Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No. No he's not. He has said, and you should support him on this, that he favors STATES having the right to decide the issue, but that there should be no Constiitutional Amendment on it. And he's right. It is a state issue. And when its rightly left under state control, we will not only have a religious chasm between states, we'll also have a taste chasm.

You right leaning bastards are going to force me to fly somewhere to get a good decorator. Thanks.

Yawwwwn, so what exactly is his opposition to gay marriage? I'm the one saying he's not opposed to it, and you Democratic freaks should be yelling Amen. If its not clear, I'm only opposed to using the word marriage, but other than that I'm pretty sure that most of us here are in the same ballpark on the issue.

WRT Kerry, we are all characterizing the same things here. All I'm saying, is Senator flip-flop couldn't define his "opposition" as "opposition" if he were being prodded to do so by a 6'2 hairy-chested salt-and-pepper haired bruiser in a leather get-up.

You guys are saying, well yeah, he's opposed, just not to this, a little to that, and well, no not really to that either. But he's opposed. He says it because it resonates with the simple-minded people you are constantly bemoaning here. They believe him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
This is borderline political correctness.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but I think it's offensive to draw a parallel between homosexuality and pedophilia. I'm offended not because Oberlin College's speech code says x, y or z, but because you are likening gay relatives of mine to pedophiles.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Am I alone, or does Bush's wife look to anyone else like she has about three brain cells careening around a very large empty skull? Why in the hell does the press laud someone like her as having "class" just because she's quiet?

Knowing what not to say, and to be concise in what one does say, is actually a good indicator of intelligence.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but I think it's offensive to draw a parallel between homosexuality and pedophilia. I'm offended not because Oberlin College's speech code says x, y or z, but because you are likening gay relatives of mine to pedophiles.

Actually, I was likening John Kerry to a disingenuous pedophile, but whatever.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yawwwwn, so what exactly is his opposition to gay marriage? I'm the one saying he's not opposed to it, and you Democratic freaks should be yelling Amen. If its not clear, I'm only opposed to using the word marriage, but other than that I'm pretty sure that most of us here are in the same ballpark on the issue.

WRT Kerry, we are all characterizing the same things here. All I'm saying, is Senator flip-flop couldn't define his "opposition" as "opposition" if he were being prodded to do so by a 6'2 hairy-chested salt-and-pepper haired bruiser in a leather get-up.

You guys are saying, well yeah, he's opposed, just not to this, a little to that, and well, no not really to that either. But he's opposed. He says it because it resonates with the simple-minded people you are constantly bemoaning here. They believe him.

JK doesn't want gays being "married". Thats his opposition.

However, he doesn't think the issue requires and Amendment to the Constitution.

JK thinks its a states' issue.

So, he is opposed, but he's not doing anything about it. I'm opposed to the Drug War, but I'm not doing anything about it. Does that change the fact that I'm opposed? You're (I think) making the definition of "opposition" include some affirmative act. One can be opposed to something and do nothing about it.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
So, are y'all saying that Kerry ain't for all things gay? I mean, what were the misrepresentations?

I think Kerry should take his views out of the closet and expose them to the world.

He did. Of course, you couldn't be bothered to listen, since you apparently know better than he what John Kerry's positions are.

Namaste.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
disingenuous pedophile,

Is that a pedophile who really wants to fuck an adult but can't find one willing?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but I think it's offensive to draw a parallel between homosexuality and pedophilia. I'm offended not because Oberlin College's speech code says x, y or z, but because you are likening gay relatives of mine to pedophiles.

Harrumph.

I have gay relatives and friends too. It doesn't bother me; neither should it bother you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Knowing what not to say, and to be concise in what one does say, is actually a good indicator of intelligence.

Noting the obvious is not a sign of intelligence.

But I guess i left that barn door open. Thanks for reminding me.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
JK doesn't want gays being "married". Thats his opposition.

You're (I think) making the definition of "opposition" include some affirmative act. One can be opposed to something and do nothing about it.

So, he's opposed, but doesn't think that he should affirmatively do anything about it? You realize that his campaign and that Florida article are emphasizing the "opposed" part because they are taking the gay part of their constituency for granted, right? That was really the underlying point of the article in Florida.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

So, he is opposed, but he's not doing anything about it. I'm opposed to the Drug War, but I'm not doing anything about it.

I doubt this very much.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
JK doesn't want gays being "married". Thats his opposition.

However, he doesn't think the issue requires and Amendment to the Constitution.

JK thinks its a states' issue.

So, he is opposed, but he's not doing anything about it. I'm opposed to the Drug War, but I'm not doing anything about it. Does that change the fact that I'm opposed? You're (I think) making the definition of "opposition" include some affirmative act. One can be opposed to something and do nothing about it.

It's sort of like his opposition to abortion - he doesn't like it personally, but doesn't think it's appropriate to have federal laws passed restricting it. But then again, it's not like his views on abortion, because he does think it is OK for states to pass laws restricting it, and they shouldn't have to accept their citizens indulging their morally objectionable actions in the next state over. So the fed should and should not have a role in harmonizing laws relating to deeply divisive moral issues that should and should not be regulated and restricted by the states depending on local values and public policy.

Wait, I'm confused....

BR(WT, I'm only hatin' the self absorbed, narcissistic boomers. Only you can tell me if that means you ... but based on your assumption that my comment was about you, I have my suspicions)C
eta - it certainly means Bush & Kerry.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
So, he's opposed, but doesn't think that he should affirmatively do anything about it? You realize that his campaign and that Florida article are emphasizing the "opposed" part because they are taking the gay part of their constituency for granted, right? That was really the underlying point of the article in Florida.

I doubt this very much.

Dude, I'd look like a massive narc at a hemp rally.

Where do you get the idea that in order to be opposed to something, one must also affirmatively work against it? If everyone did that, society would grind to a halt. We'd all be tilting at windmills while weeds overtook the sidewalks.

No, he shouldn't do anything about it. As he said, the states should, if they so choose. Isn't that exactly what you want? How's anyone supposed to keep you happy? You're worse than me. You're complaining about the style of the platter on which they're bring you the gold.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
So, he's opposed, but doesn't think that he should affirmatively do anything about it? You realize that his campaign and that Florida article are emphasizing the "opposed" part because they are taking the gay part of their constituency for granted, right? That was really the underlying point of the article in Florida.

I think I might have just figured out why you can't understand passive opposition like Kerry's. If people were to passively oppose, yet alow things like, say, abortion, that would fuck up the whole fervent right wing movement. Passively opposing things means accepting and allowing others to do things you don't like. The right can't abide a gig like that. It blows out the central pillar of their position - that all people should be governed according to the right's moral compass. If you advocate passive opposition, you advocate acceptance, and acceptance to the right is like sunlight to vampires.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
It's sort of like his opposition to abortion - he doesn't like it personally, but doesn't think it's appropriate to have federal laws passed restricting it. But then again, it's not like his views on abortion, because he does think it is OK for states to pass laws restricting it, and they shouldn't have to accept their citizens indulging their morally objectionable actions in the next state over. So the fed should and should not have a role in harmonizing laws relating to deeply divisive moral issues that should and should not be regulated and restricted by the states depending on local values and public policy.

Wait, I'm confused....

I'd find this much more convincing if it didn't apply equally to the other side of the aisle. As it is, however, I thnk we're going to have to agree that Federalism these days is a red herring.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think I might have just figured out why you can't understand passive opposition like Kerry's. If people were to passively oppose, yet alow things like, say, abortion, that would fuck up the whole fervent right wing movement. Passively opposing things means accepting and allowing others to do things you don't like.

The only rallies I've ever gone to were peace rallies, and then only as an observer*. So no, I'm not sure you've got this thing down yet. (ETA) That said, I think I know why you usually don't understand what I'm saying, but I'll tell you after the election. All I'm saying is, he says he's opposed, but until he really spells that out to say
a.) I'm opposed to myself being gayly married;
b.) I'm opposed to my kids being gayly married;
c.) I'm opposed to anyone in my community/state being gayly married; and/or
d.) I'm opposed to Americans being gayly married,
I think he means it in a different way than he intends it to be taken by the simple folks**.

Hello


*The kind who applauded an occasional speaker, not the kind who took pictures.

** If this was the uncivil board, I'd say he's full of it. Tell ya the truth though, I'd rather think of him as a liar than a hata.