Why do gays..

[jimnyc]

Want "equal rights" and equality for all, but so many of them are all for infringing on the rights of others on a list of other topics?

[jimnyc]

Copying from another thread to remain on topic...


I'd hardly call having a gun shoved in your face equality for all. Any gun any time any place must end. What message does a posse of armed gun nuts give a group of high school students in Starbucks?



So you would infringe on the constitutional rights of another to own/carry a gun, but you demand equality for all when it comes to love and marriage? If you want to step on the rights of others, then WHY should anyone care about YOUR rights when you demand them?

[jimnyc]

C'mon WS, if you won't address the subject elsewhere and claim its off topic, address it here. Why is it ok for you to stomp on others rights while making demands of your own out the other side of your mouth?

[darin]

Copying from another thread to remain on topic...



So you would infringe on the constitutional rights of another to own/carry a gun, but you demand equality for all when it comes to love and marriage? If you want to step on the rights of others, then WHY should anyone care about YOUR rights when you demand them?

It's not quite true to claim some gays want 'equality' in marriage. They still support laws governing age, and polygamy, and inter-species marriage. They don't want everyone/thing to be equal, they want special justification for their chosen behavior.

[Noir]

I don't understand the premis of the OP...the point of equality is people are treated equal, if the gays wanted the constitution changed so only gays could carry guns, that would be promoting inequality.

However, if you still consider the point made in the OP to be a decent one then just change the terms...'How can a woman say that she should have the right to vote, if that woman also says that smoking cannabis should be illegal. She only wants her rights, and is happy for the state to crush the rights of others'

Feel free to put in your own 'social activism' issue and 'should be illegal/legal' issue to the above paragraph.

[cadet]

I think the main issue is they want marriage. Unfortunitaly, that's mostly a religious term (in pretty much every religion out there). If they want to, they can live together, share together, get on the same tax's and whatnot, but they want the word.

find a church, cathedral, etc. that will support it. it's against pretty much every religion, so i don't see a point in wanting it. you live together either way. One way just has a special magical ( :facepalm: )word in it.

Who cares what you call it? are you happy? go live together, but don't talk to me about it. Else i'll start talking about how awesome my girlfriend is.

[fj1200]

I think the main issue is they want marriage. Unfortunitaly, that's mostly a religious term (in pretty much every religion out there). If they want to, they can live together, share together, get on the same tax's and whatnot, but they want the word.

find a church, cathedral, etc. that will support it. it's against pretty much every religion, so i don't see a point in wanting it. you live together either way. One way just has a special magical ( :facepalm: )word in it.

Who cares what you call it? are you happy? go live together, but don't talk to me about it. Else i'll start talking about how awesome my girlfriend is.

It's more than a word in society today. The state has control over the definition, not a church.

[fj1200]

Want "equal rights" and equality for all, but so many of them are all for infringing on the rights of others on a list of other topics?

Two different issues Jim, one is being gay the other is being liberal except that both vest power in the state.

[tailfins]

Want "equal rights" and equality for all, but so many of them are all for infringing on the rights of others on a list of other topics?

Somebody explained the traditional New England mentality on the topic. Yes, it's a sin and yes, they are asking for God's judgement in this life and after. However being nosy and a talebearer is also a sin. So basically, it's none of our business up to the point they disrupt our lives. If one of their demonstrations is blocking traffic, I will be one of the first to blare my horn and scream get your @$$ out of my way. And I will be grateful to the cops when they arrest them.

It's not necessary to turn children against homosexuality. The gays do the job for me. My family went cruising Provincetown. If you don't know what it is, look it up. My youngest went into a convenience store to get a soda and a souvenir. He got the soda only. He told me all the souvenirs were "inappropriate". Both my sons said the visit was interesting, but next time we go to the Cape, we don't need to go any further than Hyannis.

[ConHog]

I think some of you are missing Jim's point. And I also think that even he would agree that it isn't just gays who who will fight tooth and nail for their own rights, but don't give a shit about the rights of others.

In fact, I would say that unless Jim now supports gay marriage, recognizing that even gays have rights, that he's as big a hypocrite as Sky is when she rails against the second amendment.

Is it just selfish human nature to only care about our own rights?

[jimnyc]

I think some of you are missing Jim's point.

Yep...

This thread was made in the honor of WS. She DEMANDS rights, and states that it is based on the COTUS. In the very next breath, she wants rights taken away from others, that are granted to them by the COTUS. Pure hypocrisy, and not the first gay person I have saw that wanted these Constitutional rights but wanted to trample on the document at the same time.

[jimnyc]

I don't understand the premis of the OP...the point of equality is people are treated equal, if the gays wanted the constitution changed so only gays could carry guns, that would be promoting inequality.

However, if you still consider the point made in the OP to be a decent one then just change the terms...'How can a woman say that she should have the right to vote, if that woman also says that smoking cannabis should be illegal. She only wants her rights, and is happy for the state to crush the rights of others'

Feel free to put in your own 'social activism' issue and 'should be illegal/legal' issue to the above paragraph.

We're talking about wanting rights and claiming they are afforded by the COTUS - and taking away rights that are very clearly afforded by the COTUS. Cannabis smoking is not in the document. In American, the Constitution is perhaps the single most important part of our government & freedoms. It's not something to toy with when you want something, and then in the next breath try and have rights taken away from others that were in this document for well over 200 years.

[tailfins]

I think some of you are missing Jim's point. And I also think that even he would agree that it isn't just gays who who will fight tooth and nail for their own rights, but don't give a shit about the rights of others.

In fact, I would say that unless Jim now supports gay marriage, recognizing that even gays have rights, that he's as big a hypocrite as Sky is when she rails against the second amendment.

Is it just selfish human nature to only care about our own rights?

I don't know about selfish, but it's just plain stupid. Either the law works or it doesn't. If occupiers can disrupt a CEOs life, they can disrupt yours. If George Zimmerman can be lynched, anyone can. If a woman can use abuse allegation to manipulate divorce proceedings, then children can as well. A crafty teenager could demand a "bidding war" between their parents. Most things have a next step.

[Noir]

We're talking about wanting rights and claiming they are afforded by the COTUS - and taking away rights that are very clearly afforded by the COTUS. Cannabis smoking is not in the document. In American, the Constitution is perhaps the single most important part of our government & freedoms. It's not something to toy with when you want something, and then in the next breath try and have rights taken away from others that were in this document for well over 200 years.

I agree it's not to be toyed with, it is however free to be debated at length and if it's decided so then changed. I'm sure there isn't a single user on this board who wouldn't want some right given, taken, or redefined in some way. Having those opinions isn't limited to gays, and nor is it a negative thing to have.

[jimnyc]

I agree it's not to be toyed with, it is however free to be debated at length and if it's decided so then changed. I'm sure there isn't a single user on this board who wouldn't want some right given, taken, or redefined in some way. Having those opinions isn't limited to gays, and nor is it a negative thing to have.

Absolutely, the ability to debate should always be an open door. But it's still hypocritical to use the document to try and protect yourself while the other side of your mouth is crying to have things removed from the document. The COTUS is about ALL of our rights, not to just any one given group.

[Noir]

Absolutely, the ability to debate should always be an open door. But it's still hypocritical to use the document to try and protect yourself while the other side of your mouth is crying to have things removed from the document. The COTUS is about ALL of our rights, not to just any one given group.

I think that (in a nutshell) that is the gay marriage activists argument, js.

Edit - And the origional COTUS certainty wasnt anything do to with "all of our rights"

[jimnyc]

I think that (in a nutshell) that is the gay marriage activists argument, js.

'Cept that #1 - The right to bear arms is explicitly in the document. #2 - the right for gays to marry is NOT. And while that may be their argument, speaking out the other half of your mouth to remove 200 years from the document IS hypocritical - to use the document for your own "protection" while advocating the removal of anothers rights.

[jimnyc]

Edit - And the origional COTUS certainty wasnt anything do to with "all of our rights"

They were for all of the rights of Americans. Who did they leave out?

[gabosaurus]

Want "equal rights" and equality for all, but so many of them are all for infringing on the rights of others on a list of other topics?

First of all, I don't see what you mean by "infringing." Asking someone not to point a gun at you, or smoke around you, is not "infringing." It is commonly known as a "request."

Also, it goes back to the question that I posed before: Why do conservatives oppose abortion but support the death penalty? If only God can take a life, then only God can determine guilt or innocent.

If you don't understand this, go back to your apples and oranges.

[jimnyc]

First of all, I don't see what you mean by "infringing." Asking someone not to point a gun at you, or smoke around you, is not "infringing." It is commonly known as a "request."

Also, it goes back to the question that I posed before: Why do conservatives oppose abortion but support the death penalty? If only God can take a life, then only God can determine guilt or innocent.

If you don't understand this, go back to your apples and oranges.

Infringing = advocating taking away another persons constitutional rights. Try keeping up, or shove the apples and oranges up your ass!

[gabosaurus]

Infringing = advocating taking away another persons constitutional rights. Try keeping up, or shove the apples and oranges up your ass!

Like the right to get married, perhaps?
I've seen your ass. It will hold a lot more apples and oranges than mine. ;)

[tailfins]

First of all, I don't see what you mean by "infringing." Asking someone not to point a gun at you, or smoke around you, is not "infringing." It is commonly known as a "request."

Also, it goes back to the question that I posed before: Why do conservatives oppose abortion but support the death penalty? If only God can take a life, then only God can determine guilt or innocent.

If you don't understand this, go back to your apples and oranges.

Unless you consider that the death penalty has a ZERO recidivism rate. One could argue that the death penalty saves lives. I don't have a strong opinion on the death penalty either way.

[jimnyc]

Like the right to get married, perhaps?
I've seen your ass. It will hold a lot more apples and oranges than mine. ;)

Show me that in the COTUS? You know, like the 2nd amendment - now give me the SAME for gay marriage... OH, YOU CAN'T!!

[Wind Song]

You started this whole thread on a misconception, (some might say "lie" but I won't). I do not propose eliminating the second amendment. Feel free to show me any post that says that.

[Noir]

They were for all of the rights of Americans. Who did they leave out?

Well, for example, woman didn't have the right to vote protected under the COTUS until 1920 (19th amendment). So unless you consider woman in the states pre-1920 to not be Americans...

[jimnyc]

Well, for example, woman didn't have the right to vote protected under the COTUS until 1920 (19th amendment). So unless you consider woman in the states pre-1920 to not be Americans...

Of course, and amendment was made, and that's why I think stuff like this subject needs to take the same route. Thus far the states have ruled 30-0 against gay marriage. But as of right now, it's NOT a protection afforded by the COTUS while the 2nd amendment clearly affords protections.

[Wind Song]

Well, for example, woman didn't have the right to vote protected under the COTUS until 1920 (19th amendment). So unless you consider woman in the states pre-1920 to not be Americans...


That's right.

[jimnyc]

That's right.

Has anything changed since the COTUS was made to include "gay marriage", like Noir is pointing out happened to Women voters? IF and when, and that's a HUGE if, they make an amendment stating that gay marriage is a right afforded by the COTUS, I would GLADLY defend that right. But it doesn't exist - but the 2nd amendment DOES.

[ConHog]

You started this whole thread on a misconception, (some might say "lie" but I won't). I do not propose eliminating the second amendment. Feel free to show me any post that says that.

Bullshit, if you had your way you'd outlaw guns altogether. You're just to chickenshit to say it.

[ConHog]

Has anything changed since the COTUS was made to include "gay marriage", like Noir is pointing out happened to Women voters? IF and when, and that's a HUGE if, they make an amendment stating that gay marriage is a right afforded by the COTUS, I would GLADLY defend that right. But it doesn't exist - but the 2nd amendment DOES.

MARRIAGE itself is not in the COTUS. Do you recognize that fact Jim?

[Noir]

Of course, and amendment was made, and that's why I think stuff like this subject needs to take the same route. Thus far the states have ruled 30-0 against gay marriage. But as of right now, it's NOT a protection afforded by the COTUS while the 2nd amendment clearly affords protections.

Yes. So my point stands, the COTUS certainly wasn't created with everyone in mind, and some would argue there is yet more to be done. As of the moment the majority disagree, maybe it'll change maybe it won't, but there's nothing wrong with having the debate, and there's nothing wrong with thinking/debating that things should be both added and removed from the COTUS.

[jimnyc]

MARRIAGE itself is not in the COTUS. Do you recognize that fact Jim?

I don't recognize it as a "right" protected by the COTUS, no. I consider it a religious right dictated by the religion in question.

[Noir]

I don't recognize it as a "right" protected by the COTUS, no. I consider it a religious right dictated by the religion in question.

The problem with leaving to to religions is that religions can be a lil crazy...so the state must be involved.

[jimnyc]

Yes. So my point stands, the COTUS certainly wasn't created with everyone in mind, and some would argue there is yet more to be done. As of the moment the majority disagree, maybe it'll change maybe it won't, but there's nothing wrong with having the debate, and there's nothing ark g with thinking/debating that things should be both added and removed from the COTUS.

The debate isn't what I think is wrong - it's people demanding things to be removed that have already been included via an amendment. And more so, because those demanding the removal of an amendment are demanding rights based on the same document.

But you're missing my point, which is one being a hypocrite when it comes to the COTUS, or you just don't feel as strongly about it as I do. It's our countries foundation. You can't use it for protection one minute and want portions of it voided in the next breath. Well, you can of course, but the underlying respect of the COTUS would then be hypocritical. You either respect the supreme law of the land or you don't.

[jimnyc]

The problem with leaving to to religions is that religions can be a lil crazy...so the state must be involved.

The states can afford civil unions and grant benefits - but they shouldn't have the right to marry people, which is a religious institution.

[Wind Song]

As long as states issue CIVIL LICENSES for marriage, marriage is a CIVIL not religous institution.

You have to get the license BEFORE you have the religious ceremony.

Marriage equality is a civil rights issue.

[ConHog]

I don't recognize it as a "right" protected by the COTUS, no. I consider it a religious right dictated by the religion in question.

Sweet, then you certainly agree that per the first amendment the government has no right to define what a religion may call marriage or not.

Jim, I've got you boxed in here. Surrender is the honorable choice. :coffee:

[ConHog]

Yes. So my point stands, the COTUS certainly wasn't created with everyone in mind, and some would argue there is yet more to be done. As of the moment the majority disagree, maybe it'll change maybe it won't, but there's nothing wrong with having the debate, and there's nothing wrong with thinking/debating that things should be both added and removed from the COTUS.

Hey good buddy, NOTHING is EVER removed from the COTUS. EVER.

[Nukeman]

As long as states issue CIVIL LICENSES for marriage, marriage is a CIVIL not religous institution.

You have to get the license BEFORE you have the religious ceremony.

Marriage equality is a civil rights issue.
NO YOU DON'T!! What the F have you been smoking, the ONLY thing the license does for you is REGISTER you with the govt to show you were married, You most definitleey DO NOT need it BEFORE the religous ceremony.. That is pure bull shit and once again a LIE on your part... Do you get tired of not telling the truth..

[Wind Song]

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man', fundamental to our very existence and survival. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." US Supreme Court. 1967

[Wind Song]

NO YOU DON'T!! What the F have you been smoking, the ONLY thing the license does for you is REGISTER you with the govt to show you were married, You most definitleey DO NOT need it BEFORE the religous ceremony.. That is pure bull shit and once again a LIE on your part... Do you get tired of not telling the truth..

I don't know what state you live in. I live in California. I had to obtain a license from the county courthouse before my Buddhist Lama could marry me and my wife.

You should factcheck before you go calling anyone a LIAR. In this instance, you LIED.

[Wind Song]

Today, more Americans support gay marriage than don't (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html), with the number backing it increasing by roughly 2% (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/03/news/la-pn-pew-same-sex-marriage-20111103) every year since the 1990s. Now, gay marriage is legal in seven states and the District of Columbia, covering more than 13% of the population (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-23/maryland-gay-marriage-legal/53226650/1). Maryland may soon follow, and if California's courts definitively overturn the 2008 referendum banning it (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html) , the right will be available to more than one in four Americans. Clearly, it's a right whose time has come (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/mar/07/gayrights.usa), albeit long overdue.
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/24-6

[Nukeman]

I don't know what state you live in. I live in California. I had to obtain a license from the county courthouse before my Buddhist Lama could marry me and my wife.

You should factcheck before you go calling anyone a LIAR. In this instance, you LIED.
IF you want your marriage recognized by the state is the ONLY reason you need a marriage license, other wise you can have any religous ceremony you want, its if you want it recognized legalyby the state.

[Wind Song]

IF you want your marriage recognized by the state is the ONLY reason you need a marriage license, other wise you can have any religous ceremony you want, its if you want it recognized legalyby the state.

I want a legal marriage recognized by the state like every other marriage. A license is required FIRST in California, before the religious ceremony.

[jimnyc]

Sweet, then you certainly agree that per the first amendment the government has no right to define what a religion may call marriage or not.

Jim, I've got you boxed in here. Surrender is the honorable choice. :coffee:

If Buddhism wants to call their couples "married", and the state doesn't demand it, then I don't give a shit what they call themselves. I'm simply stating that it is NOT a constitutional right, where the right to bear arms IS. Sorry you thought you had me boxed in and failed. :)

[jimnyc]

Hey good buddy, NOTHING is EVER removed from the COTUS. EVER.

Thank you, and that's what I was referring to. MAYBE someday there will be something in there about gays, but that DOESN'T mean that others have the right to have something REMOVED. THAT is what is hypocritical.

[jimnyc]

Today, more Americans support gay marriage than don't (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/slim-majority-back-gay-marriage-post-abc-poll-says/2011/03/17/ABhMc7o_story.html), with the number backing it increasing by roughly 2% (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/03/news/la-pn-pew-same-sex-marriage-20111103) every year since the 1990s. Now, gay marriage is legal in seven states and the District of Columbia, covering more than 13% of the population (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-23/maryland-gay-marriage-legal/53226650/1). Maryland may soon follow, and if California's courts definitively overturn the 2008 referendum banning it (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/gay-marriage-prop-8s-ban-ruled-unconstitutional.html) , the right will be available to more than one in four Americans. Clearly, it's a right whose time has come (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/mar/07/gayrights.usa), albeit long overdue.
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/24-6

And yet it's been up to a vote in 30 states, and 30 states have voted to outlaw it. 30-0!! That's not increasing.

[fj1200]

The problem with leaving to to religions is that religions can be a lil crazy.. so the state must be involved.

False conclusion. The state does not have to be involved beyond recognizing a contract.

[ConHog]

If Buddhism wants to call their couples "married", and the state doesn't demand it, then I don't give a shit what they call themselves. I'm simply stating that it is NOT a constitutional right, where the right to bear arms IS. Sorry you thought you had me boxed in and failed. :)

You're boxed in Jim because you are essentially saying that the government has the right to define marriage and say to certain religions "no your definition doesn't qualify"

I know what you want to say is "gays can call themselves married, but not have any of the government rights and privileges afforded by the government to those who are married" but that just isn't right. Now of course there HAS to be limits. We can't have people marrying children for example, and certainly the government has a vested interest in making sure that one guy doesn't have 8 wives with 4 kids each all trying to collect welfare as one family; but most gays are not wanting that. Not any more than most gun owners want to shoot up Starbucks.

Set the "yuck" factor aside and you don't have a single legitimate argument against gay marriage. not one Jim.

[fj1200]

And yet it's been up to a vote in 30 states, and 30 states have voted to outlaw it. 30-0!! That's not increasing.

1. It's only a matter of time, and
2. Some states will never vote because there won't be an uproar over the legislature's decision.

[Wind Song]

If Buddhism wants to call their couples "married", and the state doesn't demand it, then I don't give a shit what they call themselves. I'm simply stating that it is NOT a constitutional right, where the right to bear arms IS. Sorry you thought you had me boxed in and failed. :)


I want the marriage license and the over one thousand rights and priveleges that go with it. My religion has nothing to do with that.

The "yuck" factor? WTF is that?

[tailfins]

Set the "yuck" factor aside and you don't have a single legitimate argument against gay marriage. not one Jim.

He has several reasons to be against it. Not the least of which is each child having a parent of each gender. I know there are other instances where this doesn't happen, but why add to the problem?

[fj1200]

He has several reasons to be against it. Not the least of which is each child having a parent of each gender. I know there are other instances where this doesn't happen, but why add to the problem?

Do you think a gay couple won't go on with their lives to achieve what they desire just because they're lacking a marriage license? I assure you that they will not. If you want the state to offer the stability of marriage to the kids then it would be best not to get in their way.

[jimnyc]

You're boxed in Jim because you are essentially saying that the government has the right to define marriage and say to certain religions "no your definition doesn't qualify"

I know what you want to say is "gays can call themselves married, but not have any of the government rights and privileges afforded by the government to those who are married" but that just isn't right. Now of course there HAS to be limits. We can't have people marrying children for example, and certainly the government has a vested interest in making sure that one guy doesn't have 8 wives with 4 kids each all trying to collect welfare as one family; but most gays are not wanting that. Not any more than most gun owners want to shoot up Starbucks.

Set the "yuck" factor aside and you don't have a single legitimate argument against gay marriage. not one Jim.

Never said the bold. In fact, I just stated the opposite. I don't think the state should have a say in it at all. It's not their decision, or it shouldn't be anyway. And your last line is incorrect, many of us have given arguments against gay marriage - you just don't like our arguments, just like we don't like yours.

But AGAIN, back to the topic, gay marriage is not a constitutional right. And if it makes you all happy, neither is hetero marriage. But don't scream from the mountains about how you deserve constitutional protections while clamoring to have protections afforded to others removed.

[jimnyc]

1. It's only a matter of time, and
2. Some states will never vote because there won't be an uproar over the legislature's decision.

Maybe so, but I'm not upset with the 30-0 scorecard as of now. Should it go another way, and even someday become a COTUS amendment, so be it, I'll respect it. But I'm simply pointing out AS OF NOW, there are no COTUS protection for gays or marriage.

[jimnyc]

I want the marriage license and the over one thousand rights and priveleges that go with it. My religion has nothing to do with that.

The "yuck" factor? WTF is that?

Nor does the COTUS.

[ConHog]

Never said the bold. In fact, I just stated the opposite. I don't think the state should have a say in it at all. It's not their decision, or it shouldn't be anyway. And your last line is incorrect, many of us have given arguments against gay marriage - you just don't like our arguments, just like we don't like yours.

But AGAIN, back to the topic, gay marriage is not a constitutional right. And if it makes you all happy, neither is hetero marriage. But don't scream from the mountains about how you deserve constitutional protections while clamoring to have protections afforded to others removed.

Jim, do you see how you are being very confusing in your stance here. On the one hand you seem to be saying what FJ and I, and others, have been saying for months, that the government should have NO say in what defines a marriage, but then on the other hand you seem to be saying that gay marriage should somehow be less of a marriage.

I'm confused about your stance. You say the state shouldn't be able to define marriage then you seem to suggest that the state can keep gay marriages from having the same rights and privileges. My point is the state just needs to shut up about marriage except to say that they will accept ANY valid marriage when it comes to issuing rights and privileges. Any valid marriage meaning of course any marriage between two consenting adults. Yes we could argue about polygamy in the case of Mormons, but I think we can make a valid case that the state has a legitimate reason for limiting marriage to TWO people, the same can NOT be said for limiting it to heterosexuals.

Please clarify your position because I think we agree

[fj1200]

Maybe so, but I'm not upset with the 30-0 scorecard as of now. Should it go another way, and even someday become a COTUS amendment, so be it, I'll respect it. But I'm simply pointing out AS OF NOW, there are no COTUS protection for gays or marriage.

And there never should be just as we shouldn't read into it that there are protections for "straight" marriage.

[ConHog]

I want the marriage license and the over one thousand rights and priveleges that go with it. My religion has nothing to do with that.

The "yuck" factor? WTF is that?

Once again, YOU are wrong. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, not a government ceremony. If it were governmental then of course the government could set boundaries, no gays, no inter racial marriages, etc etc.

Even when you're right you're wrong. Sheesh.

[Wind Song]

Once again, YOU are wrong. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, not a government ceremony. If it were governmental then of course the government could set boundaries, no gays, no inter racial marriages, etc etc.

Even when you're right you're wrong. Sheesh.

If marriage is a religious ceremony, tell me how it is that atheists can marry.

[jimnyc]

And there never should be just as we shouldn't read into it that there are protections for "straight" marriage.

Agreed, my protections and rights come from my church from where we were married within. There are state protections that come as a result, but certainly none in the COTUS.

[jimnyc]

Jim, do you see how you are being very confusing in your stance here. On the one hand you seem to be saying what FJ and I, and others, have been saying for months, that the government should have NO say in what defines a marriage, but then on the other hand you seem to be saying that gay marriage should somehow be less of a marriage.

I'm confused about your stance. You say the state shouldn't be able to define marriage then you seem to suggest that the state can keep gay marriages from having the same rights and privileges. My point is the state just needs to shut up about marriage except to say that they will accept ANY valid marriage when it comes to issuing rights and privileges. Any valid marriage meaning of course any marriage between two consenting adults. Yes we could argue about polygamy in the case of Mormons, but I think we can make a valid case that the state has a legitimate reason for limiting marriage to TWO people, the same can NOT be said for limiting it to heterosexuals.

Please clarify your position because I think we agree

I don't think the government should be involved AND I do think it's less of a marriage. Why can't I be of the belief of both?

[Wind Song]

Agreed, my protections and rights come from my church from where we were married within. There are state protections that come as a result, but certainly none in the COTUS.


Your marriage rights and priveleges come from the government, not your church.

[jimnyc]

Your marriage rights and priveleges come from the government, not your church.

Let me fill you in on something - we didn't have a marriage license when we got married. Therefore I had a right to marry without the state getting involved. The privilege of being married came from my church. Other benefits from the state, yes, you need to fill out forms with them in order to qualify.

[ConHog]

If marriage is a religious ceremony, tell me how it is that atheists can marry.


Tell me why they would want to get married? Marriage is standing before God and promising to be as one. Why would an atheist care?

[DragonStryk72]

Want "equal rights" and equality for all, but so many of them are all for infringing on the rights of others on a list of other topics?

Um, actually, my dad, who as previously discussed, is gay has absolutely no issue with guns in Starbucks as long as they're legally allowed to have them there. Yes, he is in support of gay marriage, as am I, but, and I quote "My rights end when they hurt the rights of others. People need to get the fuck over it!"

[ConHog]

I don't think the government should be involved AND I do think it's less of a marriage. Why can't I be of the belief of both?

You misunderstand. I'm not asking about what you think personally. I mean you seem to imply that a gay marriage should be less than a heterosexual marriage in terms of benefits from the state.

I , and I think FJ believes the same, believe that marriage shouldn't mean shit to the state. I believe any two people ought be able to sign a contract between them that gives them all the government benefits that marriage currently offers and who cares if they call themselves married or not? And yes of course your church wouldn't have to recognize Sky's marriage as being equal to yours, and Sky SHOULD be okay with that (but I have a feeling she wouldn't be)

[Wind Song]

Let me fill you in on something - we didn't have a marriage license when we got married. Therefore I had a right to marry without the state getting involved. The privilege of being married came from my church. Other benefits from the state, yes, you need to fill out forms with them in order to qualify.


I'm from California. As it turns out, I married in the Buddhist community BEFORE, we got the license and the county clerk told me don't tell her that. I had to take the license to the Lama to have him sign as officiate.

Then our marriage become legal.

What privelege did the church give you? Really.

[jimnyc]

Um, actually, my dad, who as previously discussed, is gay has absolutely no issue with guns in Starbucks as long as they're legally allowed to have them there. Yes, he is in support of gay marriage, as am I, but, and I quote "My rights end when they hurt the rights of others. People need to get the fuck over it!"

Yeah, I know, I'm guilty of painting with a large brush again. From what you have told us, your Dad seems like a damn good man and a respectable citizen, and appears to have done the same raising his son with good values. Of course I made my statement wide to make a point, I admit it. But it still applies to WS. :)

[jimnyc]

I'm from California. As it turns out, I married in the Buddhist community BEFORE, we got the license and the county clerk told me don't tell her that. I had to take the license to the Lama to have him sign as officiate.

Then our marriage become legal.

What privelege did the church give you? Really.

The privilege of being married, as man and woman, and becoming one.

[DragonStryk72]

I'm from California. As it turns out, I married in the Buddhist community BEFORE, we got the license and the county clerk told me don't tell her that. I had to take the license to the Lama to have him sign as officiate.

Then our marriage become legal.

What privelege did the church give you? Really.

Of being married within the church of his faith. Imagine the Lama had rejected your marriage, and how you would have felt? How your partner would have felt? The Lama is not required to let you get married.

That said, I really don't believe that the state should be involved on either side of the fence. Who you love, who you marry, and choose to make a life with are protected under inherent rights. These are grown adults making a consensual decision, and we need to put our big boy pants on.

Now, on the other side of the coin, infringing on the rights of other to suit our tastes is just as wrong. A right is just that, it's a right, as in you are born with it. It is not granted by any government anywhere. Whether this is the right to marry another adult of the same gender as you is doing so of their own volition, or you just to stop in for quick hit of caffeine on your way back from hunting deer in the woods while still wearing your firearm, it's still a right.

[jimnyc]

You misunderstand. I'm not asking about what you think personally. I mean you seem to imply that a gay marriage should be less than a heterosexual marriage in terms of benefits from the state.

I , and I think FJ believes the same, believe that marriage shouldn't mean shit to the state. I believe any two people ought be able to sign a contract between them that gives them all the government benefits that marriage currently offers and who cares if they call themselves married or not? And yes of course your church wouldn't have to recognize Sky's marriage as being equal to yours, and Sky SHOULD be okay with that (but I have a feeling she wouldn't be)

Maybe the same benefits, I can go along with that - but the state should never call 2 men or 2 women "married".

[Wind Song]

Um, actually, my dad, who as previously discussed, is gay has absolutely no issue with guns in Starbucks as long as they're legally allowed to have them there. Yes, he is in support of gay marriage, as am I, but, and I quote "My rights end when they hurt the rights of others. People need to get the fuck over it!"

My dad was gay too. He committed suicide in 1981.

Why are you so angry with me?

[Wind Song]

Maybe the same benefits, I can go along with that - but the state should never call 2 men or 2 women "married".


Too late now.

[Wind Song]

Of being married within the church of his faith. Imagine the Lama had rejected your marriage, and how you would have felt? How your partner would have felt? The Lama is not required to let you get married.

That said, I really don't believe that the state should be involved on either side of the fence. Who you love, who you marry, and choose to make a life with are protected under inherent rights. These are grown adults making a consensual decision, and we need to put our big boy pants on.

Now, on the other side of the coin, infringing on the rights of other to suit our tastes is just as wrong. A right is just that, it's a right, as in you are born with it. It is not granted by any government anywhere. Whether this is the right to marry another adult of the same gender as you is doing so of their own volition, or you just to stop in for quick hit of caffeine on your way back from hunting deer in the woods while still wearing your firearm, it's still a right.

Marriage has been a legal status since the birth of this nation. The Lama is not REQUIRED to marry us? Of course not. He WANTED to marry us out of respect for our loving relationship.

[DragonStryk72]

Maybe the same benefits, I can go along with that - but the state should never call 2 men or 2 women "married".

Eh, at that point it's just mincing terms, really. It's not marriage, it's a "civil union", at which point, why even bother using marriage in the state term in any event? We can just use CU for the same effect, and leave marriage criteria to the churches and such

[jimnyc]

Too late now.

30-0

The ONLY states thus far where it is allowed has been by courts. But AGAIN - it's NOT a constitutional right, you know, one of those rights you would take away from others if you could, called the 2nd amendment.

[jimnyc]

Eh, at that point it's just mincing terms, really. It's not marriage, it's a "civil union", at which point, why even bother using marriage in the state term in any event? We can just use CU for the same effect, and leave marriage criteria to the churches and such

Agreed. If you go back quite a few years, I was in support of civil unions from day one. Many in the gay community shot that down right away, they wanted to be called "married" as well.

[DragonStryk72]

Marriage has been a legal status since the birth of this nation. The Lama is not REQUIRED to marry us? Of course not. He WANTED to marry us out of respect for our loving relationship.

ACtually, it hasn't. Marriage licenses were not state issued until the birth of the progressive income tax, since marriage would need to be kept track of for tax purposes.

You also skipped my question: If he had denied it, how would you have felt? Now, why do you think it would feel any better for someone in another faith to be denied by their faith?

[Wind Song]

30-0

The ONLY states thus far where it is allowed has been by courts. But AGAIN - it's NOT a constitutional right, you know, one of those rights you would take away from others if you could, called the 2nd amendment.

The Supreme Court says marriage is a civil right, as of 1967, in the LOVING case.

[jimnyc]

The Supreme Court says marriage is civil right, as of 1967 in LOVING.

Sorry, that's your interpretation to believe it means gays have the right to "marriage", and it's still not in the COTUS. You do realize the difference between a COTUS right and a court ruling?

[ConHog]

Maybe the same benefits, I can go along with that - but the state should never call 2 men or 2 women "married".

Absolutely we're agreed. The state should recognize the CONTRACT, not the marriage.

[DragonStryk72]

Absolutely we're agreed. The state should recognize the CONTRACT, not the marriage.

You know, my dad would actually be cool with that

[Wind Song]

ACtually, it hasn't. Marriage licenses were not state issued until the birth of the progressive income tax, since marriage would need to be kept track of for tax purposes.

You also skipped my question: If he had denied it, how would you have felt? Now, why do you think it would feel any better for someone in another faith to be denied by their faith?

If I had any doubt that the Lama wouldn't marry me I wouldn't have asked him.

You haven't answered my question. Why are you angry with me?

[Wind Song]

Sorry, that's your interpretation to believe it means gays have the right to "marriage", and it's still not in the COTUS. You do realize the difference between a COTUS right and a court ruling?


I'm not addressing the constitutionality of marriage equality legislation. So far, in Ca, prop 8 was declared unconstitutional.

I'm saying the Supreme Court called marriage a civil right. Marriage equality is a civil rights issue.

BTW it is the Supreme Court who interprets what is and is not constitutional. That is the Supreme Court's job.

[jimnyc]

I'm not addressing the constitutionality of marriage equality legislation. So far, in Ca, prop 8 was declared unconstitutional.

I'm saying the Supreme Court called marriage a civil right. Marriage equality is a civil rights issue.

BTW it is the Supreme Court who interprets what is and is not constitutional. That is the Supreme Court's job.

Certainly not to solely determine if something passes constitutionality, many other functions. As for loving, it doesn't address GAY marriage. So they haven't addressed the issue, and it's not a right granted by the constitution.

[jimnyc]

BTW it is the Supreme Court who interprets what is and is not constitutional. That is the Supreme Court's job.

Btw, I must have read that wrong - that is only one small part of their job. They are simply the HIGHEST court in which there is no redress once they have their say. But it's NOT solely their jobs to determine if something is constitutional or not.

[jimnyc]

Here's a good description, in short, as I don't have time right now:


The Supreme Court of the United States has the ultimate responsibility for settling disputes and interpreting the meaning of laws. It also determines what national policy will be when it applies law to specific disputes.

The Supreme Court, the only court created by the Constitution, has the final say on all legal matters that come to it. It is the highest court in our system and there is no appeal from its decisions unless future courts reverse past court decisions.

It is the only court that has the final say on Judicial Review -- that is, the constitutionality of a law or action relevant to a case under its review.

It has original jurisdiction over cases involving two or more states, and appellate jurisdiction over cases from lower federal courts and the highest state courts (if the state case addresses a preserved federal question).

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_role_of_the_US_Supreme_Court

[DragonStryk72]

If I had any doubt that the Lama wouldn't marry me I wouldn't have asked him.

You haven't answered my question. Why are you angry with me?

Not what I asked you, again. If the Lama refused your marriage, how would you feel? That is the question, not any other question, just that one. If "kinda hurt" is amongst those feelings, then why do you assume that anyone of faith would feel differently if their faith rejected them?

The way you bully everyone on this board is what angers me about you. Thanks to my history, I really can't abide bullies, and whether you realize it or not, you are one. Sure, you're not beating people in an alley for their lunch money, but you're no less a bully than those that do.

[Wind Song]

Certainly not to solely determine if something passes constitutionality, many other functions. As for loving, it doesn't address GAY marriage. So they haven't addressed the issue, and it's not a right granted by the constitution.


The Supreme Court, which interpreted the Constitution in Loving, stated in 1967, that marriage is a civil right. The CA prop 8 was deemed unconstitutional by the CA Supreme Court.

[ConHog]

You know, my dad would actually be cool with that


DS - don't know if you ever heard me tell this story, but one of my best friends (and the godfather of my 2 children) is gay. We served in the military together. In 1991 we got caught in a sandstorm in southern Iraq, I had been shot in the leg and was bleeding pretty badly. He laid over me the whole night because I had noway of defending myself. It was another 10 years before I found out he was gay. I didn't tell anyone even though I was technically his superior officer at that point because as a UNIT we just didn't care that he was gay. He is one of the bravest, most honorable men I know and it is my privilege to have known him. I am disgusted looking back and realizing that the guy he's been with for longer than I've been married to my wife couldn't come to any of our functions out of fear of being caught. TWICE the guy came home from Iraq and watched as everyone but him was greeted by a spouse. His SO had to hide around the corner and greet him in private.

Morally I object to homosexuality, but how can I in good conscience say this man shouldn't be able to get married if that's what he wants (and they actually don't care about getting married but they would like to have a contract that gives them the same rights and benefits of a married couple , and why shouldn't they have that?)

[Wind Song]

Not what I asked you, again. If the Lama refused your marriage, how would you feel? That is the question, not any other question, just that one. If "kinda hurt" is amongst those feelings, then why do you assume that anyone of faith would feel differently if their faith rejected them?

The way you bully everyone on this board is what angers me about you. Thanks to my history, I really can't abide bullies, and whether you realize it or not, you are one. Sure, you're not beating people in an alley for their lunch money, but you're no less a bully than those that do.

Please show me any post that you consider to be bullying. Quote me please.

If you're referring to the way I stick up for myself, that's hardly bullying.

If the Lama had refused to marry me I would have felt hurt, and then I would have gone right down to the courthouse and gotten my license anyway.

[Wind Song]

DS - don't know if you ever heard me tell this story, but one of my best friends (and the godfather of my 2 children) is gay. We served in the military together. In 1991 we got caught in a sandstorm in southern Iraq, I had been shot in the leg and was bleeding pretty badly. He laid over me the whole night because I had noway of defending myself. It was another 10 years before I found out he was gay. I didn't tell anyone even though I was technically his superior officer at that point because as a UNIT we just didn't care that he was gay. He is one of the bravest, most honorable men I know and it is my privilege to have known him. I am disgusted looking back and realizing that the guy he's been with for longer than I've been married to my wife couldn't come to any of our functions out of fear of being caught. TWICE the guy came home from Iraq and watched as everyone but him was greeted by a spouse. His SO had to hide around the corner and greet him in private.

Morally I object to homosexuality, but how can I in good conscience say this man shouldn't be able to get married if that's what he wants (and they actually don't care about getting married but they would like to have a contract that gives them the same rights and benefits of a married couple , and why shouldn't they have that?)

OMG, the "one of my best friends" argument.

[ConHog]

Not what I asked you, again. If the Lama refused your marriage, how would you feel? That is the question, not any other question, just that one. If "kinda hurt" is amongst those feelings, then why do you assume that anyone of faith would feel differently if their faith rejected them?

The way you bully everyone on this board is what angers me about you. Thanks to my history, I really can't abide bullies, and whether you realize it or not, you are one. Sure, you're not beating people in an alley for their lunch money, but you're no less a bully than those that do.

we share a mutual hate of bullies, and hes sky does try to bully, but she's not upfront about it, she tries to bully by playing the victim to get her own way.

[Wind Song]

Btw, I must have read that wrong - that is only one small part of their job. They are simply the HIGHEST court in which there is no redress once they have their say. But it's NOT solely their jobs to determine if something is constitutional or not.

In that case, who is it that determines what is and is not, Constitutional, if not the court?

[ConHog]

OMG, the "one of my best friends" argument.

best friend story > my neighbor's friend story

by the way stupid, if that story isn't true how else you explain an otherwise conservative guy from the ozark mountains in arkansas defending gays? You idiot.

[Wind Song]

we share a mutual hate of bullies, and hes sky does try to bully, but she's not upfront about it, she tries to bully by playing the victim to get her own way.


You may find this kind of tripe effective posting, but I don't. I am not a bully. I have stood up for people who have been bullied my whole life.

I don't feel in the slightest victimized no matter how much hostile criticism you lob on me. I will stand my ground. I will not be broken.

[Wind Song]

best friend story > my neighbor's friend story

by the way stupid, if that story isn't true how else you explain an otherwise conservative guy from the ozark mountains in arkansas defending gays? You idiot.

Conhog--

Would it make you feel better if I started calling you names?

Tough.

I'm not going there.

[DragonStryk72]

Please show me any post that you consider to be bullying. Quote me please.

If you're referring to the way I stick up for myself, that's hardly bullying.

If the Lama had refused to marry me I would have felt hurt, and then I would have gone right down to the courthouse and gotten my license anyway.

You know what? No. Just no, I was getting ready to start going through all your posts, and there are just too damned many.

Yes, you would have been hurt, so why on earth would you assume people of other faiths wouldn't be?

You don't "stick up for yourself", you snap and growl and bark, and bite at people who are trying to get along with you, and trying to get you to see the error of your ways. That's not defending yourself, that's going at well-meaning people who would be your friends if you just stopped attacking all the time.

[ConHog]

You may find this kind of tripe effective posting, but I don't. I am not a bully. I have stood up for people who have been bullied my whole life.

I don't feel in the slightest victimized no matter how much hostile criticism you lob on me. I will stand my ground. I will not be broken.

NO ONE is being bullied on this board by anyone but you. Well they were but the trash has been taken out. So there is no one to defend. You make up attacks and attack the "attacker" and then claim you're fighting bullies............



Example , in another thread I posted that denying people the right to bear arms while screaming that gays have a right to get married is hypocritical. That wasn't an attack on gays at all, but here you came " stop attacking gays......... blah blah blah you hate me b/c I'm gay" then you proceeded to "defend" gays and portray me as the bully when in fact the entire thing was made up in your head.

[Wind Song]

You know what? No. Just no, I was getting ready to start going through all your posts, and there are just too damned many.

Yes, you would have been hurt, so why on earth would you assume people of other faiths wouldn't be?

You don't "stick up for yourself", you snap and growl and bark, and bite at people who are trying to get along with you, and trying to get you to see the error of your ways. That's not defending yourself, that's going at well-meaning people who would be your friends if you just stopped attacking all the time.

You're probably right. I don't tend to be trusting of people on internet forums. I've been burned too many times.

[Wind Song]

NO ONE is being bullied on this board by anyone but you. Well they were but the trash has been taken out. So there is no one to defend. You make up attacks and attack the "attacker" and then claim you're fighting bullies............



Example , in another thread I posted that denying people the right to bear arms while screaming that gays have a right to get married is hypocritical. That wasn't an attack on gays at all, but here you came " stop attacking gays......... blah blah blah you hate me b/c I'm gay" then you proceeded to "defend" gays and portray me as the bully when in fact the entire thing was made up in your head.

Conhog,

If you stopped criticising me for two seconds I might have an opportunity to be your friend.

I'm really tired of discussing marriage equality and being the sole married lesbian in the house. It's boring.

[SassyLady]

First of all, I don't see what you mean by "infringing." Asking someone not to point a gun at you, or smoke around you, is not "infringing." It is commonly known as a "request."

Also, it goes back to the question that I posed before: Why do conservatives oppose abortion but support the death penalty? If only God can take a life, then only God can determine guilt or innocent.

If you don't understand this, go back to your apples and oranges.

I explained my take on this question but you didn't respond.

Abortion = killing an innocent
Death Penalty = killing a non-innocent

[DragonStryk72]

You're probably right. I don't tend to be trusting of people on internet forums. I've been burned too many times.

The problem is that you are becoming the burner here. You need to find a way to chill out. I know we're debaters here, and that lends to a degree of passionate argument, regardless of your side. I mean, me and Jim have gone round several times, but I do my best to pull myself out of debates where I see it escalating to something it shouldn't be.

[Wind Song]

The problem is that you are becoming the burner here. You need to find a way to chill out. I know we're debaters here, and that lends to a degree of passionate argument, regardless of your side. I mean, me and Jim have gone round several times, but I do my best to pull myself out of debates where I see it escalating to something it shouldn't be.

Fine. I'll stop posting for awhile.

[tailfins]

You may find this kind of tripe effective posting, but I don't. I am not a bully. I have stood up for people who have been bullied my whole life.

I don't feel in the slightest victimized no matter how much hostile criticism you lob on me. I will stand my ground. I will not be broken.

Kind of like a coyote licking a sharp knife dipped in animal blood, huh? Shrugging something off does not mean you've been broken. It's a waste to stand on ground not worth standing on.

[Wind Song]

Kind of like a coyote licking a sharp knife dipped in animal blood, huh? Shrugging something off does not mean you've been broken. It's a waste to stand on ground not worth standing on.


What ground is not worth standing on? Marriage equality? I disagree. Non-violent communication? I disagree.

What I will not allow is for anyone to break my spirit. You don't me who I am. Fine. We know where we stand.

[tailfins]

What ground is not worth standing on? Marriage equality? I disagree. Non-violent communication? I disagree.

What I will not allow is for anyone to break my spirit. You don't me who I am. Fine. We know where we stand.

Unless you're sitting there bored waiting for code to compile/run, I mean the ground of one-upsmanship on an internet forum.

[jimnyc]

In that case, who is it that determines what is and is not, Constitutional, if not the court?

I didn't say they didn't, but there function is a LOT wider than determining constitutionality cases. Something simply being ruled as constitutional by the SC does not mean the same as something being in the COTUS similar to the 2nd amendment.

[jimnyc]

You may find this kind of tripe effective posting, but I don't. I am not a bully. I have stood up for people who have been bullied my whole life.

I don't feel in the slightest victimized no matter how much hostile criticism you lob on me. I will stand my ground. I will not be broken.

The overwhelming majority of your posts reek of "I am a victim" "I'm being picked on for my beliefs" and other bullshit. Hell, I approached you in a music thread and you turned it into you being a victim. I honestly think you have serious issues interacting with others. I've read your posts on 3 different boards and you do the same at all of them. Make demands and play the victim. Quite comical if you ask me, or sad.

[jimnyc]

Fine. I'll stop posting for awhile.

Victim again. I won't get my way, and DS said to stop barking at people, so now I'll pull the victim card and claim "fine, I'll take my ball and go home".

[Wind Song]

The overwhelming majority of your posts reek of "I am a victim" "I'm being picked on for my beliefs" and other bullshit. Hell, I approached you in a music thread and you turned it into you being a victim. I honestly think you have serious issues interacting with others. I've read your posts on 3 different boards and you do the same at all of them. Make demands and play the victim. Quite comical if you ask me, or sad.

I've been talking to other people all day about this.

You all want me to post in a certain way. YOUR way. If you're trying to force me or coerce me it won't work. You have to ask what needs are being met by this posting style.

I've been thinking about that for awhile now. I actually have some answers.

Maybe one of you would like to just jump in and do my posts for me. Do them perfectly the way you wish I'd post. I'll stop posting and just read. Have fun doing the Wind Song posts.

[SassyLady]

I've been talking to other people all day about this.

You all want me to post in a certain way. YOUR way. If you're trying to force me or coerce me it won't work. You have to ask what needs are being met by this posting style.

I've been thinking about that for awhile now. I actually have some answers.

Maybe one of you would like to just jump in and do my posts for me. Do them perfectly the way you wish I'd post. I'll stop posting and just read. Have fun doing the Wind Song posts.

I could be wrong .. but your posting style screams "drama". Why do you need so much drama? What hole is being filled by creating all the drama through playing the victim?

[Wind Song]

Victim again. I won't get my way, and DS said to stop barking at people, so now I'll pull the victim card and claim "fine, I'll take my ball and go home".


No, not victim, at all. It's me taking responsibility for my own inner work. I have found it helpful to take posting breaks. Self-management process.

[jimnyc]

I've been talking to other people all day about this.

You all want me to post in a certain way. YOUR way. If you're trying to force me or coerce me it won't work. You have to ask what needs are being met by this posting style.

I've been thinking about that for awhile now. I actually have some answers.

Maybe one of you would like to just jump in and do my posts for me. Do them perfectly the way you wish I'd post. I'll stop posting and just read. Have fun doing the Wind Song posts.

Not a single thread you post in remains on topic and they ALL end up with you claiming to be picked on and you're the perpetual victim. Why can every other member of the board, liberals and conservatives and moderates, post without the drama. But EVERY thread you start or join into ends up about YOU.

[Kathianne]

Not a single thread you post in remains on topic and they ALL end up with you claiming to be picked on and you're the perpetual victim. Why can every other member of the board, liberals and conservatives and moderates, post without the drama. But EVERY thread you start or join into ends up about YOU.

She's on the road to enlightenment, the rest of us are just Neanderthals. Jim, just get with it, follow her, Wind, Sky, water is next. Me? I'm earth. ;)

[jimnyc]

She's on the road to enlightenment, the rest of us are just Neanderthals. Jim, just get with it, follow her, Wind, Sky, water is next. Me? I'm earth. ;)

Are we riding on purple unicorns on our way to utopia? LOL

[Nukeman]

I don't know what state you live in. I live in California. I had to obtain a license from the county courthouse before my Buddhist Lama could marry me and my wife.

You should factcheck before you go calling anyone a LIAR. In this instance, you LIED.


I'm from California. As it turns out, I married in the Buddhist community BEFORE, we got the license and the county clerk told me don't tell her that. I had to take the license to the Lama to have him sign as officiate.

Then our marriage become legal.

What privelege did the church give you? Really.
Uhh You said I lied, and right here you have 2 conflicting stories!!! So tell me which one is a LIE?? please tell me. You have been caught AGAIN in a lie. You can't admit when you lie yet try to point out if others do...

[SassyLady]

No, not victim, at all. It's me taking responsibility for my own inner work. I have found it helpful to take posting breaks. Self-management process.

It is not self-management if you post vile things until you get banned. That is setting yourself up to be a victim. If you truly need to take a posting break then you will just walk away without posting crap like "well, I'm offended ... I'm leaving".

Just say "I'm taking a break to practice taking responsibility".

[jimnyc]

Uhh You said I lied, and right here you have 2 conflicting stories!!! So tell me which one is a LIE?? please tell me. You have been caught AGAIN in a lie. You can't admit when you lie yet try to point out if others do...

Now that you nailed her giving 2 different versions of her story, be prepared to get ignored, or hated like Kathianne! :lol::laugh2:

[Wind Song]

Not a single thread you post in remains on topic and they ALL end up with you claiming to be picked on and you're the perpetual victim. Why can every other member of the board, liberals and conservatives and moderates, post without the drama. But EVERY thread you start or join into ends up about YOU.


If that's your main concern, stop answering my posts. Tell everyone to stop answering my posts. Ignore me and I'll eventually go away.

[Wind Song]

It is not self-management if you post vile things until you get banned. That is setting yourself up to be a victim. If you truly need to take a posting break then you will just walk away without posting crap like "well, I'm offended ... I'm leaving".

Just say "I'm taking a break to practice taking responsibility".

OK.

[Wind Song]

She's on the road to enlightenment, the rest of us are just Neanderthals. Jim, just get with it, follow her, Wind, Sky, water is next. Me? I'm earth. ;)

I agree. You're dirt.

[jimnyc]

If that's your main concern, stop answering my posts. Tell everyone to stop answering my posts. Ignore me and I'll eventually go away.

I'm not complaining, it's your right to act like an ass if you like, or draw attention to yourself and continually throw pity parties. If you live for the drama, hey, whatever helps wind your monkey up. But it's a lot more fun, and informative and educational if we actually debate TOPICS, and not have re-runs of "As Wing Nut's World Turns".

[SassyLady]

OK.

I know that you probably think my giving you a thanks and a rep for this post is coercive, but it makes me feel good. How you choose to feel about it is your responsibility.

[Kathianne]

I agree. You're dirt.

and I don't have a problem with that. for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” ...

[SassyLady]

I'm not complaining, it's your right to act like an ass if you like, or draw attention to yourself and continually throw pity parties. If you live for the drama, hey, whatever helps wind your monkey up. But it's a lot more fun, and informative and educational if we actually debate TOPICS, and not have re-runs of "As Wing Nut's World Turns".

I like soap operas, Jim.

[jimnyc]

I agree. You're dirt.

I'm a dirtbag, maybe that's why Kath and I generally see eye to eye and get along?

More importantly, now that I see how you post towards her, does this mean it's aok if others treat you the same and get into the name calling that you claim to despise, hypocrite?

[jimnyc]

I like soap operas, Jim.

You wouldn't if it was ALWAYS about a woman who was a victim, and whining, and making accusations, and not wanting name calling, while in the midst of name calling...

[Kathianne]

I agree. You're dirt.

and yes, grounded. What you lack.

[Wind Song]

and yes, grounded. What you lack.


I do lack earth. In my chart I'm all fire and air. Water implied. Let's just keep ourselves clear. I hate you. Stay away from me. As far away as possible.

[Nukeman]

Now that you nailed her giving 2 different versions of her story, be prepared to get ignored, or hated like Kathianne! :lol::laugh2:Im a big boy Jim, I think I can handle a psychotic nut on a forum board. You are right that she will ignore me since I CAUGHT HER IN A LIE

[Wind Song]

You wouldn't if it was ALWAYS about a woman who was a victim, and whining, and making accusations, and not wanting name calling, while in the midst of name calling...

Jim,

I've offered to leave. I've suggested you ban me if my contribution isn't appropriate. The one who is whining is you about me.

I'm working on a couple things but I'm going to do that at my own pace.

If you all can't handle that, I really have no problem staying away from here.

Another possibility is I could just come to lurk and read but not post anything. Would that work for ya?

sky

[Kathianne]

I do lack earth. In my chart I'm all fire and air. Water implied. Let's just keep ourselves clear. I hate you. Stay away from me. As far away as possible.

The beauty of this relationship? I do not have to obey your orders. ;) :laugh:

[Wind Song]

The beauty of this relationship? I do not have to obey your orders. ;) :laugh:

What relationship?

We haven't any. I'm requesting, not ordering, that you leave me alone, especially if I've just lost a family member.

[Kathianne]

I'm a dirtbag, maybe that's why Kath and I generally see eye to eye and get along?

More importantly, now that I see how you post towards her, does this mean it's aok if others treat you the same and get into the name calling that you claim to despise, hypocrite?

Not usually a dirtbag, some, (moi) can bring that out. Notice how I seem to with some others. ;)

[jimnyc]

Jim,

I've offered to leave. I've suggested you ban me if my contribution isn't appropriate. The one who is whining is you about me.

I'm working on a couple things but I'm going to do that at my own pace.

If you all can't handle that, I really have no problem staying away from here.

sky

You would think that me NOT banning you would be a hint. We are trying to get along with you, and talk with you, many of us. I could easily have banned you but I think you make decent contributions. But I think you have a LOT of work to get along with people, and this forum isn't the issue, as I see you have the EXACT problems elsewhere. I've seen no less than 15 members thus far try to TALK with you, and you bite off their fingers for their efforts, and then swear they never even made an effort - while the entire board knows damn well what we saw. You SERIOUSLY need medicinal marijuana, or a lot of valiums.

[SassyLady]

You wouldn't if it was ALWAYS about a woman who was a victim, and whining, and making accusations, and not wanting name calling, while in the midst of name calling...

Well, that would tolerable as long as there are a few hunks taking off their shirts and prancing around some of the time. We have our share of hunks around here, so I like the DP soap opera.

[Kathianne]

Well, that would tolerable as long as there are a few hunks taking off their shirts and prancing around some of the time. We have our share of hunks around here, so I like the DP soap opera.

Woot! LOL!

[SassyLady]

Jim,

I've offered to leave. I've suggested you ban me if my contribution isn't appropriate. The one who is whining is you about me.

I'm working on a couple things but I'm going to do that at my own pace.

If you all can't handle that, I really have no problem staying away from here.

Another possibility is I could just come to lurk and read but not post anything. Would that work for ya?

sky

I think you should continue to post, if it helps you work out some things. You are obviously helping us work out some of our stuff too.

However, as I stated previously...if you need to leave to take a break ... just do it. Don't pass the buck on to Jim. Take personal responsibility and just leave. Or, you can quit playing the victim in your threads and stick around and post with us. But, please, quit playing the victim when someone disagrees with your stance.

[Wind Song]

I'm a dirtbag, maybe that's why Kath and I generally see eye to eye and get along?

More importantly, now that I see how you post towards her, does this mean it's aok if others treat you the same and get into the name calling that you claim to despise, hypocrite?


Name calling is not in harmony with my values. If I were able to completely apply NVC to the situation with Kathy I would. I'm just barely learning about it. You folks expect instant results with all your demands.

Kath is lying when she says she doesn't hate me. She has hated me from the moment I started posting here and she knows it. I kept sayin "who are you and why do you have a problem with me."

[SassyLady]

Name calling is not in harmony with my values. If I were able to completely apply NVC to the situation with Kathy I would. I'm just barely learning about it. You folks expect instant results with all your demands.

Kath is lying when she says she doesn't hate me. She has hated me from the moment I started posting here and she knows it. I kept sayin "who are you and why do you have a problem with me."

I don't think she hates you .... why would she spend that much emotion on you? She disagrees with you which does not equate to hate.

[Wind Song]

I don't think she hates you .... why would she spend that much emotion on you? She disagrees with you which does not equate to hate.


Sassy--

She did something EXTREMELY hurtful to me and she enjoyed it. That's really tough for me to wrap my arms around and "hi friend" to.

She admits she feels cold toward me.

I would much rather deal with someone like Conhog, who's a hothead and has some heart, than a person who enjoys cruelty.

sky

[SassyLady]

Sassy--

She did something EXTREMELY hurtful to me and she enjoyed it. That's really tough for me to wrap my arms around and "hi friend" to.

She admits she feels cold toward me.

I would much rather deal with someone like Conhog, who's a hothead and has some heart, than a person who enjoys cruelty.

sky

Why do you give her the power to control your emotions? Hating someone takes so much energy that could be used effectively in developing those things you want to develop in your life. Like peacefulness. When you hate someone, and repeatedly post about it, you are just reinforcing it in your heart. That black spot will not allow room for something else that needs to be in your heart.

Let it go.

[Wind Song]

Why do you give her the power to control your emotions? Hating someone takes so much energy that could be used effectively in developing those things you want to develop in your life. Like peacefulness. When you hate someone, and repeatedly post about it, you are just reinforcing it in your heart. That black spot will not allow room for something else that needs to be in your heart.

Let it go.

You're right. What NVC says is to find what need is there, and take care of that. Thanks, for some reason, your posts get through to me today. She doesn't deserve any of my energy. I'll just put her on ignore and keep away from her. I don't need people like that in my life.

[ConHog]

I think you should continue to post, if it helps you work out some things. You are obviously helping us work out some of our stuff too.

However, as I stated previously...if you need to leave to take a break ... just do it. Don't pass the buck on to Jim. Take personal responsibility and just leave. Or, you can quit playing the victim in your threads and stick around and post with us. But, please, quit playing the victim when someone disagrees with your stance.

No shit, I recently took a break. Jim knew ahead of time and why, but no one else did. PS - I want it clear that it had NOTHING to do with any part of this board.

[Wind Song]

OK, if I decide to split I just won't show up. I won't announce it.

[fj1200]

30-0

The ONLY states thus far where it is allowed has been by courts. But AGAIN - it's NOT a constitutional right, you know, one of those rights you would take away from others if you could, called the 2nd amendment.

That's not accurate is it? A few states have been passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, NY for one, IA and some others iirc.

[SassyLady]

OK, if I decide to split I just won't show up. I won't announce it.

That's the mature way. Or, like Noir does....he just tells us he will be popping out for awhile. That way we know to not worry about him.

[ConHog]

That's the mature way. Or, like Noir does....he just tells us he will be popping out for awhile. That way we know to not worry about him.

Sure, Rev just went that route. Just a quick "hey I'm taking a break, talk to you cats later"

[SassyLady]

Sure, Rev just went that route. Just a quick "hey I'm taking a break, talk to you cats later"

Exactly!

[ConHog]

Exactly!

I took two weeks , roughly , off and didn't even ask anyone to email me when it was time to come back..........

[Wind Song]

I took two weeks , roughly , off and didn't even ask anyone to email me when it was time to come back..........


I changed my mind about giving ANYONE here my email address.

[fj1200]

I changed my mind about giving ANYONE here my email address.

Everyone has mine, here you go:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/private.php?do=newpm&u=728