NationStates Jolt Archive

"A reason for annulment is called an diriment impediment to the marriage"

Diriment impediments include:

Consanguinity (how closely related two people are by blood)
Insanity precluding ability to consent
Not intending, when marrying, to remain faithful to the spouse
One partner had been deceived by the other in order to obtain consent,
Abduction of a person, with the intent to compel them to marry
Failure to adhere to requirements of canon law for marriages
the couple killed the spouse of one of them in order to be free to marry
the couple committed adultery

The cause of action for annulment in New York State is generally fraud.
Fraud generally means the intentional deception of the Plaintiff by the Defendant in order to induce the Plaintiff to marry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment

This very clearly does not list inability to have children as a basis for annulment. Strike one for your argument.

In New Jersey the include impotency. A person whose spouse is impotent, has grounds for annullment. If you are impotent, you can't produce children.

http://www.divorcecenterofnj.com/pages/divorce_faqs/articles/annulment_faqs.html

Impotence does not equal inablity to have children. Sexual orientation does not equal impotence. Strike two for your argument.

In the Muslim world, a man can get an annullment if his wife fails to produce children. Particularly, male children. This is particularly true in the middle eastern countries such as Syria.

In 2003, the Syrian High Court ruled that a man could divorce his wife simply by texting her "I divorce you. I divorce. I divorce you."
However it doesn't count if said while drunk or ill.

http://books.google.com/books?id=pPOxqGFOOA8C&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=is+failure+to+produce+children+a+reason+for+annulment&source=web&ots=wqV3pwWQXp&sig=CXTyov2DpYSD_OeCzqhsC5dekrU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

This article says that in Syria a man can get a divorce or a second marriage if his wife cannot produce children. Thus, (1) we aren't talking about western society, (2) we aren't even talking about the Middle East in general, and (3) we aren't talking about annulment.

Strike three. You're outta here. :eek:

This very clearly does not list inability to have children as a basis for annulment. Strike one for your argument.

See, in Nevada, one reason for annulment is "One person represented to the other party that he/she was willing and able to conceive children during the marriage, when that person was actually known to be sterile and unable to conceive children".

So, a gay man could get an annulment from his gay man spouse provided that prior to the marriage, one gay dude had convinced the other gay dude that he could bear him a child, when he knew that he couldn't get pregnant.

Admit it, you've already had her try on the dress.

:p Either of my cats would cause me grevious bodily harm if I tried to put a dress on her. :eek:

That said, it is not entirely bizarre to refer to "my family" -- even if that group includes other species.

Christ I was wondering if that would show up.

If we allow the gays to marry then we will allow people to marry their pets, farm animals, corpses.....

:rolleyes:

Well, to be fair, that kind of thing started happening a lot after we allowed interracial marriage.

Well, to be fair, that kind of thing started happening a lot after we allowed interracial marriage.

a lot? Cmon. Some media hype does not a lot make.

Also, international piracy has risen since we allowed interracial marriage. Yarr, ye be plunderin' thar overseas booty, yarr.

i think compromise can be reached. protect the identities of smaller donors of say less then 5,000 dollars. report those who donated over 5,000

I think the current $100 limit is fine. Pony up more than that, and it's the PDC form available for free perusal at the Recording Division of the County Auditor's Office in the county where the donation was taken in the relevant state.

If you don't want the bad publicity, you should think about who you encourage with your money. If you're a violent prick, no matter whose side you're on, you should be arrested for threatening someone or worse because of their contribution. It's really that simple.

Some homosexuals are not humans. Some homosexuals are bears.

I know all about it. I was hosting Steven Baldwin's Extreme Teen Pray the Gay Away Homosexual-Insanity Faith Healing Fest and Precious Metals Brokering Home Business Seminar, and this guy told me how he used to be gay, and he used to have sex with bears, and go to bear bars to have sex with bears.

But then he found Jesus at a Reclamation Ministries soul saving event. Now he's straight and most hangs around with other reformed gays at Reclamation Ministries. In fact, last I heard, he moved in with Mark, the pastor.

Where on LG's Brown Earth do you GET that stuff? You are a bleeding GENIUS.

Where on LG's Brown Earth do you GET that stuff? You are a bleeding GENIUS.

Yes, Steven Baldwin is a genius, through Christ.

That's why he believes that gays are unnatural, sinful, and he did not necessitate 14 takes of the scene in Usual Suspects where he threatens Kobayashi by whispering in his ear because the first 13 times he couldn't resist putting his tongue in Pete Postlethwaite's ear.

Cat-Tribes seems to think that its somehow unfair that the Prop 8 supporters should be allowed a greater degree of anonymity in donation reporting than what is afforded any other group under the law.

That's just gay.

....did I just fucking say that?

NSG wouldnt be NSG if you hadnt:p

a lot? Cmon. Some media hype does not a lot make.

Also, international piracy has risen since we allowed interracial marriage. Yarr, ye be plunderin' thar overseas booty, yarr.

Youre my favorite.

I don't know, personally, I'm a 'say it loud, say it proud' kind of guy. There's not an opinion I have, from Jack Daniels being the best whiskey to hunting and trapping being a good way to pass the time and make some money, that I would hesitate to sign my name to, so I don't know why they'd withold their names. On the other hand, I am kind of curious as to why the people that want the names want them so badly.

Secondly, what kind of sad, weaselly fucker makes anonymous threats? Cowards. If you're going to threaten somebody, you should do it up close and personal, it's more effective. I tend to meet like with like in my interpersonal relationships, and I find it's a good rule of thumb to live by.

Secondly, what kind of sad, weaselly fucker makes anonymous threats?

The same kind of "weaselly fucker" who endorses (and funds) trying to pass an ammendment stripping a group of people of Constitutional rights, Id imagine.

The same kind of "weaselly fucker" who endorses (and funds) trying to pass an ammendment stripping a group of people of Constitutional rights, Id imagine.

This. ^

The same kind of "weaselly fucker" who endorses (and funds) trying to pass an ammendment stripping a group of people of Constitutional rights, Id imagine.

I don't know, the people who endorsed and funded the law weren't anonymous. Yeah, they're trying to be now, which is kind of lame because the way I see it, you should have the courage of your convictions. But calling someone and making anonymous threats over the telephone is a whole different and pathetic kind of cowardice.

I don't know, the people who endorsed and funded the law weren't anonymous. Yeah, they're trying to be now, which is kind of lame because the way I see it, you should have the courage of your convictions. But calling someone and making anonymous threats over the telephone is a whole different and pathetic kind of cowardice.

Cowardice perhaps. But I find someone who tries to strip Constitutional rights from a segment of people because he finds them "icky" far more pathetic and deserving of scorn then people who make anonymous threats.

Cowardice perhaps. But I find someone who tries to strip Constitutional rights from a segment of people because he finds them "icky" far more pathetic and deserving of scorn then people who make anonymous threats.

I don't know, it's the 'anonymous' part that really sticks in my craw. I don't like sneakiness or disingenuity, or people who don't have the stones to tell you what they think to your face. That to me is worse than someone who tells you straight out what they think and then slaps it on a ballot for public approval.

Tell you what though, you really feel a need to 'scorn' someone, you should save it for the voters. It's not like the people of CA didn't know exactly what they were getting. The people who put the law on the ballot made no secret of what it was that they wanted and it got passed.

I think the current $100 limit is fine. Pony up more than that, and it's the PDC form available for free perusal at the Recording Division of the County Auditor's Office in the county where the donation was taken in the relevant state.

That's not the purpose of the law. The purpose is to discourage fraud. In this case we are trying to find the alleged fraud committed by the Mormon church. donations less then 5,000 dollars from individuals should not be an issue.


If you don't want the bad publicity, you should think about who you encourage with your money. If you're a violent prick, no matter whose side you're on, you should be arrested for threatening someone or worse because of their contribution. It's really that simple.

.

Like it or not, donating money is now part of the political process. If you apply such measures in a draconian fashion people will cease to make donations to campaigns that may be viewed negatively in the community in which they live or by their boss.
Imagine living in a small town the deep south and being called on for donating to Obama's Campaign.
Or living in a Jewish neighborhood and being called out for donating to a campaign to raise awareness on Palestine.

The reprisal doesn't eve have to be violent. If you own a business customers can leave.
If you work for someone you could be fired (they can find a legitimate reason if they try).
Imagine if you work for a fundamentalist and he finds out you donated 101 dollars to the no on prop 8 campaign.

100 dollars is clearly too low of a limit to protect privacy and allow participation in the political process.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that this isn't a non sequitur, isn't a patently offensive comparison, isn't obviously distinguishable on copious grounds including ability to consent, etc, etc....

What exactly would be the harm to you or anyone else if I was married to one of my cats?

Hmmm....

there is none

Cats are not humans.

Dogs are not humans.

Homosexuals are humans. So they have things like, you know, human rights.

Unlike, you know, how dogs and cats aren't. Because dogs and cats aren't human.

*sigh*

A few people would disagree with you. Like Jenny the Chimp.

Homosexuals also aren't chimpanzees any more than they are dogs or cats.

Homosexuals also aren't chimpanzees any more than they are dogs or cats.

But people are claiming that Chimps don't have a right to marry? That is based on the premise they aren't human. But every genetic comparison states they are basically are human. They share our sense of fairness. They share our ability for compassion and hate. They are capable of using tools. and yes, they can taught to read and write.

Such that technically, they could in theory, sign a marriage contract.

But people are claiming that Chimps don't have a right to marry?

When exactly did this become a discussion about chimpanzees, dogs and cats?

What exactly is your problem with homosexuals that you must resort to making disgusting, and ludicrously irrelevant comparisons?

Whether I think chimpanzees have "rights" is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Which, you know, isn't chimpanzees nor dogs nor cats.

That is based on the premise they aren't human. But every genetic comparison states they are basically are human.

No, they are not "basically" human. They are not human.

They share our sense of fairness.

Now how can you say that when even HUMANS don't "share" a "sense of fairness?" (Ref: every post you've made in this thread)

They share our ability for compassion and hate. They are capable of using tools. and yes, they can taught to read and write.

Such that technically, they could in theory, sign a marriage contract.

You're trying to say that if I support gay marriage rights, I must support the right of people to marry non-humans. Sorry, that shit doesn't fly.

And it's bigoted bullshit too, since you evidently believe homosexuals are comparable to non-humans.

When exactly did this become a discussion about chimpanzees, dogs and cats?

What exactly is your problem with homosexuals that you must resort to making disgusting, and ludicrously irrelevant comparisons?

Whether I think chimpanzees have "rights" is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Which, you know, isn't chimpanzees nor dogs nor cats.



No, they are not "basically" human. They are not human.



Now how can you say that when even HUMANS don't "share" a "sense of fairness?" (Ref: every post you've made in this thread)



You're trying to say that if I support gay marriage rights, I must support the right of people to marry non-humans. Sorry, that shit doesn't fly.

And it's bigoted bullshit too, since you evidently believe homosexuals are comparable to non-humans.

No no no. All humans are comparable to primates. But even dogs have a sense of fairness. Even gods have basic rights.

You could be straight but chimps still have the same rights as you do.

To say that Chimps are not human just defies logic and science.

It's also a form of bigotry. I suppose you think chimps and dogs are fit only for pets or medical experimentation. Or perhaps you think they are fit only for milking???
Suppose someone did that to a homo sapien? You would not be supporting it would you? Perhaps what we have here is speciesphobia.

Perhaps you simply don't like chimpanzees. Hmmm

You don't seem to think they should have right to decide where they live or who they live with.

No no no. All humans are comparable to primates. But even dogs have a sense of fairness. Even gods have basic rights.

Humans are primates, not all primates are humans.

Dogs (and gods) are NOT HUMAN.

You could be straight but chimps still have the same rights as you do.

lol whut? No they don't. They have animal rights, so far as those exist. It's not comparable to human rights or gay marriage AT ALL.

And what does my being straight have anything to do with this?

To say that Chimps are not human just defies logic and science.

Chimpanzees are NOT HUMAN.

Is there a simpler way I can put that so that you'll actually understand? Maybe a diagram?

It's also a form of bigotry. I suppose you think chimps and dogs are fit only for pets or medical experimentation. Or perhaps you think they are fit only for milking???
Suppose someone did that to a homo sapien? You would not be supporting it would you? Perhaps what we have here is speciesphobia.


Perhaps you're merely pretending to be idiotic.

Perhaps you simply don't like chimpanzees. Hmmm

Perhaps not.

You don't seem to think they should have right to decide where they live or who they live with.

Perhaps you are a cleverly written Javascript program designed to troll and annoy people online using any means possible.

To say that Chimps are not human just defies logic and science.
What?

Chimpanzees are not human, by definition. They are primates, as are we, but they're not human for the same reason that we're not chimps... we are separate species.

You seem to have seized on the genetic similarity between humans and some other animals (closing on 99% in the case of bonobos, according to some studies) as somehow supporting your position. I don't accept that it does but, for completeness, where do you suggest that the line be drawn?

It has been conjectured that we share a common ancestry, and will therefore share some degree of genetic similarity, with every other living thing on the planet. As you've pointed out, we are very closely related to chimpanzees, but you might also be want to consider that the similarity with dogs is 95% (with mice around the same level), and that 50% of our DNA matches that present in bananas (although the figure is only 35% for our more distant relatives, the daffodils). Hell, without even straying into the plant world, we have a 74% similarity with Caenorhabditis elegans (a small nematode worm used in some genetic studies).

The point? This whole genetic similarity angle that you're trying to play is a pointless argument. We -- heterosexual or homosexual, or any of the continuum of sexual preferences between the two -- are human, other species are not.

To say that Chimps are not human just defies logic and science.

That is the stupidest post I've seen so far on NSG. Chimpanzees aren't human, and you'd have to be an utter moron to think they are.

the similarity with dogs is 95% (with mice around the same level)

Really? Because gorillas are at 94, so that can't be right.

Really? Because gorillas are at 94, so that can't be right.
The last figure I saw for gorillas came from a study published in the American Journal of Human Genetics (ref: (2001) Feb;682:444-56), which listed them as being 98.38% similar to humans in a study of nonrepetitive intergenetic DNA.

The actual figures in all these studies vary depending on exactly what is being measured, of course, but I'm still happy to stand by the figures I posted ;)

Well, well. Why aren't they proud to stand up for what they believe in? I should think that people who prevented those dirty pervs from being able to have a legal marriage would be honored to have their morality recognized by the civilized world.

Surely they the love freedom.

When exactly did this become a discussion about chimpanzees, dogs and cats?
<snip>
When USoA decided to stop pretending he had a real argument to make and just started trolling the thread, thus insulting not only gays but every other poster on this topic as well. It's time to stop feeding him, I think.

When USoA decided to stop pretending he had a real argument to make and just started trolling the thread, thus insulting not only gays but every other poster on this topic as well. It's time to stop feeding him, I think.

To be fair, the group against him who managed to start the conversation about whoever's underwear derailed it rather nicely.

Also, an interesting question. If the wording from prop 8 is added to the constitution of California, doesn't it by definition become constitutional? Isn't it just by being passed constitutional? Kind of like how the federal constitution enforces age discrimination for President/Senators/HouseMembers? (last one is a maybe, can't remember it for sure)

There is a rather decent argument that the only reason chimps aren't in genus Homo is due to... godsdamnit I can't remember the word, thought it might be anthropic bias but google suggests otherwise. Genetically and morphologically they're well within generic variance. But it's all irrelevant anyways, it's got nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

I really need to stop going off on tangents.

To be fair, the group against him who managed to start the conversation about whoever's underwear derailed it rather nicely.

Also, an interesting question. If the wording from prop 8 is added to the constitution of California, doesn't it by definition become constitutional? Isn't it just by being passed constitutional? Kind of like how the federal constitution enforces age discrimination for President/Senators/HouseMembers? (last one is a maybe, can't remember it for sure)

Not if it was a revision. Then it wasn't actually passed, because it didn't meet the requirements to be on the ballot in the first place.

To be fair, the group against him who managed to start the conversation about whoever's underwear derailed it rather nicely.
That was just placeholder spam waiting for real conversation start again. We do that now and then. What he is doing is trolling in a way calculated kill future real conversation, cheapen the discussion, and get away with being insulting about gays in rather childish way.

Also, an interesting question. If the wording from prop 8 is added to the constitution of California, doesn't it by definition become constitutional? Isn't it just by being passed constitutional? Kind of like how the federal constitution enforces age discrimination for President/Senators/HouseMembers? (last one is a maybe, can't remember it for sure)
As I understand it, the California Constitution can be amended by referendum passed by a simple majority of voters on election day (which is insane, especially considering they demand a 2/3 majority to change the state budget). If the Prop 8 amendment is allowed by the state supreme court (it is currently under challenge), then it will stand for two years before it can be put on the ballot again to have the amendment repealed. That process can be repeated forever, by both the pro and con sides.

He won't learn if you do his work for him.

I think you're giving him too much credit.

Snuggling! *runs and gets fuzzy slippers and extra fluffy robe**

(*which I don't actually own, but I like the image)
That's a disgrace! Get out and get fluffy stuff NAO!!

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to create a family. You create a family by making babies.
No, under article 16 you create a family by marriage or having children. It could also be read as protecting people's right to simply live together.

Good grief, people, I go to dinner and this thread turns into a discussion of my underwear (which I do, for the record, wear)? You all are HOPELESS. :p
NOW you wear it, sure! But that's just for that one post -_-

I stand by what I say that animals have the same rights as people.
And you would be utterly and completely wrong.

Well, yes, I know that. I think I would have noticed if there'd been milking machines there when I stopped by your place. :p
You were too busy in the cellar to look in the attic?

I love how this thread meanders all over the place.

kinda like watching a driver with twice the legal alcohol level driving down an empty 5 lane highway... :p

as for my personal take on this..crime, any crime, regardless of the perpetrator or the victim, needs to be handled. Death threats, harassment, and all that are illegal, and should be dealt with as justice demands.

That being said however, your right to donate your money to whatever campaign you wish doesn't also grant you the right to be immunized from criticism of your choice. You don't like the fact that people are boycotting your business because you donated in a certain way? Tough shit, should have considered the rammifications of your actions.

Suppose you are business in California . I don't want either side picketing me. So, I have to give to both sides? No problem I sign the checks over.

You just went and put my name on your donors list so I am seen as supporting whichever side. I don't think I should have to give to either but my business depends on public perception. What should I do?

Marriages were often made to shore up political/national/royal alliances. Kids were a bonus, 'cause there was always someone else to inherit the throne if the couple didn't conceive.

I'm not sure that kids were just a bonus. Considering how many times Henry VIII remarried because his wives wouldn't give him a son (AKA an heir), I don't think that quite jives.

You have yet to name a single one of these supposed countries.

I know I've been ordered to let USofA do his own research, but in Kenya, if a woman is unable to give her husband a child, she is returned to her family and the husband's dowry is given back to him.

Suppose you are business in California . I don't want either side picketing me. So, I have to give to both sides? No problem I sign the checks over.

You just went and put my name on your donors list so I am seen as supporting whichever side. I don't think I should have to give to either but my business depends on public perception. What should I do?
Then you'd be getting picketed by both sides. What you want to do is just keep your wallet in your pocket and not make that donation. Your vote is secret. Use that to express your opinion if you don't want to hear any backchat for it.

I'm not sure that kids were just a bonus. Considering how many times Henry VIII remarried because his wives wouldn't give him a son (AKA an heir), I don't think that quite jives.
"Jibes." "Jive" means something else.

I know I've been ordered to let USofA do his own research, but in Kenya, if a woman is unable to give her husband a child, she is returned to her family and the husband's dowry is given back to him.
The reason you were ordered to let him do his own research is because he is the lazy kind who tries to either dodge having to present data or thinks he can support a sweepingly broad comment with just one isolated example without really showing how it sets a standard or is even really relevant.

Just like you are doing for him with your Kenya example.

The collective "you" asked for an example of a place where his broad comment took place. I provided it. Don't get mad at me. They're still his assertions.

"Jibes." "Jive" means something else.



*slap slap clap clap cross cross fist fist...*

That being said however, your right to donate your money to whatever campaign you wish doesn't also grant you the right to be immunized from criticism of your choice. You don't like the fact that people are boycotting your business because you donated in a certain way? Tough shit, should have considered the rammifications of your actions.

reasonable participation in the political process should not have ramifications.
100 dollars being the point at which your name becomes public is a bit much.
Imagine if the situation were reversed, people who live in small conservative towns that donated money to no on prop 8. violence aside, there can be loss of jobs, loss of customers, and general alienation from ones community.
More over the investigation at hand is the likely multimillion dollar fraud of the Mormon church, the schmuck who donated $250.00 has nothing to do with that. Fear should not be used to keep people from donating to political parties and causes.

reasonable participation in the political process should not have ramifications.
100 dollars being the point at which your name becomes public is a bit much.
Imagine if the situation were reversed, people who live in small conservative towns that donated money to no on prop 8. violence aside, there can be loss of jobs, loss of customers, and general alienation from ones community.
More over the investigation at hand is the likely multimillion dollar fraud of the Mormon church, the schmuck who donated $250.00 has nothing to do with that. Fear should not be used to keep people from donating to political parties and causes.

The schmuck deserves what he gets as well as there are many schmucks who have harassed businesses for being pro-gay(ie Disney).

The fact it's coming back on him; it's only fair.....

The schmuck deserves what he gets as well as there are many schmucks who have harassed businesses for being pro-gay(ie Disney).

The fact it's coming back on him; it's only fair.....

Disney would have likely donated more then 5,000 dollars if that were the case, And to my knowledge all that happened was a bunch of rednecks who were too poor to go to Disney land boycotted them.
The purpose of campaign finance laws should not be to target individuals for making donations to things you do not approve of, it is to search for fraud. 100 dollars is clearly too low of an amount to protect privacy, the fraud is occurring at larger amounts.

I don't know, it's the 'anonymous' part that really sticks in my craw. I don't like sneakiness or disingenuity, or people who don't have the stones to tell you what they think to your face. That to me is worse than someone who tells you straight out what they think and then slaps it on a ballot for public approval.

Even if then they cant take the critism they recieve and so try and make their donations anonymous?

Tell you what though, you really feel a need to 'scorn' someone, you should save it for the voters. It's not like the people of CA didn't know exactly what they were getting. The people who put the law on the ballot made no secret of what it was that they wanted and it got passed.

I have just as much scorn for the yes voters as I do for the funders.

Red Herring. The KKK laws were only meant to protect people from being threatened or lynched on the basis of their skin color. Not because of their gender. Further, saying gay people can't marry, is the same as saying men can't bear children. It's a biological impossible under the current definition of marriage which has been around since marriage was invented back hundreds of thousands of years ago.
We couldn't fly in airplanes before they were invented, but now we can. So, your point?

We couldn't fly in airplanes before they were invented, but now we can. So, your point?

Oh, he only invokes the past when it "supports" him. So Matthew Shepard? No good. Marriage that existed before civilization or any recorded writing, say "tens of thousands" of years ago? Spot on.

He really lives in his own tiny, little world.

Oh, he only invokes the past when it "supports" him. So Matthew Shepard? No good. Marriage that existed before civilization or any recorded writing, say "tens of thousands" of years ago? Spot on.

He really lives in his own tiny, little world.

I stopped taking him seriously when he insisted, after being proven wrong, that animals still had the same rights as people.

Mur is right, hes just trolling, and is using off topic ramblings as an excuse to insult gays.

I would like to know what it is that gays think they are being protected from? Gay marriage is not going to protect them from people hating on them. It's not going to stop lynchings or harrassment. Equal protection means the law must protect the lives of everyone equally. It does not mean that just because Homeboy has a white house that everyone else has to have a white house also.

Just because Tom works at Taco Bell, it does not mean that everyone has right to that same job at Taco Bell.
No, but it will afford them the same LEGAL BENEFITS as other married couples, like having their partner able to advocate for their medical care when they are unable -- not having the property accumulated during their relationship handed over to relatives and leaving their life partner with nothing, being able to provide the same family medical benefits to their spouse....

And yes, it DOES mean that Abdul and Tom and Mary and Nyota have the exact same right to the exact same job with the exact same benefits if they have the exact same qualifications at Taco Bell.

But of course they can. They have just as much rights as you and me.
If we can marry, then so can they.
No, they can't. They don't have human rights because they're not human. Duh.
Are you saying that Leona Helmsly had no right to marry her dog? The only person on the planet she cared for? The only person she wanted to, and did, leave all her belongings to? Are you saying she does not have the right to do that?
A dog isn't a person, no matter how much Ms. Helmsly might want it to be.
PETA would probably disagree with you. Animals have just as much rights as people. After all, people are animals too. I forget which country, but one west european country ruled that apes do have the same rights as humans. \
People are animals, but animals aren't people.

Also, I defy you to name this country.
no, really? Because I was totally going to give him the address of a farm I know where the milk people, and where that totally happens.
I would not be at all surprised if such a place actually existed.
Chimps share 99% of the DNA of humans. That alone should be enough for them to be considered persons.
That 1% makes a big difference. A huge one.
Well, yes, I know that. I think I would have noticed if there'd been milking machines there when I stopped by your place. :p
Lawyers are very good at hiding things.
*ignores the rest of the thread*

Agreed on points 1 and 3 and on point 2 isn't threatening and harassing people against the law? Couldn't they just call the police?
No silly. They need new laws specifically to protect them. Duh.
A few people would disagree with you. Like Jenny the Chimp.
Jenny the Chimp isn't a person.
But people are claiming that Chimps don't have a right to marry? That is based on the premise they aren't human. But every genetic comparison states they are basically are human.
Your ignorance is astounding. In no way are chimpanzees human. No genetic comparison has ever found this, ever, and none ever will.
They share our sense of fairness. They share our ability for compassion and hate. They are capable of using tools. and yes, they can taught to read and write.
And at their peak of intelligence they're no smarter than a small child.

Such that technically, they could in theory, sign a marriage contract.
They could draw something that one might consider their name in the general right place. But they'd have no understanding of what signing a contract really means, no more than a child would.
No no no. All humans are comparable to primates. But even dogs have a sense of fairness. Even gods have basic rights.
Comparable, yes. But not the same.

You could be straight but chimps still have the same rights as you do.

To say that Chimps are not human just defies logic and science.
You demonstrate a staggering ignorance of both science and logic.

It's also a form of bigotry. I suppose you think chimps and dogs are fit only for pets or medical experimentation. Or perhaps you think they are fit only for milking???
Oh yes, do try to put words in our mouth. That makes you look so much more reasonable.
Suppose someone did that to a homo sapien? You would not be supporting it would you? Perhaps what we have here is speciesphobia.
Cute, a new word.

Perhaps you simply don't like chimpanzees. Hmmm

You don't seem to think they should have right to decide where they live or who they live with.
They're not mentally capable of that kind of decision, not on the same level humans are.
Suppose you are business in California . I don't want either side picketing me. So, I have to give to both sides? No problem I sign the checks over.
Or sign neither cheque.

That's not the purpose of the law. The purpose is to discourage fraud. In this case we are trying to find the alleged fraud committed by the Mormon church. donations less then 5,000 dollars from individuals should not be an issue.

Why not? The Federal limit in for individual contributions is...

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

...depending on the situation, $2k to $28k.

It certainly SHOULD be an issue, and I'm glad it is.

Like it or not, donating money is now part of the political process.

Irrelevant, but true. Nobody has said it wasn't.


If you apply such measures in a draconian fashion people will cease to make donations to campaigns that may be viewed negatively in the community in which they live or by their boss.

And if they get harassed or fired, guess what? They can sue. That's illegal.

Imagine living in a small town the deep south and being called on for donating to Obama's Campaign.

I don't have to imagine it. I was a vocal Obama supporter and donator in North Dakota. Not the deep south, sure, but not terribly friendly to outsiders, either. Especially outsiders of color.

Or living in a Jewish neighborhood and being called out for donating to a campaign to raise awareness on Palestine.

Again, I fail to see the problem. If you contribute and someone gets that list and somehow targets you, that's against the law.

The reprisal doesn't eve have to be violent. If you own a business customers can leave.

That's capitalism. People vote with their wallets, too. In fact, I think that's called a boycott. At last check, that's NOT illegal. It's a consideration you must take into account when you're a business owner. When you have a public persona, you have to think about the things you say or do in public. That's not censorship or political pressure, it's life.

If you work for someone you could be fired (they can find a legitimate reason if they try).

And if you can prove that your termination was linked to your contribution, you have grounds for a lawsuit.

Imagine if you work for a fundamentalist and he finds out you donated 101 dollars to the no on prop 8 campaign.

You don't seem to grasp that when you posit something like that, you have to finish with your imagined consequence. Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind. In other words, so what? If the fundamentalist fires you without cause, you can sue. Why is it that you demand protection when it already exists?

100 dollars is clearly too low of a limit to protect privacy and allow participation in the political process.

I disagree. Campaign donators above that limit have no expectation of privacy beyond the effort it takes to look up a public record. It's called the "Public Disclosure Commission" for a reason.

What? *snip*

Excellent refutation, and sadly, a complete waste of your time and effort. USofA doesn't care about reality.

I'm not sure that kids were just a bonus. Considering how many times Henry VIII remarried because his wives wouldn't give him a son (AKA an heir), I don't think that quite jives.

So from one example, you derive your point? Henry VIII had to create the C of E to do it, too. Seems to me that not bearing male children was more Henry's problem than anyone else's. Apparently, that stuck in his craw to the point where he saw execution as a plausible means of redress.

I know I've been ordered to let USofA do his own research, but in Kenya, if a woman is unable to give her husband a child, she is returned to her family and the husband's dowry is given back to him.

You're free to post as you like, within the forum rules. It doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that you, like USofA, seem to think that one nation equals "a list". The man has been blathering on about "a list".

*slap slap clap clap cross cross fist fist...*

Wow!

It's like you were...born...to do that!

reasonable participation in the political process should not have ramifications.

And it doesn't.

100 dollars being the point at which your name becomes public is a bit much.

Really? So it should be lower? $50? $25? Interesting reversal of position there.

Imagine if the situation were reversed, people who live in small conservative towns that donated money to no on prop 8. violence aside, there can be loss of jobs, loss of customers, and general alienation from ones community.

You keep making this point like the choices of consumers are somehow illegal or punishment for one's political views. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't usually go for boycotts unless something pretty vile has come about. Campaign contributions don't strike me as vile, unless they're just plain belligerently ignorant, like the pro-8 side's ads and the like.

What you are proposing would take away peoples' right to choose a business they would rather support, or choose to NOT support a business whose practices or politics they don't agree with. Seems to me that more people would be denied the ability to express themselves when consumers are kept in the dark, than if contributors have to deal with sunshine.

More over the investigation at hand is the likely multimillion dollar fraud of the Mormon church, the schmuck who donated $250.00 has nothing to do with that. Fear should not be used to keep people from donating to political parties and causes.

No, it shouldn't. And it isn't. Why? Because every grievance you have invented here has a proper redress.

Are you saying that Leona Helmsly had no right to marry her dog? The only person on the planet she cared for? The only person she wanted to, and did, leave all her belongings to? Are you saying she does not have the right to do that?
Are you saying you haven't stopped beating your wife?

I love this whole % argument with genetics. It's almost like USofA doesn't understand exactly how many genes are at work here, and how long it took to sequence the human genome, and what "percent" means. 1% difference isn't much difference if there's 100 (1 gene), or even 1000 (10 genes). However, 20,000-25,000? 1% of that number is 200 to 250 genes. Rather a lot, really.

Are you saying you haven't stopped beating your wife?

Nope. She likes it!

*runs*

Lawyers are very good at hiding things.

They know that the trick is to smoke the evidence and snort the ashes ;)

They know that the trick is to smoke the evidence and snort the ashes ;)

And spend years in law school perfecting this art.

We donated a thousand dollars to Prop 8. Our house hasn't been set on fire yet. It's a miracle. Hurrah.

We donated a thousand dollars to Prop 8. Our house hasn't been set on fire yet. It's a miracle. Hurrah.

Clearly it's just a matter of time before the oh, so violent gays attack you.

Clearly it's just a matter of time before the oh, so violent gays attack you.

As a born-again Christian, I would remind you of the Stonewall Riots.

Over 1,000 angry, violent gays stormed out of a bar and killed nearly 3,000,000 police officers, and their horses.

They then proceeded to pillage the entire Island of Manhattan, engaging in anal-oriented sexing punctuated with extremely violent, West Side Story-style dance numbers.

To this day, Greenwich Village is not habitable by humans. It remains a blackened and charred husk, like Nagasaki but with 6% fewer Zen rock gardens.

Clearly it's just a matter of time before the oh, so violent gays attack you.

At least Proposition 8 will Protect California Children. Although the gay zombie apocalypse may take our lives, they'll never take our kids!

As a born-again Christian, I would remind you of the Stonewall Riots.

Over 1,000 angry, violent gays stormed out of a bar and killed nearly 3,000,000 police officers, and their horses.

They then proceeded to pillage the entire Island of Manhattan, engaging in anal-oriented sexing punctuated with extremely violent, West Side Story-style dance numbers.

To this day, Greenwich Village is not habitable by humans. It remains a blackened and charred husk, like Nagasaki but with 6% fewer Zen rock gardens.

We can only hope that some small parts of California will be spared tthe imminent devasation. Or that the whole thing sinks into the ocean and spares the rest of the USA.

When Gays Attack
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/11/gay-mob-assaults-peaceful-chri.html

When Gays Attack
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/11/gay-mob-assaults-peaceful-chri.html

Dude, the description, its hilarious...

"they tried to stick things in my butt"

"they were spitting on us, maybe peeing, too"

Why not? The Federal limit in for individual contributions is...

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml

...depending on the situation, $2k to $28k.

as I read it in this situation the limit is 5k. So a donor of 4k has not committed fraud.

That's capitalism. People vote with their wallets, too. In fact, I think that's called a boycott. At last check, that's NOT illegal. It's a consideration you must take into account when you're a business owner. When you have a public persona, you have to think about the things you say or do in public. That's not censorship or political pressure, it's life.


For a business making a donation as a business that is fine. For an individual making a donation It is not.


And if you can prove that your termination was linked to your contribution, you have grounds for a lawsuit.



You don't seem to grasp that when you posit something like that, you have to finish with your imagined consequence. Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind. In other words, so what? If the fundamentalist fires you without cause, you can sue. Why is it that you demand protection when it already exists?

The same argument is made against affirmative action. that if a person of color is fired they can sue. However any employer with common sense will simply have legitimate sounding reason when firing someone. The current protection you keep claiming simply ineffective.



I disagree. Campaign donators above that limit have no expectation of privacy beyond the effort it takes to look up a public record. It's called the "Public Disclosure Commission" for a reason.
there are ways to protect privacy while allowing people to look at donor records. assign a donor number to be used in place of a name only allow the name to be looked up if that number is tied to fraud.



Really? So it should be lower? $50? $25? Interesting reversal of position there.
A bit much in enforcement/over zealousness terms please read the entire context of a post, it helps with reading comprehension.

You keep making this point like the choices of consumers are somehow illegal or punishment for one's political views. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't usually go for boycotts unless something pretty vile has come about. Campaign contributions don't strike me as vile, unless they're just plain belligerently ignorant, like the pro-8 side's ads and the like.

What you are proposing would take away peoples' right to choose a business they would rather support, or choose to NOT support a business whose practices or politics they don't agree with. Seems to me that more people would be denied the ability to express themselves when consumers are kept in the dark, than if contributors have to deal with sunshine.

There is a difference between a corporation and a business donation. A corporation is likely donating to something popular to begin with. Individuals are donating for or against what ever they feel is right or wrong. Any cent a corporation donates should be public record, however what an individual donates needs to be protected except in extreme circumstances.



No, it shouldn't. And it isn't. Why? Because every grievance you have invented here has a proper redress.
they do not have proper redress.
The fact of life is people of color have harder time finding and keeping jobs in the US. How many people are officially fired for being black? my guess is not many. Any employer or manager who wants to get rid of someone for an illegitimate reason will fire them for being late, or for mouthing off to the owner during a closed door performance review. they same will happen with politics if you allow such ramifications.
There are reason we have programs like affirmative action because most people with ill motives have enough sense to cover their ass.

"The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them."

Why were they so worried about the girls? These dudes are gay!

"The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them."

Why were they so worried about the girls? These dudes are gay!

Yeah, but these were evidently the hyper-violent, Cock-work Orange, kind of gays.

You know, the kind that would steal a Bible from Christians.

As a born-again Christian, I would remind you of the Stonewall Riots.

Over 1,000 angry, violent gays stormed out of a bar and killed nearly 3,000,000 police officers, and their horses.

They then proceeded to pillage the entire Island of Manhattan, engaging in anal-oriented sexing punctuated with extremely violent, West Side Story-style dance numbers.

To this day, Greenwich Village is not habitable by humans. It remains a blackened and charred husk, like Nagasaki but with 6% fewer Zen rock gardens.
........wait, wut?

........wait, wut?

I'm serious, Kat, you should research it.

Gays are the most violent people since the Mongolians attacked Europe. I'm going to make a thread on it.

I'm serious, Kat, you should research it.

Gays are the most violent people since the Mongolians attacked Europe. I'm going to make a thread on it.
No, I mean I've been in the Village and it seemed mighty habitable to me...

Look at the evidence of mutation that comes from living in the Village!

http://gothamist.com/attachments/jen/2006_06_gaypride2.jpg
http://ashvegas.squarespace.com/storage/stonewall.gif
http://www.voccoquan.com/images2006/village%20people.jpg

No, I mean I've been in the Village and it seemed mighty habitable to me...

You're fooling yourself, Kat. Those are just ghosts, the sad howling wraiths of the people who lived there that were murderd by the gay mob.

Now, they just walk the earth, buying vintage clothing and scones, and paying $4,000 a month for 600 square feet...

No, I mean I've been in the Village and it seemed mighty habitable to me...
Yeah, but you're not human. Just look at your avatar. :p

You're fooling yourself, Kat. Those are just ghosts, the sad howling wraiths of the people who lived there that were murderd by the gay mob.

Now, they just walk the earth, buying vintage clothing and scones, and paying $4,000 a month for 600 square feet...
It's true. So sad. I hear the Ghosthunters are going to do an episode there.

You're fooling yourself, Kat. Those are just ghosts, the sad howling wraiths of the people who lived there that were murderd by the gay mob.

Now, they just walk the earth, buying vintage clothing and scones, and paying $4,000 a month for 600 square feet...
...that sounds about right... ;)

reasonable participation in the political process should not have ramifications.
100 dollars being the point at which your name becomes public is a bit much.
Imagine if the situation were reversed, people who live in small conservative towns that donated money to no on prop 8. violence aside, there can be loss of jobs, loss of customers, and general alienation from ones community.
More over the investigation at hand is the likely multimillion dollar fraud of the Mormon church, the schmuck who donated $250.00 has nothing to do with that. Fear should not be used to keep people from donating to political parties and causes.

I appreciate your attempt to debate the actual issue of this thread, but I don't think you have adequately explained why a law that has been around in California since at least 1974 suddenly needs to be changed for Prop. 8 supporters.

Also, what about the fact that, until recently, Prop. 8 websites themselves published lists of donors to show the support they had?

they do not have proper redress.
The fact of life is people of color have harder time finding and keeping jobs in the US. How many people are officially fired for being black? my guess is not many. Any employer or manager who wants to get rid of someone for an illegitimate reason will fire them for being late, or for mouthing off to the owner during a closed door performance review. they same will happen with politics if you allow such ramifications.
There are reason we have programs like affirmative action because most people with ill motives have enough sense to cover their ass.

I didn't figure you as a supporter of affirmative action, but I am glad to see that you are. Slight difference, however: we have a long history (and copious current evidence) of active discrimination against minorities and women that simply doesn't exist for political donors. The situations are not similar.

That 1% makes a big difference. A huge one.
The 0.1% or whatever that separates Whites from Blacks also makes a difference.

Where's the cutoff point?

I appreciate your attempt to debate the actual issue of this thread, but I don't think you have adequately explained why a law that has been around in California since at least 1974 suddenly needs to be changed for Prop. 8 supporters.
I don't mind them trying to change the law.

just hate it when they only want it changed for themselves. if they make an exception then it should be a blanket exception.

Even if then they cant take the critism they recieve and so try and make their donations anonymous?

I did say earlier that I thought it was lame that they were trying to obtain anonymity now(and kind of pointless too, since that info is probably floating around on the Internet somewhere). They at least started out publicly, unlike the anonymous threateners.

The 0.1% or whatever that separates Whites from Blacks also makes a difference.

Where's the cutoff point?

Please go take a biology class. In the words of Hot Hot Heat: You're embarrassing me, you're embarrassing you.

as I read it in this situation the limit is 5k. So a donor of 4k has not committed fraud.

When did fraud even come into this? Is it the Mormon thing? That's not about fraud, that's about a church violating the provisions that allow them to go untaxed.

For a business making a donation as a business that is fine. For an individual making a donation It is not.

Why?

The same argument is made against affirmative action. that if a person of color is fired they can sue. However any employer with common sense will simply have legitimate sounding reason when firing someone. The current protection you keep claiming simply ineffective.

You keep saying this, but you've not proven it. Show me an example of someone getting fired because they donated to an unpopular cause and then failed to win a suit alleging that the reason for termination was the donation. You're asserting this, you must back it up. I'm not going to swallow "it just happens, okay?!?" as an excuse.

A bit much in enforcement/over zealousness terms please read the entire context of a post, it helps with reading comprehension.

And civility helps you get taken seriously. If you couldn't be bothered to realize that the sentence you constructed was a self-contradiction, that's not the reader's fault, it's yours.

There is a difference between a corporation and a business donation. A corporation is likely donating to something popular to begin with. Individuals are donating for or against what ever they feel is right or wrong. Any cent a corporation donates should be public record, however what an individual donates needs to be protected except in extreme circumstances.

No it doesn't. There. I've argued with just as much rationale as you have.

they do not have proper redress.
The fact of life is people of color have harder time finding and keeping jobs in the US. How many people are officially fired for being black? my guess is not many. Any employer or manager who wants to get rid of someone for an illegitimate reason will fire them for being late, or for mouthing off to the owner during a closed door performance review. they same will happen with politics if you allow such ramifications.
There are reason we have programs like affirmative action because most people with ill motives have enough sense to cover their ass.

You are quite the fabulist. While I have no doubt that an unscrupulous manager could fire someone for any reason he can make stick, I don't think it happens nearly as much as you seem to think it does. You can't be fired for being late if you're never late. There's one problem solved.

I think you really want what you're saying to be enough to defend your position, but it just isn't. I think you're hiding a reason for your support of donor anonymity.

Also, I agree with TCT. The law's been around for 35 years. Suddenly now they want it changed? And only for them? Beyond fishy.

It's about more than genetic similarities. Chimps can learn human sign language. They are self aware, have desires and wants. They are capable of empathy. They are also capable of culture and tool use.
If Chimps are reclassed into the Homo branch, there should be no reason why they can't marry.

It's about more than genetic similarities. Chimps can learn human sign language. They are self aware, have desires and wants. They are capable of empathy. They are also capable of culture and tool use.
If Chimps are reclassed into the Homo branch, there should be no reason why they can't marry.Lolwut? o_0;

It's about more than genetic similarities. Chimps can learn human sign language. They are self aware, have desires and wants. They are capable of empathy. They are also capable of culture and tool use.
If Chimps are reclassed into the Homo branch, there should be no reason why they can't marry.

So just to reiterate, you are in favor of allowing chimpanzees the right to marry... but not humans if they are homosexual because that would change the definition of marriage?

While I have no doubt that an unscrupulous manager could fire someone for any reason he can make stick, I don't think it happens nearly as much as you seem to think it does.
If a manager wants to fire someone for being gay, he doesn't have to make up a reason, he can just say you're fired for being gay (http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Man_fired_for_being_gay_dared_by_former_boss_to_sue..._so_he_d_0109.html) (read the comments too).

It's about more than genetic similarities. Chimps can learn human sign language. They are self aware, have desires and wants. They are capable of empathy. They are also capable of culture and tool use.
If Chimps are reclassed into the Homo branch, there should be no reason why they can't marry.

*sigh* is that what the other thread is about?

Where you fail is the fact marriage involves consent and it's a legal contract.

Since chimps don't truly pair bond, there is no basis for a 1:1 marriage. How would you tell consent is given?

A chimp doesn't understand law but I will defer to the lawyer types to give an opinion on whether or not such a marriage would even be possible.

Don't bother replying to this as it takes away from the prop 8 discussion.

If a manager wants to fire someone for being gay, he doesn't have to make up a reason, he can just say you're fired for being gay (http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Man_fired_for_being_gay_dared_by_former_boss_to_sue..._so_he_d_0109.html) (read the comments too).

Having had my share of seriously abusive jobs, I'm not all that surprised at the insane shit that some employers think they can get away with. This hotel owner is clearly incompetent and dishonest, and possibly gone a little nuts on his ego-tripping. I sincerely hope the employees he has fired sue the living crap out of him. It will probably take a while (I suspect he's the type who is used to using bankruptcy as a way of getting out of financial trouble he's gotten himself into), but it will be worth it.

What I find more depressing about that story is that there is no EOE protection for sexual orientation in that state. Geez, way to treat people like shit, eh? Equal Opportunity Employment -- except for YOU, fag. :rolleyes:

Having had my share of seriously abusive jobs, I'm not all that surprised at the insane shit that some employers think they can get away with. This hotel owner is clearly incompetent and dishonest, and possibly gone a little nuts on his ego-tripping. I sincerely hope the employees he has fired sue the living crap out of him. It will probably take a while (I suspect he's the type who is used to using bankruptcy as a way of getting out of financial trouble he's gotten himself into), but it will be worth it.

What I find more depressing about that story is that there is no EOE protection for sexual orientation in that state. Geez, way to treat people like shit, eh? Equal Opportunity Employment -- except for YOU, fag. :rolleyes:



It is Tennessee.

I did like in Tmut's aritcle the bit about how the hotel manager "comes form a culture that does not tolerate homosexuals". Theyre just gearing up to try and play the "Youre a bigot for not letting me be a bigot!" card.

Lolwut? o_0;

He started a thread to justify this slippery slope analogy.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=579200

I sincerely hope the employees he has fired sue the living crap out of him.
They'd lose, and it would cost them a lot of money and time for nothing.
What I find more depressing about that story is that there is no EOE protection for sexual orientation in that state. Geez, way to treat people like shit, eh? Equal Opportunity Employment -- except for YOU, fag. :rolleyes:That's how it is in the majority of states. Most people are under the mistaken impression that nondiscrimination laws protect us, but the GDC's have blocked that for years.

It is Tennessee.

I did like in Tmut's aritcle the bit about how the hotel manager "comes form a culture that does not tolerate homosexuals". Theyre just gearing up to try and play the "Youre a bigot for not letting me be a bigot!" card.

http://bligbi.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/anti-christian-bigotry.gif

They'd lose, and it would cost them a lot of money and time for nothing.

I don't think they would necessarily lose their case. In the article, the second person who got fired, and who was the manager required to tell the first guy he was fired, stated that the company's employee manual specifically states that employees would be protected within the company by company policy from discriminatory treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. If their lawyers know that they are doing, they can make a complaint that the company violated its own written policies in order to single these employees out, and thus they were wrongfully dismissed. Such an argument does have a chance of winning, especially in light of the employer's public statements.

However, I think the harder part would be getting any settlement or award money from that asshole if they did win. Enforcing a decision against him would likely eat up tons of their time and tons of their money and never get anywhere.

The 0.1% or whatever that separates Whites from Blacks also makes a difference.

Where's the cutoff point?
This post is funny because there's a greater genetic difference within "whites" and "blacks" than between "whites" and "blacks". Or maybe it's just ill-informed and stupid.

If their lawyers know that they are doing, they can make a complaint that the company violated its own written policies in order to single these employees out, and thus they were wrongfully dismissed. Such an argument does have a chance of winning
A fat slim Chinaman's snowball chance in hell, particularly in Tennessee.