Hope this wasn't a duplicate thread - I didn't notice one on this specific vote.

The string of elective defeats remains intact. The people of Maine (hardly a "right wing" state), when provided a chance to vote, reaffirmed the institution of marriage.

How will the left spin this one? Were the Mormons throwing money into the race? Are the people of Maine a bunch of bigoted & racist rednecks?

Oorah, if they can paint the majority of voters out there in liberal California with those insults then I think they will have plenty left over for a place like Maine.

MR-
Didn't Oregon voters reject gay marriage as well a year or so ago?

I think, based on the article, that the only states where gay marriage is legal are where the courts have handed down the decision. When legislators enact the law, the people (when given the chance) have voted it down.

This issue won't go away, though I think by attempting to paint the opposition as hate mongers or ignorant it doesn't exactly help you to win hearts and minds. Same with the abortion issue.

#3 You're right. They must have gotten the book written by Dale Carnegie's evil twin. It's called "How To Lose Friends and Piss People Off"

We'll just keep bringing it up till the old bigots die.

You're on the wrong side of history on this one.

You may be right, GUS. Times change with the generations. But at least it would be the people deciding the laws they want to live under.

51% of the people at least, in some states, in different levels of legality all to keep the old bigots happy.

Not all things should be subject to the whim of the masses, but since I'm not gay I can wait it out :)

"...Not all things should be subject to the whim of the masses..." - GUS

Just as the abortion issue largely hinges on whether that "fetus" is a "baby"... the marriage issue hinges on whether "homosexuality" is a "civil right" and thus is protected.

Like I said, I can wait it out. I just like to comment on what I consider pointless histrionics by the "Save Marriage" crowd.

Disgusting. What the hell is wrong with people? Gay people deserve the rights and responsibilities of marriage as much as straight people. An institution that allows quickie Vegas weddings and no-fault divorce is not sacred. It's a civil contract between two people that helps make society more stable, and gives people somebody to look out for them in good times and bad.

I would not be opposed to abolishing 'marriage' as a legal concept and instituting 'civil unions' as the basis for all legal matters.

Marraige could, and I beleive should, continue as a religious concept with any organization allowed to define their own criteria and limitations. These marraiges would have no legal standing on their own unless supported by a civil union as defined by the voters in the state or residence.

Such a large percentage of Americans have multiple marraiges in their history that the term has lost it's magic.

Maine -- known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate

Gays demanding the right to marriage always seemed out of synch with God's original intention.

I neither believe not disbelieve in the existence of God. I prefer instead to believe in a "master plan" and natural selection which, by my definition, excludes homosexuals from any special considerations.

Sometimes you just have to play the hand life deals you and quityourbitchin'.

#7 | Posted by GustoGus

Once again, the "tolerant" left rears it's ugly head.
Tolerant as long as it is what they agree with. God forbid my opinion is different.

#10 | Posted by rcade

A "civil contract", as you put it, is one thing, but stop trying to call it marriage. Marriage has ALWAYS been defined and man and woman.

The people have spoken, again, against "gay marriage".

I would not be opposed to abolishing 'marriage' as a legal concept and instituting 'civil unions' as the basis for all legal matters.

Amen. Let churches marry or not marry anybody they like. But make government respect all civil unions equally, or any other like-minded partnership.

A "civil contract", as you put it, is one thing, but stop trying to call it marriage. Marriage has ALWAYS been defined and man and woman.

No, it hasn't. Marriage traditions have varied widely around the world throughout history. The expansion of the right to gays is just one more modification.

I believe the outcome of this vote will be gays abandoning traditional religion.

Once again, the "tolerant" left rears it's ugly head.

#13 | Posted by seedeez2 at 2009-11-04 07:05 AM | Reply

Of course I'm not tolerant of bigots. Whatever gave you the idea I would be?

I guess you had to be here to properly appreciate the campaign. The advocates were calm, civil and polite. The opponents replayed the California Prop. 8 campaign, threatening that first-graders would be taught how to give blow jobs.

History has shown repeatedly that if only one side of an issue goes negative, that side usually wins. There was plenty of dirt that could have been thrown at the anti-marriage side, but the advocates never stooped to use it.

Disgusting. What the hell is wrong with people? Gay people deserve the rights and responsibilities of marriage as much as straight people. An institution that allows quickie Vegas weddings and no-fault divorce is not sacred. It's a civil contract between two people that helps make society more stable, and gives people somebody to look out for them in good times and bad.

#10 | Posted by rcade

I've always felt that those who argue against gay marriage due to the sanctity of marriage would have a lot more credence if they first attempted to restrict divorce or make adultery a crime. I wouldn't agree with them but at least they'd be consistent and look a lot less hypocritical.

"But at least it would be the people deciding the laws they want to live under."

or, more accurately, the laws they want other people to live under. In truth, gay marriage doesn't have any noticable effect on anyone except the people involved but celebrate the interference of government into the personal lives of those who are different from yourself. They go out and complain about big government.

Although I have no problem with gay marriage per say, I have a problem with some of the anti-frre Stalinists that promote it. Had I lived in Maine, I would have voted to repeal the law too. The gay community needs to be more humble and they need to respect other people's rights.

People didn't, by majority vote, decide they'd live under the U.S. Constitution. The very essence of what it is to be "American" wasn't defined by popular vote.

I've always felt that those who argue against gay marriage due to the sanctity of marriage would have a lot more credence if they first attempted to restrict divorce or make adultery a crime. I wouldn't agree with them but at least they'd be consistent and look a lot less hypocritical.

Don't expect the same forces to do that! However, the other side has started a petition:

1379. (09-0026)
Eliminates the Law Allowing Married Couples to Divorce.

Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings. (09-0026.) (Full Text)

"I have a problem with some of the anti-frre Stalinists that promote it."

Out with Beck talking points calling liberals STalinists, Communists, etc. in two threads already this morning. Two Republicans elected governor, neither of whom are Beck devotees while one Democrat beats the Beck devotee. Your right wing lunacy is being rejected even by most Republicans.

"An institution that allows quickie Vegas weddings and no-fault divorce is not sacred."

It's not reasonable to use the worst cases to discredit marriage. Even if something truly is sacred or valuable one does not have to look far to find people who disregard it.

Sometimes you just have to play the hand life deals you and quityourbitchin'.

#12 | Posted by Twinpac

Yeah, sorry. I don't agree. If only you understood what its like. It's days like this that twist my insides the wrong way.

The gay community needs to be more humble and they need to respect other people's rights.

#21 | Posted by member2586

Because we're totally being respected? I think not. Whatever happened to helping the least of your brethren? Whatever happened to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?

It's so sad, I only wish you knew how it felt to know your marriage was being voted on.

""We all know we were the little guy going up against the big guy, but we prevailed. We prevailed because the people of Maine the silent majority the folks back home spoke with their votes."

Apparently, this speaker, like Richard Nixon, doesn't know the derivation of the phrase "silent majority." King Cleon, in Sophocles' Antigone, uses it to refer to _the dead_.

"What they had to say," Mutty continued, "is marriage matters because it's between a man and a woman. [This campaign] has never been about hating gays, but about preserving marriage and only about preserving marriage, and that's what we did tonight."

Hm. Really? I will never understand how extending marriage rights to homosexuals damages or destroys the institution of marriage. The divorce rate is what in this country? Seems to me we breeders are doing a fine job destroying marriage all on our own.

+++++

"I think, based on the article, that the only states where gay marriage is legal are where the courts have handed down the decision. When legislators enact the law, the people (when given the chance) have voted it down."

I guess Vermont, Iowa, and New Hampshire have not yet been given the chance? I'll be watching. Will you? Will the writer of the article? : )

+++++

"But at least it would be the people deciding the laws they want to live under."

We live in a representative democracy. We decide who our legislators will be, and our legislators make the laws (core element of the definition of legislature, right?). So if a legislature makes this decision, then the people have decided. Yes, I know that referendum processes exist, but if you extend the comment I just quoted, you could end up with a referendum on every law voted on by a legislature.

"It's not reasonable to use the worst cases to discredit marriage."

Then it is not reasonable to use the scare tactic that gay marriage will have any effect whatever on straight marriages. Opposition to gay marriage isn't about saving straight marriage it is about punishing gay people. BAsk in the afterglow of your bigotry but don't pretend that we don't see what you are.

Hm. Really? I will never understand how extending marriage rights to homosexuals damages or destroys the institution of marriage. The divorce rate is what in this country? Seems to me we breeders are doing a fine job destroying marriage all on our own.

True that. But then again, society today lacks personal responsibility... INCLUDING the right. They just don't want to admit it.

H:"Sorry honey... we can't be married anymore."
W:"What!?! Why!?!"
H:"The gheys"
W:"Gheys?!"
H:"Yeah, they destroyed our marriage?"
W:"Oh, it has nothing to do with you cheating on me?"
"Of course not"

"It's not reasonable to use the worst cases to discredit marriage. Even if something truly is sacred or valuable one does not have to look far to find people who disregard it."

No, it's probably not reasonable. To find people who disregard marriage, all you have to do is look at the divorce rate.

Speaking of which, I don't think I understand the California amendment proposal. Make it illegal to divorce? Bizarre. So how is an annulment different? If I cared enough, I guess I could research it. : )

+++++

GreenEyedGuy makes great points. ... I think we should start a movement to make all marriage illegal and institute civil contracts for all. Who's on it? I'll sign a petition, do some writing for the movement.

GreenEyedGuy makes great points. ... I think we should start a movement to make all marriage illegal and institute civil contracts for all. Who's on it? I'll sign a petition, do some writing for the movement.

#29 | Posted by pragmatist

I'd sign it... I've got nothing to lose, just like many of us Gays.

Yep, but we gotta do more than sign, Guy. I don't have a horse in this race, but I support all you horses. : )

"I don't have a horse in this race, but I support all you horses. : )"

If equal rights can be withheld from one group then they can be from another, therefore everyone has a horse in this race. Gay marriage is an issue of equal rights. That's why the "=" symbol signifies support for it. The opponents of gay rights should use "

Apparently you can use a "less than" symbol on this site.

It's not necessary for "The Left" to spin hate. But I STILL don't think that the voters have any say on whom weds whom. Certain rights are, after all, inalienable. herm

Putting a left-directed angle bracket in text here takes away all text that follows. I don't know why. Some html weirdness?

While I'm not sure I agree with your extension of my horse analogy, Danni, we agree on the specific issue. As I say, a movement should be created. I'd be happy to sign on and do some work.

Maybe all us talkers should start acting? : )

I wonder what would've happened in the 60's if states had been able to put civil rights laws to a vote.

"... a 'master plan' which excludes homosexuals from any special considerations..."

The author of this gem sees marriage as a special consideration? herm

" ... a 'master plan' which excludes homosexuals ... "

What year is this?

"I wonder what would've happened in the 60's if states had been able to put civil rights laws to a vote."

Well, yeah, but the Civil Rights Act was a national act. At that time, that political sea change had to come from on high. At this time, this political sea change seems to have to start from the states.

"The gay community needs to be more humble and ... respect other people's rights."

Humility by 53% vote? Who will respect the gay community's rights? And whose rights are impeded by other people's choices of mates? herm

Who is spinning hate here? I agree with your other point though.

What BS. Eventually gays will have the same rights as straights. The country is changing slowly but surely.

"The gay community needs to be more humble and they need to respect other people's rights."

That's same kind of thing that was being said about the colored community in the 50's and 60's.

Guy, at whom was your #41 directed?

+++++

By the by, I'm tired of "the gay community," "the black community," etc. No, this isn't the beginning of a right wing screed. These are silly locutions. There is no monolithic voice representing any of these labeled persons.

I would expect that not all gays want gay marriage just as not all women are feminists.

From NyTimes:
"The Catholic Church was a leading supporter of the repeal campaign, even asking parishes to pass a second collection plate at Sunday mass to help the cause. The National Organization for Marriage also contributed heavily to the repeal campaign; it is under investigation by Maine's ethics commission for possibly flouting state campaign finance laws by refusing to reveal its donors."

Sadly, I have no doubt it will get ugly soon enough. We'll see more scrutiny just like CA, yet maybe not. Maine is an incredibly different state, which is why this was unexpected.

I have no dog in this fight, but I couldn't be any happier with the results because it makes the already drama-prone leftwing tools even more prissy.

Oh, hey Dumper. Guess what tinkerbell, you lose again! Hhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahah
a

"the marriage issue hinges on whether "homosexuality" is a "civil right" and thus is protected."

No, it doesn't.

It hinges on whether gays are seen as equals in the eyes of the law. Or, as Jon Stewart put it once, "whether homosexuality is part of the human condition, or just a random fetish".

Prag that was at Herm in #33. I was just slow to the punch. I asked who was being hateful because the campaign lead in Maine by the Gay Marriage supporters were definitely more civilized than the CA one. Or so it seemed through the news.

"excludes homosexuals from any special considerations."

Name one "consideration" gays want that you and I don't get to take for granted.

Oh Chairboner. Get a splinter.

" To find people who disregard marriage, all you have to do is look at the divorce rate. "

Totally Bogus argument. When people find themselfs very unhappy, they should be allowed to terminate the marriage. This does NOT mean marriage is something to be disgarded.

I personally have been married, divorced and am now very happily married. My first marriage would NEVER have led to happiness.

What I don't understand is why you "oh so creative" gays (some of which have been,and are friends of mine) cannot come up with a WORD for gay marriage that does not use marriage. Get your own F**ing word.

"The gay community needs to be more humble and they need to respect other people's rights."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. And they need to drink from that water fountain over there.

The moral of the story...if you can show that the majority of the people favor health care, than the majority should rule at the expense of the minority that will pay for it. If the majority thinks that the wealthy minority should pay more so they can pay less, then the majority should rule because this is a democracy. If the majority votes AGAINST your sacred position, they are uneducated bigoted people filled with hate.

That is the Democrat way!

What I don't understand is why you "oh so creative" gays (some of which have been,and are friends of mine) cannot come up with a WORD for gay marriage that does not use marriage. Get your own F**ing word.

It's disingenuous to describe this as a battle over a word. Most opponents of gay marriage have fought just as hard to deny gays the right to civil unions.

There would be no battle at all if civil unions were available to gays across the country. Most supporters of "traditional" marriage want to deny any marriage rights to gays no matter what the word is.

Why do liberals hate gay people?

#17 | Posted by GustoGus

So now just because I don't agree with you I am a bigot? Now that IS tolerance!!
You proved my point.

bigot [ˈbɪgət]
n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race.

Well, sounds a lot like you!?!

#15 | Posted by rcade

Main Entry: marriage
Pronunciation: ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

Looks like the right is right again.
If you guys are really serious about your liberal ideals - move to a country where that is the norm, they will be more than happy to tax you heavily and let you parade all of your fantastic ideas.
Don't try to change our country, we have let the left do enough damage to the USA.

What I don't understand is why you "oh so creative" gays (some of which have been,and are friends of mine) cannot come up with a WORD for gay marriage that does not use marriage. Get your own F**ing word.

#51 | Posted by Marty

Cause you own it? What does it take to use the word marriage? I plan on getting married at my church, in front of God. No matter what the legalities of it end up being, It'll be a marriage, not a committment ceremony.

I'll make a covenental agreement with a husband some day. My God is much more gracious and loving than yours. Let him out of the box once in a while, he could use some attention.

"By the by, I'm tired of "the gay community," "the black community," etc."

Then eliminate the things that make the "gay community" seperate from the majority. Give us equality and you won't have to deal with the "gay community" so much. We'll just be regular folks then. That's all most gay people ever wanted to be in the first place.

Get your own F**ing word.

Ok. If they called it "mariage" would that be okay?

his isn't the place of the peoples votes OohRah. This is something that should never have a vote. a persons Civil Liberties. The Supreme Court is going to have to recitify the bigotry of a populace. Mark My words.

Larry

Thanks for clarifying, Guy.

+++++

No, it's not a bogus argument, Marty. 'm glad you're happily married, and I'm not suggesting termination rights should be taken away. Your case notwithstanding, it is too easy to get divorced. The divorce rate is up over 2/3, right? Clearly, we breeders are doing a damned fine job with sanctity, eh? Maybe my language went a bit far, but the point is still there: It is not homosexuality that is destroying marriage in this country. Unless you can show me that some huge percentage of those divorced folks got divorced so they could run off and be gay.

"What I don't understand is why you "oh so creative" gays (some of which have been,and are friends of mine) cannot come up with a WORD for gay marriage that does not use marriage. Get your own F**ing word."

And again, why is marriage exclusively a hetero term? No one has yet explained why two committed people shouldn't be able to get married and enjoy the same rights as two other people down the road. Oh, and btw, I'm not a "creative gay." Quite straight. You have been reading my posts, no? ("WE breeders...")

"Get your own F**ing word."

So you own the word???

"Don't try to change our country"

Surprise, surprise, surprise, it's our country just as much as it is your country.

And for the record, you straight guys that think we're checking you out. Calm down, we're queer, not desperate. If you can handle having a gay friend, we're the best wingman possible. Promise.

#60 | Posted by LarryMohr

And again, it will be the courts legislating morality and policy, that is not the SC's job, their job is to interpret the Constitution and that is their only job.
Issues like this DO NOT belong in the courts, they belong where most things that the federal gov't has taken over belong and that is at the state level, and Maine's population has spoken.

Seedeez2: You didn't quote the whole definition of marriage. Marriage between a gay couple is legal in several states and in many foreign countries and in The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, and Sweden. The word has already been redefined to include gays, whether you accept it or not.

So what, Seedeez?

American Heritage Dictionary:

marriage (mār'ĭj)
n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.

A similar union of more than two people; a polygamous marriage.

A union between persons that is recognized by custom or religious tradition as a marriage.

A common-law marriage.

The state or relationship of two adults who are married: Their marriage has been a happy one.

Note that words often have different meanings.

+++++

"Then eliminate the things that make the "gay community" seperate from the majority. Give us equality and you won't have to deal with the "gay community" so much. We'll just be regular folks then. That's all most gay people ever wanted to be in the first place."

Danni, I completely agree with you, except for the term. My best friend, a lesbian in good standing, abhors the phrase "gay community." She feels it does exactly what you think it doesn't--that is, sets her apart from "regular folks." You know, it's like "Native Americans"--some whom others put under that label would prefer it not be used. If you want to use "gay community," no one can stop you, but I'm guessing you know that others who are also gay don't share all your political beliefs and don't see themselves as part of that community. Too, I think lots of people who use the phrase use it disparagingly (as on here).

And again, it will be the courts legislating morality and policy, that is not the SC's job, their job is to interpret the Constitution and that is their only job.
Issues like this DO NOT belong in the courts, they belong where most things that the federal gov't has taken over belong and that is at the state level, and Maine's population has spoken.

#64 | Posted by seedeez2

They do where inequality is concerned. It's called Checks and Balances...

And again, it will be the courts legislating morality and policy, that is not the SC's job, their job is to interpret the Constitution
#64 | Posted by seedeez2 at 2009-11-04 09:21 AM | Reply | Flag: Doesn't realize gay marriage bans are unconstitutional

And again, it will be the courts legislating morality and policy, that is not the SC's job, their job is to interpret the Constitution and that is their only job.
Issues like this DO NOT belong in the courts, they belong where most things that the federal gov't has taken over belong and that is at the state level, and Maine's population has spoken.

Posted by seedeez2 at 2009-11-04 09:21 AM | Reply

No it will be the courts rectifying the bigotted populace. Sorry but that's the crux of the whole shebang.

Larry

"Issues like this DO NOT belong in the courts, they belong where most things that the federal gov't has taken over belong and that is at the state level, and Maine's population has spoken."

Dude, did you read my first post? The legislature IS the people. Should we have a referendum on every decision that bothers you?

#68 | Posted by JOE

Okay genius, show me in the Constitution where "gay marriage" is protected!?!

Danni, I completely agree with you, except for the term. My best friend, a lesbian in good standing, abhors the phrase "gay community." She feels it does exactly what you think it doesn't--that is, sets her apart from "regular folks." You know, it's like "Native Americans"--some whom others put under that label would prefer it not be used. If you want to use "gay community," no one can stop you, but I'm guessing you know that others who are also gay don't share all your political beliefs and don't see themselves as part of that community. Too, I think lots of people who use the phrase use it disparagingly (as on here).

#66 | Posted by pragmatist

I know! It's crazy to think, but there are actually gay conservatives, too bad many of them feel forced to support the left because they have no chances of getting any help on the right.

"Okay genius, show me in the Constitution where "gay marriage" is protected!?!"

Show me in the Constitution where marriage is protected. Show me where it defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

I believe the outcome of this vote will be gays abandoning traditional religion.

#16 | Posted by john47 at 2009-11-04 07:11 AM | Reply | Flag

Funny Flag. If you subscribe to the gay lifestyle, you have already abandoned traditional religion.

Funny Flag. If you subscribe to the gay lifestyle, you have already abandoned traditional religion.

#74 | Posted by slicksterWilly

Hah. Ummm...?

Well, I'ma baptist.

"...crux of the whole shebang."

It's biscuit, not shebang.

#69 | Posted by LarryMohr

That's the problem, this does not belong in the court system, people have made it a court issue. This is making policy at the bench and that is not what the courts were designed to do at any level.
And if you truly believe that this is the courts job, than you don't know your history and how the courts are supposed to function.

Unfortunately, you are probably right and this will become an issue in the SC, but that is NOT what their purpose is, that's a fact.

My best friend, a lesbian in good standing, abhors the phrase "gay community." She feels it does exactly what you think it doesn't--that is, sets her apart from "regular folks."

That seems like semantics to me. Groups of people form communities around things they have in common. Black community, gay community, gaming community, yadda yadda. This does not reinforce their separateness. It just acknowledges their commonality with each other. Gays would be a community regardless of whether people every called them one.

Okay genius, show me in the Constitution where "gay marriage" is protected!?!

Show me in the Constitution where it says drugs are illegal. Show me in the Constitution where it says 99% of the laws enacted today were intended by the founders. The "show me where in the Constitution" argument is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever seen.

That's the problem, this does not belong in the court system, people have made it a court issue. This is making policy at the bench and that is not what the courts were designed to do at any level.
And if you truly believe that this is the courts job, than you don't know your history and how the courts are supposed to function.

Unfortunately, you are probably right and this will become an issue in the SC, but that is NOT what their purpose is, that's a fact.

Posted by seedeez2 at 2009-11-04 09:29 AM | Reply
BWHAHAHAHA Too fucking funny and too fucking stupid. When the populace quashes the Rights of it's citizenry it IS up to the Courts to rectify it. Sorry that You do not understand this.

Larry

Well, I'ma baptist.

#75 | Posted by greeneyedguy at 2009-11-04 09:28 AM | Reply | Flag

What is a baptist?

"Gay Marriage Repealed in Maine"

So much for equal rights, equal treatment under the law, equal access to the law.

Far too many in this country haven't a fucking clue as to what it really means to be American.

Funny Flag. If you subscribe to the gay lifestyle, you have already abandoned traditional religion.

#74 | Posted by slicksterWilly at 2009-11-04 09:27 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

That's the same fucked up declaration people used to try and quash Black Heterosexuals from marrying. That is the same fucked up declaration that traditionalists used to try and quash interracial marriage. It's all fucked up.

Larry

There would be no battle at all if civil unions were available to gays across the country. Most supporters of "traditional" marriage want to deny any marriage rights to gays no matter what the word is.

#54 | Posted by rcade

I disagree completely. Call it civil unions and see the oposition fade away.

I think any two or more people should be able to form a ...Family. There you go, that can be your word. Any group can form a legal "Family" and have the rights of close family relatives. They can pass property to each other, visit each other at the hospital, use each others insurance coverage, etc.

Then you don't have the problem of people oposing your rights because they can add to their own family as well.

"Get your own F**ing word."
So you own the word???
#62 | Posted by danni

Come on, you have already taken perfectly good words and morphed them into totally different meanings. Now people can not use the same words in the ways they have been used for a very long time because you have re-defined what many words mean. We can't have a "Gay old time" like on Gilligans island anymore without the Skipper and Gilligan being thought of as "Gay"!

I consider pointless histrionics by the "Save Marriage" crowd.

If the uptighties were really interested in "Saving" marriage, they would make divorce illegal.

Divorce is the #1 threat to marriage.

"Divorce is the #1 threat to marriage."

Loving conditionally, is the #1 threat to marriage.

"We can't have a "Gay old time" like on Gilligans island anymore..."

That was The Flintstones, you imbecile.

Because making murder illegal has made that stop and showed people how serious we were about ending murder...

If you subscribe to the gay lifestyle, you have already abandoned traditional religion.

#74 | Posted by slicksterWilly

So all them priests that molested little boys abandoned religion?

America 31
Poofters 0

You're on the wrong side of history on this one.#5 | Posted by GustoGus at 2009-11-04 06:19 AM | Reply

..Unless you consider ALL of history:
Sodom and Gomorrah
Ancient Greece
Ancient Rome

So all them priests that molested little boys abandoned religion?

#89 | Posted by 726 at 2009-11-04 09:37 AM | Reply

No, they "embraced" it...

"We can't have a "Gay old time" like on Gilligans island anymore..."

That was The Flintstones, you imbecile.

#87 | Posted by Angrydad

Oh, yeah! Your RIIGHT!! So Fred and Barny are Gay!?!?! Is THAT who Barney Frank was named after? Where did the lisp come from? LOL!!

That's why the "=" symbol signifies support for it. The opponents of gay rights should use "

#32 | Posted by danni
Great mith of the homosexual agenda. lifestyle choices does not equal a protected class. I bet Gay marraige would have been accepted long in the past if the agenda was not forced acceptance of lifestyle choices.

"lifestyle choices does not equal a protected class."

Did you "choose" to be straight?

"if the agenda was not forced acceptance of lifestyle choices."

The "agenda" is equality under the law. Currently, we have one group, over here, who can enter into protective contracts, and another group, over there, who can't.

Disgusting. What the hell is wrong with people?
#10 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-04 06:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, disgusting - how the left just cries and whines when they find out how out of step they are with MOST Americans. If only we could capture the faux outrage and use it as a power source, we could solve the country's energy problems.

What is really disgusting is that rcade believes that scraping an unborn child out of its mothers womb is ok but having a man marry another man, or a dog or whatever the sexual whim is this decade, is ok.

So all them priests that molested little boys abandoned religion?

#89 | Posted by 726 at 2009-11-04 09:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nope, but they abandoned God.

"having a man marry another man, or a dog or whatever"

There should be a Godwin Tangent.

"...man marry another man, or a dog or whatever the sexual whim is this decade, is ok. "

Oh, great.

Another fucking idiot who can't grasp the concept of 'consenting adults'.

"or a dog or whatever the sexual whim is this decade, is ok."

Ah...there it is and, no surprise, it's ELCID posting his hate.

"Great mith of the homosexual agenda. lifestyle choices does not equal a protected class."

Oh, so you know it's just a matter of choice. Thanks for clearing that up.

"scraping an unborn child out of its mothers womb"

Wow, never heard that before. Because those bundle of cells are holding on for dear life screaming, "Not meeee... not meeeeeeee!"

That's the same fucked up declaration people used to try and quash Black Heterosexuals from marrying. That is the same fucked up declaration that traditionalists used to try and quash interracial marriage. It's all fucked up.

Larry

Wrong. People claim to be Christians but invent their own version of it to suit their purposes. No where does the new testament address or denounce interracial or even address the color of someones skin. In fact, many of the illustrative teachings used by Jesus tear down racial/ethnic barriers that were more prevalent then than they are today.

But the new testament is very specific about marriage. Homosexuality was prevalent during the writing of the new testament. It was addressed and since 'traditional religion' rejects it as it has done for thousands of years, new 'non traditional religions' will be created, as has been done for thousands of years.

" I bet Gay marraige would have been accepted long in the past if the agenda was not forced acceptance of lifestyle choices."

No one is forcing anyone to accept them any more than outlawing miscegnation laws forced anyone to accept inter-racial marriage. That is a personal choice, if you are comfortable with your prejudice no one will force you to give it up.

Massachusetts voters gave it thumbs down a couple yrs ago -- but of course the arrogant lib lawmakers flipped us the bird and voted G.M. in anyway!! Civil unions? -- absolutely! "Marriage" should remain a union between a man and a woman.

We'll see what happens here - but my guess is that congress and senate is starting to get the picture. If these govt. hacks want to stay put, they'll start abiding by the will of the voters. People are FINALLY waking up to the Socialist infiltration, as evidenced by the results of yesterday's races. :)

By the way -- OF COURSE it's a mandate on Obama's presidency thus far!.. Obama and his entire crowd on The Hill. This is only the beginning.

The whole issue the anti-gay crowd here in Maine used in the campaign was that if the law wasn't repealed that homosexuality would be taught in schools, the campaign pounded it in ads and it worked. If the pro gay crowd would add legislation that it would not be taught in schools they would win. No one will be able to enforce that legislation anyway but by adding it the group would get the votes.

"That seems like semantics to me. Groups of people form communities around things they have in common. Black community, gay community, gaming community, yadda yadda. This does not reinforce their separateness. It just acknowledges their commonality with each other. Gays would be a community regardless of whether people every called them one."

I can argue my semantics; you can argue yours. (shrug) I don't really care. I was just offering a brief rant. No, wait. I do care. There is no monolithic voice. And opponents/haters use it disparagingly. So we're fucked. Okay. Y'all go back to your regularly scheduling programming.

+++++

"I disagree completely. Call it civil unions and see the oposition fade away."

Bullshit. In Vermont, the opposition to civil unions has been loud loud loud. There may be those opponents who would go away, but the overall opposition would not. Look around.

"I think any two or more people should be able to form a ...Family. There you go, that can be your word. Any group can form a legal "Family" and have the rights of close family relatives. They can pass property to each other, visit each other at the hospital, use each others insurance coverage, etc. "

But family has always meant... Oh, but thanks for being so kind as to "let" homosexuals have that word. So kind of you.

"Come on, you have already taken perfectly good words and morphed them into totally different meanings."

Oh, here it comes. That old stupid trite argument again. "Gay used to be a fine word. Blah blah blah fucking blah." Words CHANGE. English is a living language. Get fucking used to it.

+++++

"Great mith of the homosexual agenda. lifestyle choices does not equal a protected class. I bet Gay marraige would have been accepted long in the past if the agenda was not forced acceptance of lifestyle choices."

Ah, enlightenment. Homosexuality is not a choice (for most people). It's an aspect of human reality. But then to know that, you'd have to recognize that people who are different from you are still people.

If you subscribe to the gay lifestyle, you have already abandoned traditional religion.

If you do unto others as you would not have done unto you then you are a fake Christian and a real asshole.

Call it civil unions and see the opposition fade away.

Lawl!

Wot? U were serious with that?

LAWL!!

On Topic?

Gay marriage repealed in Maine due to unrelenting pressure from local rtards?

Uh-huh...

See, here's the thing.

It was 53% per cent against this time.

This was the 31st time time a public ballot decided against gay marriage.

Hate-monkeys on the right see all that as a victory.

The short sighted ones do, anyway.

Thing is, in every one of these gay rights referendum thingies the opposition, while still in the majority, has lessened appreciably.

Ergo the macro trend here is that as the old and hidebound haters die off and the younger more moral generation come into power the more likely it is that soon these referendums will start winning by a narrow margin which will eventually expand to a solid majority.

Over time as gay marriage becomes an accepted societal norm it won't even be an issue anymore.

Just as we now view slavery as reprehensible and morally unjustifiable and people who oppose mixed race marriages as bigots and assholes in the future people who have a problem with gay folks living their lives with equal rights will be looked down upon as the misguided sinners that they are.

K?

Be Well.

So Danni, it is hateful to disagree with you?

You don't see the slipery slope of saying your rights are infringed because you cannot marry anyone you want? you have the same rights as anyone else. You can marry any one of the opposite sex that will consent to marry you, just like everyone else.

When you say your desire to marry the same sex is infringed by that definition, how do you stop the person who wants to marry 3 people? Or is that OK?

If it is, then what stops them from marrying a lamp post because they want to? Hmm???

So all them priests that molested little boys abandoned religion?

#89 | Posted by 726 at 2009-11-04 09:37 AM | Reply

Nope, they are just abandoned the teachings of their religion.

That seems like semantics to me. Groups of people form communities around things they have in common. Black community, gay community, gaming community, yadda yadda. This does not reinforce their separateness. It just acknowledges their commonality with each other. Gays would be a community regardless of whether people every called them one.

#78 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-04 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, I often refer to my peeps as the White community. Community is just another name for clique. If you're not inside you're outside. It is a divisive word when it only includes a certain segment of the population.

Why libs are the worst kind of racists - passive agressive if you will. Why are liberals and minorities against bringing the country together?

Oh, so you know it's just a matter of choice. Thanks for clearing that up.

#101 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-04 09:47 AM | Reply |

You chose to be straight when you married your husband and had children.
Then you chose to become a lesbian.

I for one don't believe it's a choice, but you seem to be the freak exception.

"you have the same rights as anyone else. You can marry any one of the opposite sex"

Ahhh, the cruelty response.

What you're saying is they can only marry the person of YOUR choosing.

The "agenda" is equality under the law. Currently, we have one group, over here, who can enter into protective contracts, and another group, over there, who can't.

Funny flag....

Please tell me you cannot go to an attorney and create a will that will give all of your assets to a cat when you die.

Please tell me you cannot go to an attorney and obtain a declaration that your 'lover' is your guardian, which would allow all visitation rights to a hospital...blah blah blah

Your arguments are shallow.

Ah...there it is and, no surprise, it's ELCID posting his hate.

#100 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-04 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't hate you DANNI - just think you're wrong. Why do you hate the will of the people? Just because it does not fit your agenda?

"Great mith of the homosexual agenda. lifestyle choices does not equal a protected class."

No, the Great Mith (sic) proposed by rtards like Limbaugh Scary Failin, Huckleberry et al is that equal rights equal special rights.

Another great Mith is that the people opposing equal rights to gays through legalizing gay marriage are somehow "defending" traditional marriage.

Utter bullshit.

It's an unwarranted attack that pretends it's a defense.

Also the whole "lifestyle choice" thing is pure crap.

Of course, whenever a rational being tries pointing any of this out to these folks they're "attacking Christianity".

It is, as they say, to laugh.

Be Well.

If equal rights can be withheld from one group then they can be from another, therefore everyone has a horse in this race.
"#32 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-04 08:30 AM | Reply |

I know it's a bad day for you. Sorry.

But will you ever acknowledge on ANY level that "gay" or "homosexual" issues come down to BEHAVIOR?

How ELSE could "gay" "lesbian" "homosexual" or "queer" be defined other than behaviorally?

..Which makes it quite different than traditional "civil rights."

Please try to respond without using the word "bigot" or any of its variants.

I love gay people.
I have problems with gay behavior, much less it being codified into law.

Will you even acknowledge the difference?

"When you say your desire to marry the same sex is infringed by that definition, how do you stop the person who wants to marry 3 people? Or is that OK?"

Marriage is, at its legal root, a confirmation of superseding rights on one other person, giving advantages -- unlimited monetary gifts, tax-free inheritance, first refusal of pensions, etc. -- to them and no other. Polygamy would negate most of those advantages.

"If it is, then what stops them from marrying a lamp post because they want to? Hmm???"

No one is asking for equal rights for lamp posts or dogs or anything else besides human beings. Believe it or not, contrary to what you have been told, gay people are human beings who should have equal rights with any other human beings, including marrying the human being of their choice. I don't worry much about the slow pace of change because over my lifetime I have seen dramatic change already and therefore I KNOW it will continue and eventually we will gain equal rights with other Americans in spite of, as always, the attempts by some to hold back progress. The anti-gay rights crusaders will look like George Wallace standing in front a school pretty soon.

"Your arguments are shallow."

Bullshit.

But even if that were the case, they're better that what you've got, which is no argument at all.

Please tell me you cannot go to an attorney and create a will that will give all of your assets to a cat when you die.

Please tell me you cannot go to an attorney and obtain a declaration that your 'lover' is your guardian, which would allow all visitation rights to a hospital...blah blah blah

Your arguments are shallow.

#114 | Posted by slicksterWilly

Do you wanna pay the couple thousand dollars a legitimate contract such as that will cost? You can do the same in extremely less.

Maybe we should get the government to pay for it. I mean it makes sense right? Y'all are always complaining that we want special treatment, lets do it.

"Why are liberals and minorities against bringing the country together?"

Posts the guy who wants to exclude those people.

"But will you ever acknowledge on ANY level that "gay" or "homosexual" issues come down to BEHAVIOR?"

No because you could be celebate your entire life but still be gay.

"There should be a Godwin Tangent."

There's a reference I'm not getting, though I understand by context what you're getting at.

+++++

"But the new testament is very specific about marriage. Homosexuality was prevalent during the writing of the new testament. It was addressed and since 'traditional religion' rejects it as it has done for thousands of years, new 'non traditional religions' will be created, as has been done for thousands of years."

Okay, so are you going to enforce the other restrictions of Leviticus? Hair of a certain length? Cloth blends? Does it occur to anyone that the Bible presented not only moral codes but social codes? So, for instance, homosexuality was bad because it interfered with procreation, and we needed more people to actually perpetuate the species. Maybe you haven't noticed, but there's no underpopulation issue for humans these days.

+++++

"Ergo the macro trend here is that as the old and hidebound haters die off and the younger more moral generation come into power the more likely it is that soon these referendums will start winning by a narrow margin which will eventually expand to a solid majority."

Great! So here's my question: In these 31 "victories," have the margins increased or decreased? Have there been multiple "victories" in the same state? Have margins increased or decreased?

+++++

"If it is, then what stops them from marrying a lamp post because they want to? Hmm???"

Totally fucking irrelevant, just like your dog argument. Homosexuality is not a fetish. Get over your narrow-minded little ideas and move on.

"Please tell me you cannot go to an attorney and obtain a declaration that your 'lover' is your guardian, which would allow all visitation rights to a hospital...blah blah blah

Try putting that on your income tax return when you try to put in a joint return.

What you're saying is they can only marry the person of YOUR choosing.

#113 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-04 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

What you're saying is that the people should not be able to decide the laws they live under? Is that correct?

Ah, enlightenment. Homosexuality is not a choice (for most people). It's an aspect of human reality. But then to know that, you'd have to recognize that people who are different from you are still people.

#107 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-11-04 09:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Homosexuality has been prevalent in societies since history has been recorded and through all of that time has been rejected by mainstream societies. Not just Judeo-Christian societies. There is a reason for this. And suddenly Pragmatist has the answers....but only those enlightened can understand it.

"Please tell me you cannot go to an attorney and create a will that will give all of your assets to a cat when you die."

You can't give your cat your Social Security survivor's pension, or make your cat the second-to-die on your company's pension, or allow your cat to inherit your IRAs tax-free, or....

"Please tell me you cannot go to an attorney and obtain a declaration that your 'lover' is your guardian, which would allow all visitation rights to a hospital...blah blah blah"

But why should any two loving adults _have to_ create a contract like this? I didn't have to when I married my wife. We just... got married. Voila. My brother-in-law and his partner should have the same rights. They are a loving couple, and more committed than many straights I know.

Believe it or not, contrary to what you have been told, gay people are human beings who should have equal rights with any other human beings, including marrying the human being of their choice.

#119 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-04 09:58 AM | Reply

Danni,
Have you forgotten that you did get to marry the human being of your choice?

You're not exactly the poster child for "gay rights".

"What you're saying is that the people should not be able to decide the laws they live under? Is that correct?"

I'm saying if civil rights had to be put to a vote, blacks would still be drinking from a separate fountain.

Try putting that on your income tax return when you try to put in a joint return.

#125 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-04 10:00 AM | Reply | Flag

So you are gay because of greed?

When you say your desire to marry the same sex is infringed by that definition, how do you stop the person who wants to marry 3 people? Or is that OK?

Dunno you'd hafta ask a Jebus freak about that.

Ya seem the only people who regularly advocate for polygamy are religious fucktards. Mostly it's proposed and implemented by men with serious control issues in order to keep their women subservient and even more ignorant than themselves (no small feat).

In almost all of these religious based polygamous communities child rape is a way of life.

Spud has no problems with polygamous arrangements, line marriages or "open" marriages between consenting adults provided nobody's fucking with the kids.

If it is, then what stops them from marrying a lamp post because they want to? Hmm???

zOMFG! Did you actually think you made a point there?

Really?

ROFLMSAO!

Be Well.

Posts the guy who wants to exclude those people.

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-04 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

The formation of "communities" is divisive - non inclusive. You're not like us so you can't join. Kind of like the congressional black caucus - where is the congressional white caucus? Real equality would treat everyone equally under the law. NOT distinguish one group from another.

The law in most states currently states only opposite sexes can marry. Don't like it, change the law. You libtards use this argument all the time concerning abortion.

Okay genius, show me in the Constitution where "gay marriage" is protected!?!

#71 | Posted by seedeez2

Show me in the Constitution where marriage is protected. Show me where it defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

#73 | Posted by pragmatist

The COTUS certainly doesn't mention marriage in any manner.

The COTUS does discuss equal rights and equal treatment for all.

Ignorants though like seedeez2 can't grok this very simple concept.

One would think that the Civil Rights conflicts of the 60s would have taught us a thing or two about what it is to be American.

Nope.

Just found another minority group to oppress and belittle and condemn and marginalize.

They are a loving couple, and more committed than many straights I know.

#129 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-11-04 10:01 AM | Reply

I know people that are more committed to their pets than both gay and hetero couples I know.

The "some gays are better couples than married people" argument is as dumb as the "marrying dogs is next" argument.

"Homosexuality has been prevalent in societies since history has been recorded and through all of that time has been rejected by mainstream societies. Not just Judeo-Christian societies. There is a reason for this. And suddenly Pragmatist has the answers....but only those enlightened can understand it."

Yeah, I'm the only who has ever presented these arguments. Sui generis me. All right, O Swami--what is the reason? Try to answer without using pat moralistic arguments or bringing up carnal love with beasts. (Methinks you didn't read my comment on Leviticus.)

+++++

By the by, I"m sorry I brought up my "gay community" thought--not because I think I'm wrong but because it fuels the fire of haters like ElCid.

But why should any two loving adults _have to_ create a contract like this? I didn't have to when I married my wife. We just... got married.

You obtained a marriage license so the state could make a little money.

Your just giving the money charged for the document to a lawyer instead. All $50.

Btw,
I am very harsh with "conservatives" and their hypocrisy and "fake outrage" when THEY freely marry and divorce and bitterly complain about the loss of the "sanctity of marriage" concerning gay marriage.

If we are serious, our behavior should be different.

It really cuts the legs out of "sanctity of marriage" arguments.

"The law in most states currently states only opposite sexes can marry. Don't like it, change the law."

But the Maine State Legislature _did_ change the law. WHAT THE FUCK? Are you really this confused?

"Also the whole "lifestyle choice" thing is pure crap.:

How does one explain transexuals, transvestites, transgenders and bi-sexuals as not being "lifestyle choices"?

"So you are gay because of greed?"

No, just don't like to be penalized for being gay. Why should a gay couple pay more tax than a straight couple??? Are you straight because of your greed???

I'm saying if civil rights had to be put to a vote, blacks would still be drinking from a separate fountain.

#131 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-04 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Strawman. Put speeding to a vote. Put income taxes to a vote. People have a right to choose the laws they live by - don't like our laws, move to Canada. The spudster would love more alternative lifestyle immigrants in his pitiful country.

One would think that the Civil Rights conflicts of the 60s would have taught us a thing or two about what it is to be American.

Nope.

Just found another minority group to oppress and belittle and condemn and marginalize.

#135 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-11-04 10:04 AM | Reply | Flag

Funny Flag. Insulting to all Americans who died to grant people with a different color skin the same rights as anyone else.

A gay claiming a minority status is pathetic.

No, just don't like to be penalized for being gay. Why should a gay couple pay more tax than a straight couple??? Are you straight because of your greed???

#142 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-04 10:06 AM | Reply

I'm sure you gave back all those tax breaks you got when you were married to a man and had children.

Why were you not crying for equal rights for single people and couples without children? Why are you OK with the fact they're discriminated against?

"The "some gays are better couples than married people" argument is as dumb as the "marrying dogs is next" argument."

Since you seem to be serious today, I'll respond. : )

l wasn't using it as a core argument; it's a response (implied in this case) to the "all gays are promiscuous fucks and aren't serious about relationships" bullshit. Sorry that I wasn't clear.

No, just don't like to be penalized for being gay. Why should a gay couple pay more tax than a straight couple??? Are you straight because of your greed???

#142 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-04 10:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why should two people cohabitating be penalized then?

Did you choose you're sexuality DANNI or did nature choose for you?

There should be a Godwin Tangent.

"There's a reference I'm not getting, though I understand by context what you're getting at."

Godwin's Law
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
The term Godwin's law can also refer to the tradition that whoever makes such a comparison is said to "lose" the debate.

----

In a gay marriage thread, anytime some idiot begins to equate equality with fucking animals (or children, or a lamp post), they've just lost the debate.

#139...

Why does every States rejection of same sex marriage boil down to "conservatives" are to blame? Obvioulsy there are moderates, independents and democrats who help defeat these propositions.

I love gay people.
I have problems with gay behavior, much less it being codified into law.

Will you even acknowledge the difference?

#117 | Posted by kirk

I'll bet it is the visceral reaction you have to effeminate male behavior.

Should make you watch To Wong Foo daily for a month.

I have not a clue what you mean by "gay behavior" being codified into law. Please explain.

"Strawman. Put speeding to a vote. Put income taxes to a vote"

First, speeding and income taxes aren't about civil rights.

Second, you've just proven my point, not yours.

"But will you ever acknowledge on ANY level that "gay" or "homosexual" issues come down to BEHAVIOR?"No because you could be celebate your entire life but still be gay.#123 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-04 09:59 AM | Reply

So in your argument FOR gay marriage you mention that gay people CAN control their behavior, HAVE A CHOICE, and can be celibate.

Got ya.

I agree.

And oppose the codifying into law gay BEHAVIOR.

"You obtained a marriage license so the state could make a little money.
Your just giving the money charged for the document to a lawyer instead. All $50."

Deliberately missing the point?

No, just don't like to be penalized for being gay. Why should a gay couple pay more tax than a straight couple??? Are you straight because of your greed???

#142 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-04 10:06 AM | Reply
I agree with you on that. I don't agree with our tax code where individual filers are at a higher rate than a married couple with 1 earner.

But the Maine State Legislature _did_ change the law. WHAT THE FUCK? Are you really this confused?

#140 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-11-04 10:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obviously against the will of the people according to this vote. Are you really this confused over how the state legislature sometimes does not follow the will of the people? I mean, you don't really think all laws were made with a majority of support do you? WTF?

"Did you choose you're sexuality DANNI or did nature choose for you?"

What difference would it make if I answered you, you have already made up your mind without knowing anything about it. Your earlier posts defined you to me pretty clearly.

"In a gay marriage thread, anytime some idiot begins to equate equality with fucking animals (or children, or a lamp post), they've just lost the debate."

Thanks, Dan. I'm with you, on this as on so many things. : )

"Your just giving the money charged for the document to a lawyer instead. All $50."

And how much would you have to pay a lawyer to get unlimited marital gifts, or a Social Security survivor's pension?

Oh, wait...those can't be bought for any price. Despite the fact my wife and I got to take those rights for granted the moment we said "I do".

First, speeding and income taxes aren't about civil rights.

Second, you've just proven my point, not yours.

#151 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-04 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, I was showing that the will of the people may not always be self serving or in their own best interests. Who doesn't speed? Who likes to pay income tax? Although you may not agree, the laws protecting the definition of marriage, like speeding laws and taxes, are good for the general welfare. - again, you may not agree, but most people do. As has been shown 31 times.

"And oppose the codifying into law gay BEHAVIOR."

It's already been codified, for years. Lawrence v. Texas, 2003.

Now, it's about equality.

"Obviously against the will of the people according to this vote. Are you really this confused over how the state legislature sometimes does not follow the will of the people? I mean, you don't really think all laws were made with a majority of support do you? WTF?"

Would you _please_ read my earlier comments. In short, where does the referendum process end. We _elect_ a legislature. For the purposes of law-making, they _are_ us. The people of Maine had plenty of opportunity to talk to their reps _before_ the vote, did they not? This was hardly held in secret. Where does it end? Further, the 53/47 split is just about exactly Obama's popular-vote victory split, so if you are willing to acknowledge to the lefties that President Obama has a mandate from the people, I'll be willing to acknowledge that "the people" of Maine have spoken.

"No, I was showing that the will of the people may not always be self serving or in their own best interests."

Thank you for once again proving my point.

So Danni is OK with discriminating against single people and married couples with no children.
She wasn't complaining when she, as an adult, chose to marry a man and have children.
Now she decided she's gay, and wants to be able to marry another person of her choosing. She wants more tax breaks that single people don't get.

" the laws protecting the definition of marriage, like speeding laws and taxes, are good for the general welfare."

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain that. Isn't marriage generally held to be a good thing?

"She wants more tax breaks that single people don't get."

Didn't you just accuse me of an irrelevant argument?

If you don't like the tax breaks part of marriage, work to change that. I had this discussion with one of my rightwing friends, too. She's all about stripping away the marital tax breaks, though her reasons have something to do with overpopulation...

Marriage is a confirmation of superseding rights on one other person, giving advantages -- unlimited monetary gifts, tax-free inheritance, first refusal of pensions, etc. -- to them and no other.
#118 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-04 09:58 AM | Reply |

You should write Hallmark greeting cards.

The headline should read:

Bible-thumping, Homophobic Paranoia Prevails in Maine.

What difference would it make if I answered you, you have already made up your mind without knowing anything about it. Your earlier posts defined you to me pretty clearly.

#156 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-04 10:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, I go out and physically assault gays all the time. I don't talk to them, work with them and don't even look at them. Quit making it seem so dramatic. Dissent does not always have to be militaristic. I would not spit in your face, or refuse to shake your hand. I would not let you teach my children or talk with them about you're lifestyle but you would be welcome at my dinner table otherwise. So get over you're "everyone who is against gay marriage wishes we were dead" self and move on. As you said on Jan 20th, you lost.

Insulting to all Americans who died to grant people with a different color skin the same rights as anyone else.

#144 | Posted by slicksterWilly

Yeah? When was that? Don't say the Civil War/War Between the States. The Emancipation Proclamation was not what the war was about. And note that blacks were not able to vote in this "free" country until the mid-60s and it wasn't later in the 60s that blacks "won" the right to not be discriminated against in housing.

Tell me all about the equal treatment and recognition of blacks (and other minorities) during WWII, even as they were serving the same cause as whites.

So don't even attempt to spoon feed me any of your shite. You are insulting to even suggest what you do. It is still a predominately white hetero dominated country despite the oreo currently in the White House (which in itself is a bit ironic).

Yes, gays are a minority. Just as blacks have no choice in the melanin concentration in their skin, gays have no choice as to who they are attracted to in life.

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain that. Isn't marriage generally held to be a good thing?

#164 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-11-04 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Marriage is. You want civil unions - be my guest. Just don't call them marriage.

"I would not spit in your face, or refuse to shake your hand."

But you would vote to deny her what you and your wife get to take for granted.

gays have no choice as to who they are attracted to in life.

#169 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-11-04 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Link?

But you would vote to deny her what you and your wife get to take for granted.

#171 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-04 10:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

And you would vote to deny rights to the unborn and take for granted that you're mother did not deem you a "mistake". DANNI can cohabitate with whomever she likes - just don't call it marriage. You want her to have the tax breaks? I am ok with that.

"Just don't call them marriage."

Please explain how calling it marriage could have any effect on your existence.

Great! So here's my question: In these 31 "victories," have the margins increased or decreased? Have there been multiple "victories" in the same state? Have margins increased or decreased?

The margin for "victory" for the anti equal rights crowd has consistently diminished.

Gay marriage is on it's way in, like it or not.

The smarter rethugs know this already, of course, but they act like they don't and will continue to as long as they perceive this as being a successful wedge issue for them.

Here's a helpful map indicating the probable order in which states are most likely to legalise gay marriage and when.

Yes, gays are a minority. Just as blacks have no choice in the melanin concentration in their skin, gays have no choice as to who they are attracted to in life.

#169 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-11-04 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

By this reasoning, everyone is a minority. My son goes to a school that is 51% asian. So does he qualify as a minority ZIT?

Sorry, ZOT.

Please explain how calling it marriage could have any effect on your existence.

#174 | Posted by Dave at 2009-11-04 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Please explain how calling it marriage could have any effect on their existence. What are they fighting for? Eqaulity under the law, or attacking the traditions of others?

"And you would vote to deny rights to the unborn"

WTF does that have to do with this discussion?

I love gay people.
I have problems with gay behavior, much less it being codified into law.

~James Tiberius

That's like saying "I love Christians just as long as they don't read their bibles, pray or go to church"

ie Farkin' Nutso.

Be Well.

WTF does that have to do with this discussion?

#179 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-04 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:
You have you're moral compass and I have mine. What rights am I denying by supporting unions instead of marriage?

Doesn't realize gay marriage bans are unconstitutional

#68 | Posted by JOE

First off, I wouldn't define them as "bans". Marriage laws are pretty explicit - a civil union between one man and one woman. You could argue that said definition isn't inclusive, but that's not the same thing as a "ban".

Secondly, I disagree with you from a constitutional standpoint. Our legislature writes laws. Those laws are supposed to reflect the will of the people. As it stands right now, homosexuality isn't considered "normal enough" to re-define the legal term of 'marriage' in order to include gay couples. If you are going to use the 'Equal Protection' clause, then you are opening up a whole new can of worms. Polygamists, adults wishing to marry a minor without parental consent, etc. can then ALL claim that their behavior is 'normal' and that they are being discriminated against under 'Equal Protection'.

As for the state of Maine, I feel bad for the gheys. Personally, I have no problem with queer marriage and if it came up as a referendum item again here in Michigan, I'd support it. Granted, like Chair I get a perverse sense of joy at how much this upsets some liberals, but from a bigger picture standpoint I don't like this. I was hoping to see MORE states go for the gheys, not less.

By this reasoning, everyone is a minority

Everyone is unique, ergo everyone is a minority.

Everyone is the same, ergo everyone is a majority too.

K?

Be Well.

"So Danni is OK with discriminating against single people and married couples with no children."

Since my kids are grown then I am a single person with no children for tax purposes. I haven't had a deduction for years. However, I still do support tax deductions for children even though I don't qualify any more.

"What are they fighting for? Eqaulity under the law..."

Exactly.

"Please explain how calling it marriage could have any effect on their existence."

You're the one whining about what they might call it. I don't give a shit what they call it. I want to know what your problem with it is.

"Granted, like Chair I get a perverse sense of joy at how much this upsets some liberals,"

Surprisingly, it doesn't upset me. I expect anti-gay marriage groups to keep winning for a while but it doesn't bother me much because I know time is on our side. Actually, it seems to me that the people who get a rise in blood pressure are the anti-gay marriage crowd, some of them seem virtually rabid.

" Those laws are supposed to reflect the will of the people."

They are also supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Telling a minority group they don't get a seat at the 'full-rights' table is tyranny.

Polygamists, adults wishing to marry a minor without parental consent, etc. can then ALL claim that their behavior is 'normal' and that they are being discriminated against under 'Equal Protection'.

No, they can't, Jeff, and making that failed argument over and over again just shows how "traditional marriage advocates" ie ignorant religious homophobes don't have a leg to stand on either rationally or morally in this argument.

On the plus side at least you didn't equate homosexuality to bestiality this time.

Thank the FSM fer small favours.

Be Well.

christian sharia strikes again.

The "agenda" is equality under the law. Currently, we have one group, over here, who can enter into protective contracts, and another group, over there, who can't.

#95 | Posted by Danforth
Wrong again, both groups can enter into the same protective contracts. It is just one group wants to change the definition of the protective contracts based on lifestyle choices.

"adults wishing to marry a minor without parental consent"

Godwin's Tangent.

Oh, so you know it's just a matter of choice. Thanks for clearing that up.

#101 | Posted by danni
Who you have relationships with is a matter of choice. People control their urges all the time, it is part of being in the human race, instead of just being an animal.

"Wrong again, both groups can enter into the same protective contracts."

One group is allowed to marry whom THEY choose, and the other only allowed to marry whom YOU choose. Big difference.

"based on lifestyle choices."

Again...did you "choose"? I didn't. The first day of kindergarten I spied a pretty little blue-eyed blonde girl across the room...the kind so blonde her eyelashes are blonde. I was immediately smitten. I didn't know gay from straight, what sexuality was, or anything about nature or choices. All I knew was she was cute!

But from your post, I'm guessing you have to choose at every turn, and some days it's very difficult...right?

Actually, it seems to me that the people who get a rise in blood pressure are the anti-gay marriage crowd, some of them seem virtually rabid.

#186 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-04 10:33 AM | Reply

There are a few strange agents that get riled about gays being treated equally, but not nearly as many that get prissy about society as a whole telling gays to go away.

Just look at the this thread. All the jerk-offs claiming it's religious people and conservatives that are doing the discriminating...
I hate to break it to you pant pissing purse swingers, but California and Maine aren't exactly known for being conservative or overly religious. Face it, the majority of people don't give a fuck about you and are sick and tired of hearing your uber-minority cry constantly.

For such a small percentage of people you sure do make a lot of noise.

Again...did you "choose"?
#193 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-04 10:39 AM | Re

Danni did. She chose to marry a man.

I disagree completely. Call it civil unions and see the oposition fade away.

Whether you disagree or not, the fact remains that traditional marriage supporters are not fighting against gay marriage by introducing laws to support gay civil unions. They aren't taking that middle ground. Instead, they are opposing all forms of legal sanction for gay couples.

#192 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-11-04 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag: You people are wasting yer time with this one

Welcome to Maine where the men are men the women are men and the sheep run scared!

Do people choose to be bi, and when will we grant them rights to marry a memebr of each sex?

"Danni did. She chose to marry a man."

Somehow I doubt she would have had another option been available.

I'm saying if civil rights had to be put to a vote, blacks would still be drinking from a separate fountain.

#131 | Posted by Danforth
huge false argument, 1 not true to any measure, and this is not a civil rights issue, once again lifestyle choices is not a protected right. Get over yourself on this. No matter how hard you want to hijack that issue, dreaming does not make it so. Look back at MLK words on civial rights and where they come from...

"gays have no choice as to who they are attracted to in life."

Link?

#172 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at

I got your link. It's in their pants. Go research it yerself.

Granted, like Chair I get a perverse sense of joy at how much this upsets some liberals ...

Why? There are plenty of gay conservatives and libertarians too. Do you really take pleasure in the idea that these people will be denied the right to be at their partner's deathbed in the hospital, or denied the right to have equal parental rights to children they raise together? Though you admitted it was "perverse" to feel joy about this, I think that word has no place in this.

Gay couples aren't hurting anybody by wanting to marry. Their decision affects no one else in the world, except the people who would benefit directly from the stability of their relationships -- their children. Straight people need to back the fuck off and embrace the idea of live and let live.

... this is not a civil rights issue, once again lifestyle choices is not a protected right.

Calling yourself FreeChoice is ironic, given your stand to take the choice to marry away from millions of Americans.

Somehow I doubt she would have had another option been available.

#200 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-04 10:46 AM | Reply

I have no idea what this even means.

Are you saying she couldn't have just chosen not to marry her husband? How does somebody that is gay even want to marry and have sex with a member of the opposite sex?
I'll assume she wasn't forced.

Somehow I doubt she would have had another option been available.

Marriage is mandatory in FL?

"...and this is not a civil rights issue..."

#201 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-11-04 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag: Appallingly stupid

Why?
#203 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-04 10:47 AM | Reply |

Are you new here or something? We (meaning about 99% of the posters) love when or opposition doesn't get what they want, even if we are apathetic to the "want".

BTW, weak fucking dumps on Wisgod as far as "Bev" was concerned. Calling her fat is way worse than the deletes you hand out for calling somebody a cunt.

"Just don't call them marriage."

Please explain how calling it marriage could have any effect on your existence.

#174 | Posted by Dave

It doesn't. That's just the single beat they keep drumming out.

Funny if I were to get married in The Elvis chapel, thaz kewl. But is that "marriage?" Hell no. It's just a licensing arrangement witnessed by two other people.

If a "marriage" isn't performed in religious edifice and/or by a religioso of some flave, then it ain't a marriage as far as I'm concerned. It's nothing more than a legal recognized and sanctioned civil union.

But everybody gets all corn-fue-zed because both the civil ceremony and the religious ceremony are both called "marriage." They ain't.

"Marriage is mandatory in FL?"

My point is had she been able to marry a woman, and raise a family, that would have been her choice.

Just a guess.

Anyone else watch the series Bored to Death???

They have an episode called "The Case of the Stolen Sperm" it's hilarious.

One group is allowed to marry whom THEY choose, and the other only allowed to marry whom YOU choose. Big difference

No not a difference, what if a straight man wants to marry his buddy because it would be easy as hell to get along with him, and banging all the chicks in the world is not a problem for them. They can't, so gays and stratights have same issue, they can not marry whomever they want if it is the smae sex. Both are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Same rights for all based on equality. not on lifestyle choices.

But from your post, I'm guessing you have to choose at every turn, and some days it's very difficult...right?

#193 | Posted by Danforth
What a childish tactic.. Please grow up.

No, they can't, Jeff, and making that failed argument over and over again just shows how "traditional marriage advocates" ie ignorant religious homophobes don't have a leg to stand on either rationally or morally in this argument.

You're going to have to do better than "nuh uh."

It wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. Our system of government has the right to define what does and doesn't constitute criminal behavior, deviant behavior and "normal" behavior. You are fighting an uphill constitutional battle if you are going to apply 'equal protection' to legal definitions of deviant and/or criminal behavior.

Why?

Because many liberals are the biggest whiners on the planet and I take perverse joy toward anything that gets the whine going.

Again, as for the gheys, I feel bad for them on this.

"My point is..."

These clowns know....they're just bored to death.

"I would not let you teach my children or talk with them about you're lifestyle but you would be welcome at my dinner table otherwise. "

Does "teach my children" go with "about you're (sic) lifestyle" or are you saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be teachers?

+++++

"Please explain how calling it marriage could have any effect on their existence. What are they fighting for? Eqaulity under the law, or attacking the traditions of others?"

Boy, you're on a roll today. How is a homosexual asking for rights in his or her committed relationship equivalent to attacking a tradition? (I think I know your answer: "Marriage is between a man and a woman blah blah blah." I'm ready to be corrected, though.)

+++++

"You have you're moral compass and I have mine. What rights am I denying by supporting unions instead of marriage?"

No civil union I know of confers the same rights with the same speed that a marriage confers. So yeah, you're denying rights.

+++++

"Wrong again, both groups can enter into the same protective contracts."

But it's NOT the same protective contract. Homosexuals would have to create a special contract (and spend more money, but that's not really the point).

"Somehow I doubt she would have had another option been available."

Trying to be who we were told we are supposed be is a hard thing to stop doing. I probably couldn't have ever managed while my parents were still alive, I hate to admit, but that is probably the truth. It's still difficult with some siblings but not nearly like it used to be.

On the plus side at least you didn't equate homosexuality to bestiality this time.

First off, I was never "equating" the two. Secondly, I rethought it as part of my argument and felt that introducing animals into my legal argument was just plain stupid and distracted from the overall point I was trying to make.

"...and this is not a civil rights issue..."

#201 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-11-04 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag: Appallingly stupid

#207 | Posted by Dave at 2009-11-04 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose) Appallingly Naive

...as in the days of Noah...

Apologies forthcoming for Sodom and Gomorrah?

BTW, weak fucking dumps on Wisgod as far as "Bev" was concerned. Calling her fat is way worse than the deletes you hand out for calling somebody a cunt.

I don't treat cunt any different than dick.

The abuse that voting expert Bev Harris took when she showed up here was ridiculous. It was cool to have someone involved in the news show up here to comment, and some people here thought that was a good excuse to personally ridicule her appearance.

If that ever happens again, I will be dumping posts or banning members entirely. That was an embarrassment to this community.

Dang - what'd I miss out on?

Many gays have tried to suffer through life in a marriage that is neither satisfying nor loving just to live a 'normal life' and basically living a lie.

Y'all should be more sympathetic to her, there are far deeper things happening in that relationship than you probably new.

She did an honorable thing by not continuing to pretend to be with her husband, when it wasn't working.

knew*

I don't treat cunt any different than dick.

Good lord, that sentence I just wrote could be misconstrued. I don't treat the word cunt any differently than I treat the word dick, when I am moderating this site.

I don't treat cunt any different than dick.

#222 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-04 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag: Closet door wide open

#222 | Posted by rcade

Rush Limbaugh gets called "fat and drug-addicted" on a daily basis on this blog. I don't see you deleting, much less dumping any of those posts.

Go figure.

#226 | Posted by rcade

Excellent clarification!

Yes, gays are a minority. Just as blacks have no choice in the melanin concentration in their skin, gays have no choice as to who they are attracted to in life.

#169 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-11-04 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag

Some men who are attracted to 300lb bald women have no choice in the matter. Are they a minority as well. Your SFB.

#226

Oops, too late! The Misconstruer in Chief got to ya pretty fast.

-If that ever happens again, I will be dumping posts or banning members entirely.

Good for you.

- That was an embarrassment to this community.

Which is ridiculously hard to do.

t wasn't that long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder.

It wasn't that long ago historically that black folks and women were considered property either.

Doesn't make it right.

Our system of government has the right to define what does and doesn't constitute criminal behavior, deviant behavior and "normal" behavior. You are fighting an uphill constitutional battle if you are going to apply 'equal protection' to legal definitions of deviant and/or criminal behavior.

Homosexuality is neither deviant nor criminal behaviour.

First off, I was never "equating" the two.

Sure you were. Don't try to weasel out of this by claiming that Spud sed that you sed the two were identical just similar enough to use in yer FAILed argument.

You are fighting an uphill battle if you try and make this argument to serious adults.

Secondly, I rethought it as part of my argument and felt that introducing animals into my legal argument was just plain stupid and distracted from the overall point I was trying to make.

The point you are trying to make is a non-point.

A just plain stupid argument, in fact.

Good thing you kept the animals out this time cos then Spud woulda really let you have it.

See, yer capable of learning given enuff positive and negative reinforcements.

Kudos.

Be Well.

/Just like he came in
stage left.

"I don't see you deleting, much less dumping any of those posts."

Yeah! He's not even fat anymore!

#226 | Posted by rcade

U r so lucky you ammended that one in time cos Spud was digging sommat out of the zinger bag that woulda had you wishing to back having yer root canal redone.Be Well/

#226 | Posted by rcade

U r so lucky you ammended that one in time cos Spud was digging sommat out of the zinger bag that woulda had you wishing to back having yer root canal redone.Be Well/

Your SFB.

#230 | Posted by slicksterWilly

OK, Willy, what's an SFB?

That was an embarrassment to this community.

#222 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-04 11:02 AM | Reply

But calling Pelosi a cunt isn't...
Jesus Christ, just admit you're moderation policy is selctively enforced.
People comment on Goatman's picture all of the time, yet none of them get dumped. Same with that clown that posted his wedding pics.

"Bev" made herself be known, and opened herself up to the same level of ridicule that others here have.

Soooooooooooo, we're NOT supposed to back big shots into the corner, rcade? COOL! All'y'all can start leaving me alone or treat me with kid gloves, 'kay?

"Good lord, that sentence I just wrote could be misconstrued. I don't treat the word cunt any differently than I treat the word dick, when I am moderating this site."

That's fucking FUNNY, rcade.

+++++

"Rush Limbaugh gets called "fat and drug-addicted" on a daily basis on this blog. I don't see you deleting, much less dumping any of those posts."

Maybe if Rush were hanging out here--fat chance--Rcade would set the same rule.

The Tyranny of the Majority- this is what the Founders warned about. Rights are rights, whether 95% of the people agree, or 10%. In fact, you don't need the rights if 95% agree, you only need the protection of a right when 95% are against you.

As Larry Flynt said: rights are not there to protect popular thought as popular thought does not need protecting.

and ONCE AGAIN,...the people speak
next thing will be liberal attempt to silence this voice because the gay agenda industry wont allow it to stand without that fight.

when its put to a vote of the people, we get the same answer time and again.

It wasn't that long ago historically that black folks and women were considered property either.

Which was changed via a constitutional ammendment.

Back to the bestaility thing in a moment....

As for the rest of it, we are talking in circles. My point is that existing marriage laws are not in violation of the consitution via equal protection. I bring up those other examples as a means of pointing out the fallacy of the equal protection argument as it pertains to gays via the 'slippery slope'.

Sure you were. Don't try to weasel out of this by claiming that Spud sed that you sed the two were identical just similar enough to use in yer FAILed argument.

I NEVER said they were identical, similar, or anything else. I was using an extreme exaggeration to point out the slippery slope that goes hand-in-hand with trying to torture the constitution to a point where this issue is a constitutional issue in lieu of a states' issue (which is what it is). Don't be a dick. I know you've read a fair amount of my posts over the years and one thing should be abundantly clear - I harbor no ill-will toward gays, I support them in their quest for gay marriage and I don't think homosexuality is deviant, criminal or even unnatural. Seriously, quit being a dick.

I'm glad Clomes didn't read that spot on description Alexandrite posted of him...Oh wait, he did.

Hopefully Rosie O'Donnel, Dennie The Hut Hastart, Hannity, Maddow, Rush, or any other "special celebrity from the TV" don't read the attacks of their physical characteristics posted here daily...

But calling Pelosi a cunt isn't...
Jesus Christ, just admit you're moderation policy is selctively enforced.
People comment on Goatman's picture all of the time, yet none of them get dumped. Same with that clown that posted his wedding pics.

"Bev" made herself be known, and opened herself up to the same level of ridicule that others here have.

#237 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Don't forget the beating that Hans took over his pic.

Alan Colmes anyone?

"Bev" made herself be known, and opened herself up to the same level of ridicule that others here have."

She should have been dealt with as someone actually involved in the process instead of just another poster here. I don't mind when you make jokes about me but I would have liked to have had Bev here to talk to. Now she will probably never be back and who can blame her?? Her association with this site could have brought in other well known people but now we will never know.

#243 | Posted by 101Chairborne

I think Rcade had it in for Wis because he's been a bit too uppity of late.

She should have been dealt with as someone actually involved in the process instead of just another poster here. I don't mind when you make jokes about me but I would have liked to have had Bev here to talk to. Now she will probably never be back and who can blame her?? Her association with this site could have brought in other well known people but now we will never know.

#245 | Posted by danni

That's actually a pretty good point.

If Rcade manages to woo someone on his site and he feels her presence is a boon to the site...to have her chased away by site members? I may have to re-think this one.

She should have been dealt with as someone actually involved in the process instead of just another poster here.

We have no proof she was who she said she was. I can post here claiming to be George Bush; doesn't make it so. And if it was the real Bev Harris- welcome to Freedom of Speech. Don't you want our voices heard?

Danni - as our own jackass and others have stated within these forums - NOT FOR THIN-SKINNED PEOPLE! She appears to be unworthy of the attention she received if she cannot bounce back, correct?

Jeff, I think we should be sort of like a family that is on its best behavior when they have company over, then when they leave they all go back to their normal dysfunctionality. After people come here a few times they would "get it" that everyone is fair game.

"She appears to be unworthy of the attention she received if she cannot bounce back, correct?"

Who knows maybe she will. I hope so anyway.

I don't believe it was the real Bev Harris. Looking at the profile:

"Private E-mail
No Home Page"

Bullshit. She would not leave those blank, yet go out of her way to sign the post with the website.

By this reasoning, everyone is a minority. My son goes to a school that is 51% asian. So does he qualify as a minority ZIT?

#176 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

Yes.

No.

Is Obama a minority? He be lookin' more black than white.

Is Mariah Carey a minority? She be lookin' more white than black (though she be growin' some major booty as of late).

The only reason the creation and definition of minority in the US exists at all is because whites are, or were, a bunch of fucking bigots.

So let's loosely apply then that definition to the gay minority. And please, try to include those hawt lizzy girls (which for some reason always seem to be missing from this hole gay marriage thing being discussed) along with those "disgusting pole smokers" and "fudge packers."

The majority is not interested in "granting" equal rights and/or equal legal treatment to a specific group of people because of their objectionable behavior. That this objectionable behavior has or the equal treatment would have absolutely no impact on their day-to-day lives (that is, upholding the sanctity of traditional marriage - which, by the way, has a sanctified divorce rate of well over 50 percent for first-time players - or the multiplying of children like fruit flies). That is what makes gays a minority.

#246 - wis or rcade?

From the looks of her, I don't think she'd have a problem "bouncing" back.

See ya!

Danni - if she cannot take the heat, she should stay out of the kitchen.

Danni,

Agreed completely.

This is Rcade's site. If he brings in a guest he should expect his users to respect their privelege by respecting his wishes to have his guest treated with respect. (Yes, I overused the word 'respect' in that sentence)

Sorry for attacking you on this one, Rogers. I see where you are coming from now.

Chair, the weakest dump was actually given to Larry - I don't see HOW that could have possibly garnered a dump. Personally, I think it was a token, sacrificial dump to try and mask Rcade's selective tendencies.

The difference is that we are mostly anonymous posters and Bev Harris is not.

And I doubt Rcade would defend her if he wasn't sure who it was.

It must be a pain for him to have a political web site that is too much a chat room hothouse to have respected political views represented by public figures.

NANC don't tell me, argue with RCADE, it's not my place to decide how people like her should be treated, I just express my own opinion.
How about this....what if Sarah Palin dropped by here, would you want her to get chased away after her first post or would you prefer we went a little easy on her til she got the idea about how this place works???
I don't think anyone should get special rights not to be attacked but I just think we should go a little easier on newbies, especially well known ones.

"and ONCE AGAIN,...the people speak"

And once again, Afk speaks up without reading the thread.

I said it earlier to someone else: If you are willing to concede that Obama's 53/47 split represents a mandate from the people (which I don't think it does), then I'll concede that Maine's vote represents the will of the people.

I actually don't agree. This is a public forum, privately owned, but we are allowed to post what we wish here without prior screening or approval. More importantly, we are all equal here and open to any shit that is thrown at any weakness to our point of view. If that was the real Bev Harris, which I seriously doubt, then she should be prepared to handle the hate a public may throw at her considering the controversy that surrounds her cause.

I was just thinking that we should try to get Sarah Palin here. I think we'd know from style whether it was really her or not. ; )

But seriously. That would we wicked cool.

said it earlier to someone else: If you are willing to concede that Obama's 53/47 split represents a mandate from the people (which I don't think it does), then I'll concede that Maine's vote represents the will of the people.

#260 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009

you when I say the people speak, you equat that with mandate?
I didnt think that.
but majority rules...isnt that the way that ried is goinf to screw us with govt health care? or at least try?

The difference is that we are mostly anonymous posters and Bev Harris is not.

#258 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-04 11:36 AM | Reply

We've already pointed out numerous posters that weren't anonymous from both sides of the aisle that have been ridiculed for their appearances.

There are possible consequences for making it known who you are. There are also almost garaunteed consequences for being a "known" figure discussing politics. When you put yourself out there, that happens.

I imagine if Dennis Miller came here to talk politics people wouldn't take personal shots at him, right? And surely Rcade would dump them...

"That would we wicked cool."

You betcha!

"I imagine if Dennis Miller came here to talk politics people wouldn't take personal shots at him, right?"

You mean like about him NOT BEING FUNNY!!!!

I was just thinking that we should try to get Sarah Palin here. I think we'd know from style whether it was really her or not. ; )

#262 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-11-04 11:39 AM

I think she posts here under the afkabl2 and celisary handles.

You mean like about him NOT BEING FUNNY!!!!

#266 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-04 11:44 AM | Reply

Hey, he wasn't a bad weekend update anchor. After that, I agree, and would have been the first to tell him.

BTW, I didn't know who Bev Harris was (still don't) when the initial post came through. I thought it was spam, like all of the other signed posts are.
I imagine Wisgod believed the same.

-We've already pointed out numerous posters that weren't anonymous from both sides of the aisle that have been ridiculed for their appearances

Ones that were posting here at the time?

Dennis Miller, since he isn't here, is proof positive that Republican humor is an oxymoron.

I cannot believe Wis got banned for those comments. I can't believe those comments got dumped. That is total BULLSHIT!

FREE WISGOD!

oh yeah
and that garafallo...what a scream she is...
not funny and ugly...

Although I've not had a gander at Bev's photos, what I'm getting from those who posted about her she'd wither away to a ton if she went on a diet? bahdump!

I think, as Danni correctly pointed out, a big difference exists between someone who comes here to blog, vs. someone who Rcade actively woos because he feels their presence, even temporarily, improves the stature of his website.

While I think he overreacted a bit, I can certainly see where he is coming from on this.

BTW, I didn't know who Bev Harris was (still don't) when the initial post came through. I thought it was spam, like all of the other signed posts are.
I imagine Wisgod believed the same.

#268 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Jesus.

I need to get my facts straight.

What caused her to end up here? Did she just 'show up' or did Rcade wine and DINE her?

My brother-in-law and his partner should have the same rights. They are a loving couple, and more committed than many straights I know.

#129 | Posted by pragmatist

How does that work?

Is that your Ex-brother-in-law??

Like was married to your sister or something??

Did Rcade make public special rules for his guest? Did Rcade make it clear he invited her? Is it even clear it was the real Bev Harris? If the answer is "no," Rcade is wrong and Wisgod should be returned to active status. He posted according to the rules as they were known.

Cuz if someone signed in as "Bev Harris" there is no way Wis could have possibly known that was the real "Bev". Hell, Null used to go by "Bill OReilly".

WisGod got railroaded. Who is Bev Harris? Why is she more important than WisGod?

If Bev was a guest and treated rudely--what bs.

Shame!

No wonder this place ends up with the same 40 posters.

If she was a guest--it should have been announced by Rcade --folks could restrain themselves and be polite but engaged for a thread.

Like was married to your sister or something??

Probably knocked up Prag's sister when drunk and then discovered that he preferred a hairy backside.

To each their own.

The majority triumphs. Majority tyranny lives on. The worst thing about democracy is the hoi polloi. But I still think I prefer it to any other system (except me as dictator of course).

Of course, I'm not going to argue that gay marriage is a constitutional right. I think most legal scholars agree its a bogus argument. But under individual state constitutions, it might be different.

But I think this is nothing to worry about. The history of this country is a slow march left. The right wins the occasional battle, but loses every major war with time. Public education, social security, the end of slavery, interracial marriage, the civil rights act, women and minorities able to vote, the 21st Amendment, etc. They will lose this one too. Fifty years ago, the vote would have been 99-1%. Twenty five years ago, the vote would have been 90-10%. Ten years ago, it would have been 75-25%. Now it was 53-47%? The trend will continue.

JeffJ,

Yes, just one post from a person who joined as "Bevharris," posted one time, and left. No homepage. No email. No nothing.

"FREE WISGOD!"

#270 | Posted by kanrei

I know you're just dying for my opinion, Rcade...and I am in full agreement with Kan on allowing Wisgod to be released from Drudge prison.

People have said worse to me and I didn't flag most of it.

I've also heard some hear say far worse and nothing happened.

Let him rejoin the family, brother Rcade.

Why is she more important than WisGod?

Because she's a lib.

Have to admit, Kanrei has a point. Bev Harris isn't exactly a name everyone knows. I think Florida Democrats who are interested in politics probably do but I doubt Wisgod pays much attention to Blackbox Voting, etc.
I can't believe that I am sticking up for Wisgod.

Has RCADE ever let someone come back early???

You may be right, GUS. Times change with the generations. But at least it would be the people deciding the laws they want to live under.

"times change," yeah right.

i see, screw that old rag of an American Constitution, it's every man, woman, and child for themselves, majority rule.

is it fuck you = fuck me or fuck me = fuck you, i forget? see, that's WHY, as Americans, "we" don't determine "our" Rights. of course, that's hardly ever been the "living" reality, no without your bloody conflict, though has it?

As for this thread and lifestyle choices.

Suppose there are 20% or 40% of gay couples who choose to live the gay lifestyle--versus born gay.

How does the system sort that out?

How about bi-sexual choices who want to be married to one of each??

If there are laws--some stupid ones like hospitals put up--change the laws.

How did the domestic partner stuff turn out in WA?

I can't believe that I am sticking up for Wisgod.

You are not sticking up for Wis Danni, you are sticking up for what is right, regardless of party. I am proud of you. Your first step towards fence-sitting =D

Has RCADE ever let someone come back early???

I think so. This return now officially has bi-partisan support, so hopefully Rcade will listen to the will of the people =D

I can't believe that I am sticking up for Wisgod.
#285 | Posted by danni

Man, thisis totally my fault.

I'm the one who posted Ms. Harris' picture; that's what got things rolling. It was careless of me and I didn't expect how things would go.

I apologize to Wisg.

Rcade, ban me for two weeks in his place.

NOBODY should be banned until it is proven that:

1) that it was Bev Harris
2) that Rcade invited her here
3) that Rcade made special rules for guests
4) that Rcade made those rules known

Just as the abortion issue largely hinges on whether that "fetus" is a "baby"... the marriage issue hinges on whether "homosexuality" is a "civil right" and thus is protected.

oh yeah, that's real smart.

perhaps "marriage" is a natural right and whether or not to legitimize bigots and bigotry is the great American "civil rights" battle.

#282 | Posted by kanrei

Jesus.

I totally misread this in no small-part due to Rcade's angry post about her being allegedly 'chased away'.

So, no announcement that she was an esteemed guest.

A new poster shows up taking the name of some barely-known celebrity and people mock the poster based upon the physical attributes of the name taken?

Can you imagine the vitriol that would have ensued if someone signed in as "Glenn Beck" and managed to emulate his paranoid rantings on topic in a post?

You know what?

I really got my feelings hurt over that polock joke that Corky told the other day. I want special protection on this site. Please peer into Rcade's mind and name for me a liberal who he will ferociously defend from ALL criticism. I will then get a new ISP address, create a new profile sans homepage and personal email and will sign-in under the new 'protected' name and will wallow in Rcade coddling me.

Jesus, Rogers. This is even WORSE than I initially thought.

The domestic partnership is still up in the air in WA?

It's 21 days now Hagbard, don't be a hero!

Did anyone attacked that spammer yesterday? I think her name was Amy.

"How does the system sort that out?"

Why should the system care??

Why should anyone care what others do if they aren't bothering anyone else??

Remember that word....FREEDOM????
What do you think it meant???

-I really got my feelings hurt over that polock joke that Corky told the other day. I want special protection on this site.

lmao!

I'm going to assume until proven otherwise that Rogers knew what he was talking about when id-ing that poster as who she said she was.

And Wissy would not have wanted to be here after the Packers lost, anyway.

One you change the meaning of marriage it is no longer the same.

It's 21 days now Hagbard, don't be a hero!
#296 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Maybe I could use the rehab?

"Did anyone attacked that spammer yesterday? I think her name was Amy."
#296 | Posted by 101Chairborne

After I spent about 5 minutes looking at her poll questions I went back and flagged a couple of posts as abusive.

"One you change the meaning of marriage it is no longer the same."

Tell that to King Henry VIII.

"One you change the meaning of marriage it is no longer the same."

Tell that to King Henry VIII.

#296 | Posted by 101Chairborne - I actually went and took her test - it was on racism and and how you feel about the current admin - careful though, there is some psych 101 in it - consistency is the key in that test.

-Rcade, ban me for two weeks in his place.

Jesus Complex.

FF Corky!

Although a real Jesus complex would only get you banned for three days.

Now that Danni defended Wisgod I've got to come clean.

I don't give a shit if gays marry. Never have, never will.

I am semi-serious in saying I'd deny them the right to marry if I have to pay extra in taxes due to their tax breaks, but I'd like to think I'm just being a grumpy bitch, and talking shit.

I think her name was Amy.

#296 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-11-04 12:06 PM

I did.

Rcade is just wallowing in Chump-dom right now.

Sack up, bitch. This is beyond bullshit, and you know it.

Jesus Complex.
#306 | Posted by Corky

That's exactly what I was thinking.

You don't even know the half of it.

But seriously, I feel bad. I didn't pull the trigger, but I gave the bullets to hit the target.

FF Corky!
#307 | Posted by danni

*Shakes fist in their general direction.

Rush Limbaugh gets called "fat and drug-addicted" on a daily basis on this blog. I don't see you deleting, much less dumping any of those posts.

But calling Pelosi a cunt isn't...

Rush Limbaugh and Nancy Pelosi are extremely well-known public figures who are not posting here. If I moderated this site to remove over-the-top slams against people in their position, I'd be removing hundreds of comments and censoring a lot of political criticism. Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Al Gore, Dick Cheney ... there are a lot of polarizing people who get slammed by commenters.

Bev Harris, on the other hand, is a public figure of minor note who showed up here to comment and give us more information when she was mentioned in a post. A few others have done that in the past, including Marc Rudov and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Driving them off with personal abuse is stupid.

If that was the real Bev Harris ... she should be prepared to handle the hate a public may throw at her considering the controversy that surrounds her cause.

She wasn't getting criticism over her positions on voting. Several people just thought it would be fun to call her fat. They were abusing her for the sport of doing it. It wasn't even a close call about whether or not to dump those comments.

-But seriously, I feel bad.

Liberal pussy! Man up and hate somebody, would ja?

Bullshit Rcade. There is no proof anywhere that was even the real Bev Harris.

I repeat:
NOBODY should be banned until it is proven that:

1) that it was Bev Harris
2) that Rcade invited her here
3) that Rcade made special rules for guests
4) that Rcade made those rules known

Sack up, bitch. This is beyond bullshit, and you know it.

Sack up bitch? There's a limit to how much personal abuse I'm willing to take over moderation policies. Ask Rex.

Liberal pussy! Man up and hate somebody, would ja?

#315 | Posted by Corky at 2009-11-04 12:19 PM | Reply

Like "woke". He seems to be a popular whipping boy right about now.

The right wins the occasional battle, but loses every major war with time. Public education, social security, the end of slavery, interracial marriage, the civil rights act, women and minorities able to vote, the 21st Amendment, etc.

#281 | Posted by SycophantFlag:Thinks the lefts version of history is correct. The left coopted most of those issues after losing them.

There's a limit to how much personal abuse I'm willing to take over moderation policies. Ask Rex.

#317 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-04 12:20 PM | Reply

Ooooooooooohhhhhhh. Somebody is about to throw a mantrum.

#317 bugs me too 101.

"Sack up, bitch. This is beyond bullshit, and you know it."
#311 | Posted by JeffJ

You must be the biggest crybaby on this entire website. Getting a 3 week suspension from a political blog isn't the fucking end of the world, loser.

Liberal pussy! Man up and hate somebody, would ja?
#315 | Posted by Corky

I've tried before.

I'm really bad at it.

Kanrei: It's definitely the real Bev Harris. The email address she used to sign up was from a domain name that she owns.

-I'm really bad at it.

That's why we are Libs.

#324 What I said.

Rcade,
That only satisfies one of the four points:

NOBODY should be banned until it is proven that:

1) that it was Bev Harris (Yes per post #324)
2) that Rcade invited her here (unknown)
3) that Rcade made special rules for guests (Never done)
4) that Rcade made those rules known (never done)

New addition:

5) that Rcade made it known that she was to be treated differently

I believe the outcome of this vote will be gays abandoning traditional religion.

#16 | POSTED BY JOHN47 AT 2009-11-04 07:11 AM | REPLY | FLAG

Outcome of this vote? How about the view of traditional religion throughout history that being gay is a perversion? If that doesn't lead to gays abandoning traditional religion, this vote certainly won't. Besides, when gay marriage does eventually get legalized, that doesn't mean traditional religion will all of a sudden start marrying gays in their churches.

Kan - didn't know DR was a democracy where you could dictate rules on banning.

Then Bev would be just another weak-kneed liberal? One we have to protect and defend? Must read game instructions...

"The left coopted most of those issues after losing them."

What????
That is nonsense. Liberals have brought about every change for the better we have ever made in this country. Conservatives have fought against every change we have ever made.

A few others have done that in the past, including Marc Rudov and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

#314 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-04 12:17 PM | Reply |

Every time a soldier shows up here they are attacked and denigrated. Same with the security contractor that came by here to answer questions, yet they were called Mercs, killers, uneductaed, stupid, pawns, etc

Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but there's no denying Bev likes to chow down.

One is dumpable, the others aren't.

One would hope that the children here would not have to be told to show a little respect for a public figure posting here.

didn't know DR was a democracy where you could dictate rules on banning.

#328 | Posted by somoco at 2009-11-04 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:They wrote a series of books about everything you don't know; it is called the Encyclopedia

I just don't recall soldiers being attacked and denigrated here. It could have happened but I don't remember it. From my old memory I recall most of them being honored and thanked for their service by both sides of the war debate. I don't think very many people blame soldiers for the decisions made by the president then or now.

Where do you draw the line, Corky?

Rush Limbaugh gets called "fat and drug-addicted" on a daily basis on this blog. I don't see you deleting, much less dumping any of those posts.

Go figure.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but didn't Rush refer to Chelsea Clinton as a dog?

Clean it up, guys.

#17 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-10-30 01:43 PM

Words of wisdom from Mao.

#335

"My point is that existing marriage laws are not in violation of the consitution via equal protection."

That's because there are no marriage laws in the constitution. But there are Equal Protection guarantees. If you're going to let two people in this group enter into a super-protective contract, and not let people in that group enter into the same, that's not allowing the second group equal protection.

That only satisfies one of the four points

You are making this a lot more complicated than it is. Some folks thought it would be fun to personally abuse Bev Harris for her appearance, simply because she had the temerity to set up an account here. I dumped those comments, and Wisgod got three weeks in the time out chair. I could've just banned him.

This is how the site works. I dump particularly egregious or abusive comments that get flagged, and if somebody gets too many they lose posting rights for a few weeks. This is how the site is going to continue to work.

#333 You think of that all by yourself? You must be tired.

Isn't the format and the rules followed here just a little bit different from most other politically oriented sites??? I doubt Bev realized what she was letting herself in for and probably left thinking it is ONLY a bunch of jerks insulting people. While, yes it is that, it also has some good political discussions occasionally too. Probably, if she has a sense of humor, if she could have stuck around a little while she could have handled the insults.

"I am semi-serious in saying I'd deny them the right to marry if I have to pay extra in taxes due to their tax breaks"

Would you do the same to straight couples?

This is how the site works. I dump particularly egregious or abusive comments that get flagged, and if somebody gets too many they lose posting rights for a few weeks. This is how the site is going to continue to work.

#339 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-04 12:33 PM | Reply

Had you inserted the word "selectively" you would have had much more credibility.

You are making this a lot more complicated than it is.

Not at all. I am simply saying that rules should not be retroactively applied. Nothing in Wisgod's posts broke the moderation rules as they were posted.

I just don't recall soldiers being attacked and denigrated here. It could have happened but I don't remember it. From my old memory I recall most of them being honored and thanked for their service by both sides of the war debate.

The last time I recall a solder showing up here with a contribution from a war zone, we turned his comment into a front-page post and people were extremely supportive.

rcade - please define "egregious" in your eyes.

That's because there are no marriage laws in the constitution. But there are Equal Protection guarantees. If you're going to let two people in this group enter into a super-protective contract, and not let people in that group enter into the same, that's not allowing the second group equal protection.

#338 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2009-11-04 12:32 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Dan, you need to go to the supreme court, not DR, with your argument. So far, it's a no go, Your saying that is the law does not make it so. I think you're still one justice away.

Words of wisdom from Mao.

Perhaps we should emphasis using the Nooner for the chat room BS, and using the threads for political discussion. I think perhaps that's what Rogers had in mind when it started.

#341 - newsworthy.

What's the matter with you losers? Vacations are good things, not bad things. I bet Wisgod is enjoying his and just laughing at you idiots.

Vacations are good. They allow you to step back, gain some perspective, and realize that blogging isn't life. I wouldn't mind going on vacation myself. Hell, Montecore deliberately gave himself a vacation.

In fact, Rcade just suspend people at random, just for fun.

Had you inserted the word "selectively" you would have had much more credibility.

I moderate the site as fairly as I can. If that's not fair enough for you, Chair, thems the breaks.

Nothing in Wisgod's posts broke the moderation rules as they were posted.

Personal abuse gets dumped all the time. Most of what I dump is because it's personally abusive, aside from the people who continue to test whether calling Muhammed a pedophile is a dumpable offense.

Would you do the same to straight couples?

#342 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-04 12:34 PM | Reply

If there was some new law being voted on concerning straight couples that would cause me to have to pay more taxes tomorrow, then yes, I'd be pissed off about that as well.
I don't care what was being voted on. If it was going to cost me more money, and had no benefit to me personally, I'd be against it.

... please define "egregious" in your eyes.

Nothing more noble than dissent unless it is dissent against you.

Speak Truth to Power!

Free WISGOD!

PS. All your govenor are belong to us!

Sack up bitch? There's a limit to how much personal abuse I'm willing to take over moderation policies. Ask Rex.

#317 | Posted by rcade

So, it comes down to a threat?

Want me to tone it down?

Fine.

An awful lot of VERY pointed criticisms have been levied against you on this issue, and not just from me.

So, an unknown signs in for the first time sans a homepage or an email addy using a name that few have heard of and Wis, after seeing a pic provided by HC decides to ridicule the poster based upon the pic, with NO way of knowing whether or not that was truly "BevHarris" and you dump his posts and threaten outright permanent bans for similar behavior in the future???

Look, I, nor most others, have no problem adhering to your rules and also have no problem dealing with the consequences when we know we've violated your rules. However, this one came completely out of left field. When you make up "new" rules, on the spot, without communicating them prior, you become even worse than Freep. I have an account at Freep and have posted plenty of commments blasting the GOP and not one of those comments were ever deleted. In short, for all of the flack that site receives, I have yet to experience the allegations personally - and I have tried to stoke the fires.

Care to address this:

Bullshit Rcade. There is no proof anywhere that was even the real Bev Harris.

I repeat:
NOBODY should be banned until it is proven that:

1) that it was Bev Harris
2) that Rcade invited her here
3) that Rcade made special rules for guests
4) that Rcade made those rules known

#316 | Posted by kanrei

Seriously, as far as I can tell, you stepped in it; BIG TIME. I know this type of talk is usually restricted to the nooner, but it came up on this thread and that's where my comments have followed as a result.

Sorry for the "sack up, bitch" comment on tone, but not on content. Please, for the edification of EVERYONE, justify/clarify your position on this.

" Your saying that is the law does not make it so. "

I'm not saying it's the law. I'm saying it's common sense. From a purely legal point of view, we're denying one group the rights granted another group. Gay couples aren't allow the Equal Protection my wife and I got the moment we said "I do."

I'll be back in 21 days probably.

FREE WISGOD

rcade - people who have, do, or plan to boink children are considered pedos. If Bush, Rush, or Beck showed up here and commented I highly doubt you'd show the same measure of respect to them as you did Bev.

"If there was some new law..."

Would you vote to repeal the current law?

#355

Read up thread, Jeffy. I think he's addressed all of that now.

Personal abuse gets dumped all the time.

So, if in respone to one of my posts Corky replies with a pollock joke you are going to dump it if flagged?

Are you serious?

Comments that are excessively abusive to a member, completely off-topic, or written in ALL CAPS may be moved here.

I guess if Rush or Beck, etc. showed up here, we couldn't personally attack them. Of course, they couldn't personally attack anyone either. Wonder how that would work for them? LOL

I moderate the site as fairly as I can. If that's not fair enough for you, Chair, thems the breaks.

#351 | Posted by rcade at 2009-11-04 12:37 PM | Reply

It's selective enforcement. One day personal attacks (on families) are dumpable, the next they aren't.
Don't tell me it depends on what was flagged, because I flagged some to see the result.
That's selective enforcement. If you consider that "fair" then you need to check your definitions.

Nobody outside of a few Floridians know who Bev Harris is. People spam this site continually and sign their names and organizations to the spam. They have been attacked for as long as I've been here without dumps.
Granted, not knowing she was some nobody that you guys think is a somebody is on me (and apparently Wisgod), isn't really a good excuse.

OKAY OKAY OKAY

ILL BE THE FIRST to say

"cant we all get along"

sorry bout that

#361 - I believe 101 put it to the test a few weeks ago.

Rcade - you must have a strong constitution to be able to stomach THAT bile!

"If Bush, Rush, or Beck showed up here and commented I highly doubt you'd show the same measure of respect to them as you did Bev."

I'll bet he would, that could make his site have thousands of hits. It could make RCADE a nationally recognized pundit....er....not that he isn't already.

Would you vote to repeal the current law?

#359 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-04 12:41 PM | Reply

Would it cost me more money? If yes, then no.

Rcade,

I seriously think I've figured out a major part of the problem.

You only delete/dump what gets flagged.

As such, you come off extremely 'selective' as Chair asserts, when in reality you probably are not. Maybe you should consider including a field that shows which posts were flagged as offensive/abusive. You wouldn't even have to identify who flagged the post - which you have made it clear you won't do. At least then, we can see what it is you are looking at, get a better feel for how you moderate and can then better tailor our posts, or not, accordingly.

Sorry for the "sack up, bitch" comment on tone, but not on content.

Apology accepted. I have no problem with the content of your complaint.

However, this one came completely out of left field. When you make up "new" rules, on the spot, without communicating them prior, you become even worse than Freep.

I don't think it's a new rule. Targeting a new member here for personal abuse over her physical appearance might get a dump regardless of who the new member is.

Did you hear about the Polish woman who went to the Sperm Bank?

I'm pretty sure most posters here know when they post something that is dumpable or that will get them suspended but they are just like kids....constantly testing the limits to see just how far they can go. I remember my older daughter did that constantly, drove me crazy.

Nobody outside of a few Floridians know who Bev Harris is.

Well, that's not true. I live in NY, and I've heard of her. OTOH, Wisgod didn't know it really was her, so perhaps an exception and some leniency could be made in this case. Lesson learned for everyone.

FWIW, I expect to see Rush, Beck, Coulter, etc. show up anyday now. Probably Faux Rush, Beck and Coulter, etc., but how is anyone to know who doesn't have access to their email addies?

Read up thread, Jeffy. I think he's addressed all of that now.

...he did so while I was composing my post.

"Would it cost me more money? If yes, then no."

Huh? A minute ago, it was 'if yes, then yes'.

Did you hear about the Polish woman who went to the Sperm Bank?

No, but I am sure the punchline will make me laugh.

When we are not discussing politics seriously, we are usually either insulting each other or (trying) to be humorous.... or both.

I could do without reading all the non-humorous insults.

I'm pretty sure most posters here know when they post something that is dumpable or that will get them suspended but they are just like kids....

#371 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-04 12:50 PM | Reply

I sort of agree, although I still don't get why anything Mohhammed related is dumped. I must see cracks about Pedophile priest here every day, and that's no problem I guess.

Hell, Cookfish made a joke about a "breaking eggs to make a Mohammlette" and it got deleted...

Why is he protected?

#369 - It's like my husband's grandfather used to say, "It's not a person's fault if they're fat or ugly - they should just keep to themselves." In other words - post no photos?

Rogers,

Moderation must be an absolute bitch.

On this site it ebbs and flows - your leniency changes with the wind - usually you clamp down when things start to go too far.

A little heads' up when clamping down would be nice.

"Where do I pud thith?"

-Why is he protected?

Endangered species of Irrelevancy Fish.

OTOH, Wisgod didn't know it really was her, so perhaps an exception and some leniency could be made in this case.

Are you assuming Wisgod didn't know it was the real Bev Harris? He hasn't told me that.

Why is he protected?

#377 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Good question.

How many times have we heard of the Christian God referred to as "an evil, dickless, alien in the sky."?

I have an account at Freep

Then, to use your own endearing term, "sack-up bitch" and head on over there, the constant whining by you, nanc and others is annoying.

"I sort of agree, although I still don't get why anything Mohhammed related is dumped."

I don't think they should need to be but I think the reality of the world is that it might actually be dangerous to do otherwise.

Hilarious, Cork!

Are you assuming Wisgod didn't know it was the real Bev Harris?

Why do you assume he DID know it was her?

A new member.

1 post.

No email addy or homepage.

How could he know one way or another?

"How many times have we heard of the Christian God referred to as "an evil, dickless, alien in the sky."?"

The last Christian Jihad was many moons ago.

On this site it ebbs and flows - your leniency changes with the wind - usually you clamp down when things start to go too far.

When discussions are going well and the personal abuse is not completely out of hand, I have less reason to drop the hammer.

But there are some folks here who just like to stir the shit and make people mad. Some of them even try to earn their suspensions when they think one is coming.

If I can get killfiles to work, it may help.

Huh? A minute ago, it was 'if yes, then yes'.

#374 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-11-04 12:52 PM | Reply

I do now want to spend any more money in taxes for just about any reason.
If gay marriage costs me money my knee jerk reaction is "no, screw them", although I doubt I'd vote that way.
Other than my wallet, I have no concerns with them marrying. If there was a study that showed it was cost neutral, or that the politicians would cut costs some other place, I'd vote in favor of gay marriage.