep going, and going, and going...even when you're just walking into a wall...:D

Well at least I'm mildy amusing to you. You know what I meant.

yeah, I understood what you said exactly fine.

Except what you said wasn't even close to WHAT I ASKED.

You did the intellectual equivalent to answering the question of "what color is the sky?" with "I like burritos"

Give me a break.

Well at least I'm mildy amusing to you. You know what I meant.

Yes. I knew you either deliberately mistook the question and were making a racist comments about the inherent violence of blacks, or you simply didn't know how to use the word 'prone'.

Franky, neither view was very flattering, but you can at least be glad I didn't assume you were a racist.

I know, it's so bad...but if only he would be man enough to just ADMIT it was a mistake and move on without all the excuses and finger pointing....

Well, it does keep the conversation from the topic at hand. So, this proposition really shouldn't be an issue at all, I can only see this proposition as being helpful to get gay marriage legalized. The fools who only see it as an attack on "traditional marriage" will be forgotten. Eventually at least.

Well, it does keep the conversation from the topic at hand. Which really shouldn't be an issue at all, I can only see this proposition as being helpful to get gay marriage legalized. The fools who only see it as an attack on "traditional marriage" will be forgotten. Eventually at least.

You mean some one said blacks like to pop caps in peoples asses so it is now obvious that we should let gays marry?:D

Well, it does keep the conversation from the topic at hand. Which really shouldn't be an issue at all, I can only see this proposition as being helpful to get gay marriage legalized. The fools who only see it as an attack on "traditional marriage" will be forgotten. Eventually at least.

The slack wits would would take this as an earnest attempt to pass a real law would likely believe anything the religious fundies have to say anyway...so no worries there.

I know, it's so bad...but if only he would be man enough to just ADMIT it was a mistake and move on without all the excuses and finger pointing....

Don't need to admit a mistake because it wasn't a big deal. The intent of the person pointing it out was just to be a jerk really. If you want to have a debate about a topic then fine. If you want to have a spelling and grammar thread then make one up. It doesn't really impress me that one attacks another for mistakes in grammar. This is why I take exception with certain people attacking because of petty grammar gaffs. There are grammar and spelling mistakes all through all threads. You don't see most people jumping on others for doing it. The only people that I see jump on others are to try and make someone else feel inferior. However I think most think it is a childish behavior at best.

The intent of the person pointing it out was just to be a jerk really.

If "logically pointing out that your position is full of crap" is being a jerk, than yes, I was doing it to be a jerk.

Doesn't mean you're position isn't, in fact, full of crap.

I note you haven't actually ANSWERED the question, so I assume you have no answer that will validate your point and are at this point ignoring it because you know any HONEST answer will result in a refutation of your argument.

You mean some one said blacks like to pop caps in peoples asses so it is now obvious that we should let gays marry?:D

Damn, I didn't make my post that clear. I meant for my first statement to stand alone and then get the thread bay on track. Oops. I'll fix this. :)

Damn, I didn't make my post that clear. I meant for my first statement to stand alone and then get the thread bay on track. Oops. I'll fix this. :)

It takes a strong character to admit when (s)he make a mistake, good for you. Anyways, no big deal.

Yes. I knew you either deliberately mistook the question and were making a racist comments about the inherent violence of blacks, or you simply didn't know how to use the word 'prone'.

Franky, neither view was very flattering, but you can at least be glad I didn't assume you were a racist.

Now was there anything prior that I posted that led you to believe that I was racist? I am proudly not and if you were to know me personally you would clearly see. However this is the net and to see someone intentions is not that easy at times. My point is blacks suffer more violence then gays. That view is consistent to my view that the gay issue is not the same as the problems the blacks have suffered in the US. It is difficult for me to draw the parallel on that one.

The slack wits would would take this as an earnest attempt to pass a real law would likely believe anything the religious fundies have to say anyway...so no worries there.

I have faith in basic human intelligence for the most part. Even if at the start of this thread there were a couple of people who did in fact take this proposal at face-value.

Now was there anything prior that I posted that led you to believe that I was racist? I am proudly not and if you were to know me personally you would clearly see. However this is the net and to see someone intentions is not that easy at times. My point is blacks suffer more violence then gays. That view is consistent to my view that the gay issue is not the same as the problems the blacks have suffered in the US. It is difficult for me to draw the parallel on that one.

Yeah but you SAID blacks COMMIT more violence.

Now while what you meant is true, it still isn't what I asked.

It takes a strong character to admit when (s)he make a mistake, good for you. Anyways, no big deal.

You're evil.

I like you!

Yeah but you SAID blacks COMMIT more violence.

Now while what you meant is true, it still isn't what I asked.

We going to keep beating a dead horse? Could I have worded it differently? Yes. Did you know what I meant? I believe you did. So what is it you would like me to say here?

We going to keep beating a dead horse? Could I have worded it differently? Yes. Did you know what I meant? I believe you did. So what is it you would like me to say here?

you could start by answering my question. Are straight people attacked for being straight less, or more, than gay people are attacked for being gay?

That's all I asked.

Now was there anything prior that I posted that led you to believe that I was racist? I am proudly not and if you were to know me personally you would clearly see. However this is the net and to see someone intentions is not that easy at times. My point is blacks suffer more violence then gays. That view is consistent to my view that the gay issue is not the same as the problems the blacks have suffered in the US. It is difficult for me to draw the parallel on that one.

Trying to say blacks suffer more violence than gays is just a distraction from the issue. Blacks often suffer from living in poverty stricken, crime filled neighborhoods. But what does this have to do with giving gays the right to marry? You are correct that the black and gay issues have nothing to do with each other. So lets ignore crimes against blacks and go back to the reasons why this proposal being made is going to harm the efforts for marriage rights for gays? Because educating people to the fallacies of the traditional arguements for what marriage "should be" can only be for the good, right?

you could start by answering my question. Are straight people attacked for being straight less, or more, than gay people are attacked for being gay?

That's all I asked.

You didnt ask it at all in the context you just said. Just to be clear you said:

You don't think that homosexuals are more liable to be met with violence then other groups of people?

My response was meant to be that blacks are met with more violence.


For one that was jumping on me about how I responded please make sure you remember what you said in the first place.:rolleyes:

As for this second question you just posed. The answer is obvious that gays are attacked more for their sexuality.

Trying to say blacks suffer more violence than gays is just a distraction from the issue. Blacks often suffer from living in poverty stricken, crime filled neighborhoods. But what does this have to do with giving gays the right to marry? You are correct that the black and gay issues have nothing to do with each other. So lets ignore crimes against blacks and go back to the reasons why this proposal being made is going to harm the efforts for marriage rights for gays? Because educating people to the fallacies of the traditional arguements for what marriage "should be" can only be for the good, right?

Well I was answering a question on which group suffered more violence.

Has nothing to do with gay rights to be married. As far as educating people to what things should be is good in the proper context. My main view of this initiative is that it seems counter productive to the issue at hand. As I already mentioned in this thread is the middle that decides elections in this nation. I would do everything in my power not to offend that group of people in order to get my legislation passed.

You didnt ask it at all in the context you just said. Just to be clear you said

You don't think that homosexuals are more liable to be met with violence then other groups of people?

My response was meant to be that blacks are met with more violence.

I asked, and I quote, typo and all:

how many people in this country are attacked for the sole, and direct reason that being straight?

how many people in this country are attacked for the sole, and direct reason that they are gay?


That is exactly what I asked

EDIT: ahhhh, ok, I see how we're going around in circles here. There was another question in there, and wires got crossed.

I asked, and I quote, typo and all:



That is exactly what I asked

EDIT: ahhhh, ok, I see how we're going around in circles here. There was another question in there, and wires got crossed.

You know what my mistake. I was quoting what Utracia had asked originally. I actually didn't read what you had asked me. So apologies.:D

Well I was answering a question on which group suffered more violence.

Has nothing to do with gay rights to be married. As far as educating people to what things should be is good in the proper context. My main view of this initiative is that it seems counter productive to the issue at hand. As I already mentioned in this thread it is the middle that decides elections in this nation. I would do everything in my power not to offend that group of people in order to get my legislation passed.

The middle need to be shown that many of the arguements for traditional marriage are so laughable it is an embarassment for them even to be advanced, one being the procreation arguement. I think this gets the point across nicely. If people choose to misunderstand what is going on here, then they either aren't paying attention or are simply fools. Either way, many will know what the true message is and will understand the ridiculousness of this particular fundie arguement.

You know what my mistake. I was quoting what Utrica had asked originally. I actually didn't read what you had asked me. So apologies.:D

I didn't see he asked it, so I assumed the reply was directed at me, which is where my confusion came from, considering what I was askng and what you were sayig "I" asked were close, but subtly different.

OK, yes, it's true, that what you meant is correct, blacks are victims of violence because they are black more than gays are victims of violence because they are gay.

I question how well that holds up proportionatly (lot of the time one can tell someone is black, not tell someone is gay). So I am crious how many blaks suffer racially related violence versus "known" gays suffer sexuality related violence, but that would be a ratio determination I don't have the data to make.

The middle need to be shown that many of the arguements for traditional marriage are so laughable it is an embarassment for them even to be advanced, one being the procreation arguement. I think this gets the point across nicely. If people choose to misunderstand what is going on here, then they either aren't paying attention or are simply fools. Either way, many will know what the true message is and will understand the ridiculousness of this particular fundie arguement.

You don't think that most don't already know that the procreation arguement is really a moot point. I haven't met anyone that has said that point of view. I think the best tactic for passage of a law for gay marriage/civil unions is to keep putting it on the ballot. I guess we will see how this plays out in Washington. I think it will be negative. But maybe your right and it will help.

I didn't see he asked it, so I assumed the reply was directed at me, which is where my confusion came from, considering what I was askng and what you were sayig "I" asked were close, but subtly different.

OK, yes, it's true, that what you meant is correct, blacks are victims of violence because they are black more than gays are victims of violence because they are gay.

I question how well that holds up proportionatly (lot of the time one can tell someone is black, not tell someone is gay). So I am crious how many blaks suffer racially related violence versus "known" gays suffer sexuality related violence, but that would be a ratio determination I don't have the data to make.


Although this was a mistake on thinking how I answered your question I think its funny how others jumped in. I don't think you would have had that response if it was read through correctly and I independently responded to your question.

Unrelated to you but want to make clear in this thread.
My reaction to Fass early on in this thread is because of his unrelentless attacks on others about seemingly everything under the sun. This started with him many threads ago when I came to the defense of someone he was making fun of. Fass was actually wrong. Which I pointed out and he didn't like. So that was what that was about.


As far as that data I still think that blacks suffer more racial crimes vs crimes against gays. However not to discount either one. I just was trying to say it isnt the same level.

Unrelated to you but want to make clear in this thread.
My reaction to Fass early on in this thread is because of his unrelentless attacks on others about seemingly everything under the sun. This started with him many threads ago when I came to the defense of someone he was making fun of. Fass was actually wrong. Which I pointed out and he didn't like. So that was what that was about.
Yes, and it is vexatious, but why encourage him?

You don't think that most don't already know that the procreation arguement is really a moot point. I haven't met anyone that has said that point of view. I think the best tactic for passage of a law for gay marriage/civil unions is to keep putting it on the ballot. I guess we will see how this plays out in Washington. I think it will be negative. But maybe your right and it will help.

I think that many believe procreation plays a part of marriage, not as the sole reason. But yes, the vast majority would hardly believe this arguement either, so maybe I should rephrase to say that it is not to educate the middle but to simply make them aware that fundies who bash gays and the idea of letting them marry are foolish, bigoted and should be ignored. Then it is a short step to making other so-called reasons to restrict the rights of homosexuals look stupid. Even if this Washington proposition does nothing but make temporary waves I am still glad it was done. I do not see any negative impacts that will matter in the end and it gives the Christian right a black eye. Makes me smile as well. :)

Yes, and it is vexatious, but why encourage him?

I take exception to people that think they know everything. It just rubs me the wrong way. Basically was just out to prove a point against him. His remarks on my French were off base and wrong. I can speak fluent french and write as such. I just think people need to put those type of people in there place every once in awhile. I have seen people do it to him before and he has the same responses everytime. I figure to get through a thick head as his it is needed to challenge him.

I take exception to people that think they know everything. It just rubs me the wrong way. Basically was just out to prove a point against him. His remarks on my French were off base and wrong. I can speak fluent french and write as such. I just think people need to put those type of people in there place every once in awhile. I have seen people do it to him before and he has the same responses everytime. I figure to get through a thick head as his it is needed to challenge him.

If you believe you 'put him in his place' with your French...you are sadly mistaken.

I think that many believe procreation plays a part of marriage, not as the sole reason. But yes, the vast majority would hardly believe this arguement either, so maybe I should rephrase to say that it is not to educate the middle but to simply make them aware that fundies who bash gays and the idea of letting them marry are foolish, bigoted and should be ignored. Then it is a short step to making other so-called reasons to restrict the rights of homosexuals look stupid. Even if this Washington proposition does nothing but make temporary waves I am still glad it was done. I do not see any negative impacts that will matter in the end and it gives the Christian right a black eye. Makes me smile as well. :)

Well if we are all God's children then that includes gays. If marriage is a bond connecting two loving people then it should be extended to gays as well. Although this is going to take a long time to get this acceptable amongst the majority. I think education is the key. This is basically something that will take generations to get majority acceptance. I personally grew up in a anti-black anti-gay family setting. Was basically anything not white and right then it wasnt ok. So funny thing is that through education outside the home and the military I weeded out the bias. I was the first one in the family to "accept" my gay cousin and ended up marrying a black women. So I know first hand education is the key to solving the problem of acceptance. But currently we still have alot of people that grew up in the same enviroment that I did or possibly worse. So these people are going to be the hard ones to convince. So I think its a generational approach or a very carefully crafted approach to the current electorate.

Children are the future, and statistics show kids are much more accepting of gays and their lifestyle than the older people, so with that in mind things are going to turn around when these youngsters are the new voting population. It's only a matter of time.

If you believe you 'put him in his place' with your French...you are sadly mistaken.

I speak fluent French. You don't think so huh? Been speaking it since 3 years old. Had a French Father, American mother. Also my wife is fluent in French. She thought Fass was an idiot.

I take exception to people that think they know everything. It just rubs me the wrong way. Basically was just out to prove a point against him. His remarks on my French were off base and wrong. I can speak fluent french and write as such. I just think people need to put those type of people in there place every once in awhile. I have seen people do it to him before and he has the same responses everytime. I figure to get through a thick head as his it is needed to challenge him.

Marrakech, I honestly don't mean to insult you, but Fass's remarks on your French were largely accurate, and you essentially begged him to make them as nasty as possible when you issued your little challenge to him. Whether or not you speak fluent French depends on your definition of "fluent" - you know enough of the language to be comprehensible, but you also make some pretty basic mistakes.

Marrakech, I honestly don't mean to insult you, but Fass's remarks on your French were largely accurate, and you essentially begged him to make them as nasty as possible when you issued your little challenge to him. Whether or not you speak fluent French depends on your definition of "fluent" - you know enough of the language to be comprehensible, but you also make some pretty basic mistakes.

Really? What was there that was wrong. My wife read what I was writing and she said he was wrong. Maybe a difference in dialect? Where did you learn French?

Edit: Off for the night.

ROFL...where did you take French??
Translation:
Bitch, please.

One thing is for sure - you were an inspiration for this:

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/4819/lolzn2.jpg

:)

Why are you so hellbent on giving him the opportunity to ridicule you? He is fluent in French, so your little challenge will lead you nowhere but down the road of ever greater embarrassment. Even your first sentence is utterly incorrect (should be "tu peux corriger mes fautes...").

Marrakech, I honestly don't mean to insult you, but Fass's remarks on your French were largely accurate, and you essentially begged him to make them as nasty as possible when you issued your little challenge to him.

:p

Really? What was there that was wrong. My wife read what I was writing and she said he was wrong. Maybe a difference in dialect? Where did you learn French?

Edit: Off for the night.

I don't feel like rereading the whole francophone penis-contest, but my memory of it is that basically every time Fass called you on being incorrect, you were. On top of that, there was the fact that you didn't recognize the verb "épeler" - an awfully basic vocab word - and that you read Fass's apology for his lack of cedillas as a complaint about your lack of cedillas. These just aren't the sorts of mistakes someone who reads French fluently typically makes. *shrug*

Unrelated to you but want to make clear in this thread.
My reaction to Fass early on in this thread is because of his unrelentless attacks on others about seemingly everything under the sun. This started with him many threads ago when I came to the defense of someone he was making fun of. Fass was actually wrong. Which I pointed out and he didn't like. So that was what that was about.

You still refuse to accept, despite several links to dictionaries and a hand full posters that "gauche" is an English word? Well, I guess repeatedly going "lalalalalalalala" makes you think you can fool others as well as you can yourself, but that just isn't the case. You have been proved wrong several times by now and that just isn't going away.

And, how about proving your "lalalalalala - I wasn't wrong" wrongness once more? Alrighty then. You claim in this thread that your French was "fluent" and that you made no mistakes - none whatsoever, especially not grammatical ones - in your French writing, but as your English mistakes are apparent to everyone, I guess I can once again make the French ones equally as apparent:

beaucoup de mots que nous utilisons aujourd'hui sont d'origine latin.
"Origine" is a feminine noun, thus the adjective also needs to be in the feminine form "latine" and not the masculine "latin". Fluent speakers don't make such mistakes.

Alors MR Jaque Chirac,
"Jacques" is misspelt. "Monsieur" is incorrectly abbreviated as "MR" which is an Anglicism. The correct way to abbreviate "Monsieur" in French is "M.".

un seule mots tout seule
Here, you guessed correctly that "mot" is "un", but then you go and butcher it grammatically. Instead of using the masculine for "seul" you use the feminine "seule". Twice. In a nonsensically tautologous fashion. Then you seem to get even more confused and despite already having used "un" and the singular forms of "seule" you pluralise "mot" to "mots", making that part of the sentence even more incorrect.

In the post you improperly refer to me as "tu" and later when I tell you that I am not on a "tu" standing with you, you continue to do it anyway, showing an inability to adhere to overall French language culture. Again, mistakes "fluent" speakers simply do not make.

Your first mistake is: On dis pas "On epele
Here you show you do not understand what "épeler" means. You also incorrectly conjugate the verb "dire" and use the first and second person singular form ("dis") instead of the correct third person singular form ("dit") with "on".

ca s'ecris "On apelle"
You continue to confound the error by incorrectly conjugating "écrire" as "écris" in the third person singular, when the correct conjugation is "écrit".

You also suggest that you would have used "appeler" ("be called", or "call on") which apart from not being the meaning I was going for at all (which you would have known had you known what "épeler" (spell) meant) also would be completely grammatically incorrect to use since it's not used to mean "call someone something". In French, one generally uses "traiter de" in that situation, for instance: "Jacques s'appelle Chirac, mais je le traite de con" ("Jacques is called Chirac, but I call him an idiot"). And you claim fluency...

Apres avoir chatter avec toi "vous" tout ce temps
Here you fail to conjugate the verb at all and use the infinitive (chatter "to chat") instead of the perfect participle (chatté "chatted") in a failed attempt to construct the "passé composé", which ends up meaning the equivalent of "after having chat with you". Also, the sentence is structurally unsound as "vous" is interjected randomly in the middle of it.

On utilisent des claviers americains.
Here again you show that you have no understanding of how to properly conjugate verbs when you use the third person plural form ("utilisent") instead of the third person singular ("utilise") with "on". You also didn't understand that I excused my own lack of the cedilla due to my Swedish keyboard and took it as some sort of impugnment of you.

I didn't make any grammatical errors in my French Fass.
Really? What was there that was wrong.

Now you know. *waits for you to go "lalalalalala" again, just like you seem to do every time one shows you a dictionary*

Well if we are all God's children then that includes gays. If marriage is a bond connecting two loving people then it should be extended to gays as well. Although this is going to take a long time to get this acceptable amongst the majority. I think education is the key. This is basically something that will take generations to get majority acceptance. I personally grew up in a anti-black anti-gay family setting. Was basically anything not white and right then it wasnt ok. So funny thing is that through education outside the home and the military I weeded out the bias. I was the first one in the family to "accept" my gay cousin and ended up marrying a black women. So I know first hand education is the key to solving the problem of acceptance. But currently we still have alot of people that grew up in the same enviroment that I did or possibly worse. So these people are going to be the hard ones to convince. So I think its a generational approach or a very carefully crafted approach to the current electorate.

I'm sure that once the current crop of politicos leave office and we get our new generation of people in we will see changes in which legalizing gay marriage will only be one. I suppose I can only wait patiently for the reactionary dinosaurs to die out.