Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


farglebargle -> Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/16/2013 5:25:22 AM)

I think Boehner might have a financial conflict of interest. Either that or he's a moron. Otherwise I can't understand the Republican Financial Waste and Republican Fiscal Irresponsibility.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/15/1452801/boehner-secretly-agrees-to-now-pay-3-million-defending-marriage-discrimination-law/




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/16/2013 7:48:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
I think Boehner might have a financial conflict of interest. Either that or he's a moron. Otherwise I can't understand the Republican Financial Waste and Republican Fiscal Irresponsibility.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/15/1452801/boehner-secretly-agrees-to-now-pay-3-million-defending-marriage-discrimination-law/


I support DOMA being defended all the way to the Supreme Court. Before ya'all get in a lather, it's not because I support DOMA. Apparently, there isn't enough support to repeal DOMA, so defending it to the Supreme Court will either render it unConstitutional, or Constitutional, which would then end a bunch of issues. If it's unConstitutional, it'll be stricken, and will set precedent. If it's upheld, well, that will also set precedent, but I don't know that that will happen.

I support it being defended to the SCOTUS, and believe it will (and should) be struck down.




joether -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 3:54:07 AM)

DOMA is unconstituional. The only folks in America that do not know it are the delusional and fantatical types. In every state that has allow gay Americans the right to vote, NOTHING has happened according to all the religious nutcakes. If DOMA was really about defending marriage, why not all the examples in which celebrities failed at the concept? How long did kim Kardashian stay married for example? In the grand majority of cases those that are gay that have married really are inseperatable, loving and stable individuals. Additionally they only make up about 10-15% of the total marriages in the states that have passed such laws already.

Would think conservatives, whom bitch about capitalism all day long would see the merit of allowing ANOTHER group of hard working Americans the chance to get married. How much do wedding cost these days? The average is $27,021 USD. That's a pretty big hunk of chain for an event that only lasts a few hours at best, right?

So why is DOMA targeting gay people? Cus once you remove the religious infrastructure of the bill, it collapses because bulldroppings are not acceptable building materials used in housing or civil engineering prodjects! And that REALLY is the underlying reason for DOMA, its the religious folks pushing their viewpoints down other peoples throats. Those folks dont like it when its done to them, yet, happily do it to others. Using the Holy Bible numerous verses usually well out of context to justify their agenda and hide their hatred of their fellow Americans.

An so tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have gone into this law (as well a similar laws in most states of the Union). And many more will be paid defending this P.O.S. of a bill through each of the courts and on up to the US Supreme Court. It will ultimately fail. Because one only has to say they wish to get married to someone that equally wishs the same. Under their 1st Amendment rights, if they want their LEGAL CONTRACT OF UNION to be called 'Marriage', that's their right. Because the word 'marriage' holds a religious, laym-mans, and even legal defination wthin the United States. While gay people can not force a relgious group to accept the wedding in their church, they do have to accept that gay people can get married the same as straight couples.

Here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I recalled when the concept was up for the vote. The Anti-Gay crowd (composed of 95% religious nutcakes) came to the state to support the Republican Party's efforts to keep Americans from the right to marry because of their sexual orientation. And the amount of hatred was so thick one could lay it down from Boston, MA around the world to Los Angeles, CA avoiding all other land masses and allowing someone to walk on it without getting their feet wet!

Bottom line, DOMA will be destroyed, tens of millions (if not billions) of taxpayer's dollars will be wasted, and not one conservative will take responsibility for the whole thing. Since conservatives, NEVER waste money, right? *cough*IRAG*cough* *cough*StarWars*cough* *cough*TRICKLYDOWNTHEORY*cough* *cough*TORTURE*cough*




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 4:25:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
DOMA is unconstituional. The only folks in America that do not know it are the delusional and fantatical types. In every state that has allow gay Americans the right to vote, NOTHING has happened according to all the religious nutcakes. If DOMA was really about defending marriage, why not all the examples in which celebrities failed at the concept? How long did kim Kardashian stay married for example? In the grand majority of cases those that are gay that have married really are inseperatable, loving and stable individuals. Additionally they only make up about 10-15% of the total marriages in the states that have passed such laws already.


Two things:
    1. If DOMA is unConstitutional - and we agree it is, btw - it will get struck down and off the books, setting precedent for future generations. Isn't it better to get it off the books rather than leave it on?
    2. What does getting married do for a same-sex couple? What is it same-sex couples are really after? (Hint: it's not about the love... it's the bennies)






DomKen -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 6:55:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

    2. What does getting married do for a same-sex couple? What is it same-sex couples are really after? (Hint: it's not about the love... it's the bennies)


And why shouldn't they? Also do you know what sort of things are afforded by a marriage license?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 8:09:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
    2. What does getting married do for a same-sex couple? What is it same-sex couples are really after? (Hint: it's not about the love... it's the bennies)


And why shouldn't they? Also do you know what sort of things are afforded by a marriage license?



Of course, I do. That isn't the point, though. If they want to get married to share the bennies, then it's not about love and commitment, really. My only complaint about same sex marriage activists (just a subset of proponents), is that they aren't being honest in their arguments. If they were to say, "hey, I want to be able to share all the same civil benefits with my partner that married people share," I'd give 'em a handshake, wish them the best and be on my way. When they frame it from a love and commitment angle, I cringe inside and start to be a nuisance, peppering them with questions, attempting to get them to admit it's pretty much all about the bennies.

And, to be frank, I don't care if same sex individuals want to enter into a civil contract with each other. I have no problem with them doing that.

Marriage is a 3-ring circus: engagement ring, wedding ring, and suffering. Why should they get shielded from that? [8D]




Moonhead -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 12:15:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
That isn't the point, though. If they want to get married to share the bennies, then it's not about love and commitment, really. My only complaint about same sex marriage activists (just a subset of proponents), is that they aren't being honest in their arguments. If they were to say, "hey, I want to be able to share all the same civil benefits with my partner that married people share," I'd give 'em a handshake, wish them the best and be on my way. When they frame it from a love and commitment angle, I cringe inside and start to be a nuisance, peppering them with questions, attempting to get them to admit it's pretty much all about the bennies.

So they're damned if they do and damned if they don't?
My own suspicion is that it isn't just the perks arising from marriage that are at stake here: a lot of the people most vociferously opposed to gay marriage are keen to typecast homosexuals as inhumanly promiscuous vermin who received AIDS as a judgement from God because they'd fuck anything with a pulse and no front bottom that'd stand still long enough. Hell, the notion of gay couples having long term, monogamous, state sanctioned relationships is an anathema to these dickheads because then they wouldn't have anything to villify the gays over, would they?





DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 12:33:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
That isn't the point, though. If they want to get married to share the bennies, then it's not about love and commitment, really. My only complaint about same sex marriage activists (just a subset of proponents), is that they aren't being honest in their arguments. If they were to say, "hey, I want to be able to share all the same civil benefits with my partner that married people share," I'd give 'em a handshake, wish them the best and be on my way. When they frame it from a love and commitment angle, I cringe inside and start to be a nuisance, peppering them with questions, attempting to get them to admit it's pretty much all about the bennies.

So they're damned if they do and damned if they don't?
My own suspicion is that it isn't just the perks arising from marriage that are at stake here: a lot of the people most vociferously opposed to gay marriage are keen to typecast homosexuals as inhumanly promiscuous vermin who received AIDS as a judgement from God because they'd fuck anything with a pulse and no front bottom that'd stand still long enough. Hell, the notion of gay couples having long term, monogamous, state sanctioned relationships is an anathema to these dickheads because then they wouldn't have anything to villify the gays over, would they?


So, it's basically a thumb in the eye of the pious, moral overlords? Boy, that's even worse an argument.




Moonhead -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 12:34:13 PM)

It's no worse than the argument against.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 12:37:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
It's no worse than the argument against.


So, two wrongs make a right, now?

I'm not in support of preventing same-sex marriage, btw. Responding to a stupid argument against something with a stupid argument for something isn't likely to be of any use.




Moonhead -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 12:41:26 PM)

You're dismissing every argument for as stupid, so far this thread. That hardly makes you sound pro, does it?
(And frankly, all the arguments from either side are stupid as there shouldn't be any fucking debate over this in the first place.)




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 12:56:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
You're dismissing every argument for as stupid, so far this thread. That hardly makes you sound pro, does it?
(And frankly, all the arguments from either side are stupid as there shouldn't be any fucking debate over this in the first place.)


Really? The only actual thing they get is a piece of paper and benefits, and the piece of paper isn't worth shit. It's the benefits, the civil benefits and privileges afforded married couples.

"To show how much we love each other" - Oh? You can't love each other before you're married? You have to get married to buy each other rings? Do you love each other more because you stood in front of many people who know you both and professed your love for each other? I walk away with them either fuming or in a stunned silence.

"We want to have the same privileges and benefits that married couples get, like a tax break, visitation rights, being able to be covered under each other's insurance, etc." - Yes, you should have those. I completely agree. Best of luck with that. If it comes to a vote, I'll vote your way.

"We want to spit in the eye of the pious moral overlords who attempt to mis-define us by their narrow interpretations of their religions." - Really? That's why? I walk away shaking my head.

In all 3 cases, I'd still end up voting the same way, but there is only support voiced for one argument.




Moonhead -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 1:01:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
You're dismissing every argument for as stupid, so far this thread. That hardly makes you sound pro, does it?
(And frankly, all the arguments from either side are stupid as there shouldn't be any fucking debate over this in the first place.)


Really? The only actual thing they get is a piece of paper and benefits, and the piece of paper isn't worth shit. It's the benefits, the civil benefits and privileges afforded married couples.

Maybe they want that bit of paper? If society's now claiming that gay bashing is no longer acceptable conduct, then that bit of recognition isn't an unreasonable demand.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 2:07:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Maybe they want that bit of paper? If society's now claiming that gay bashing is no longer acceptable conduct, then that bit of recognition isn't an unreasonable demand.


No idea if you're married or ever been married. If you are or have been, did you carry that piece of paper around with you so people would recognize you're married? I know I didn't.

And, anyone can write up a piece of paper and put words down on in that, in effect, make a statement of one's love and devotion to another.




mnottertail -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 2:10:32 PM)

Most of em slipped on a ring and went into hock for the old bitches diamond.

The paper was implied in that whole farce.  You knew somebody was carrying paper when you saw that ring...............




slvemike4u -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 2:18:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
You're dismissing every argument for as stupid, so far this thread. That hardly makes you sound pro, does it?
(And frankly, all the arguments from either side are stupid as there shouldn't be any fucking debate over this in the first place.)


Really? The only actual thing they get is a piece of paper and benefits, and the piece of paper isn't worth shit. It's the benefits, the civil benefits and privileges afforded married couples.

"To show how much we love each other" - Oh? You can't love each other before you're married? You have to get married to buy each other rings? Do you love each other more because you stood in front of many people who know you both and professed your love for each other? I walk away with them either fuming or in a stunned silence.

"We want to have the same privileges and benefits that married couples get, like a tax break, visitation rights, being able to be covered under each other's insurance, etc." - Yes, you should have those. I completely agree. Best of luck with that. If it comes to a vote, I'll vote your way.

"We want to spit in the eye of the pious moral overlords who attempt to mis-define us by their narrow interpretations of their religions." - Really? That's why? I walk away shaking my head.

In all 3 cases, I'd still end up voting the same way, but there is only support voiced for one argument.

Or....and this is the one I'm going with,it's the "equality thing"
And in my opinion they need no further argument to be on the side of the angles [:)]




tazzygirl -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 2:31:01 PM)

~FR

Its more than just a piece of paper and benefits. Its about being able to talk for your loved one when they cant talk for themselves... legally. Its about being able to make decisions for each other.. and with each other... legally. Its about making sure wishes are respected... and typically its the partner who knows better than the family, yet the law doesnt recognize that fact if the family is filled with idiots and homophobes who want to argue that point.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 2:42:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
~FR
Its more than just a piece of paper and benefits. Its about being able to talk for your loved one when they cant talk for themselves... legally. Its about being able to make decisions for each other.. and with each other... legally. Its about making sure wishes are respected... and typically its the partner who knows better than the family, yet the law doesnt recognize that fact if the family is filled with idiots and homophobes who want to argue that point.


Those are all civil benefits, tazzy. The right to visit a loved one in the hospital when it's "family only" is another benefit. Not all benefits are monetary in nature.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 2:53:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
You're dismissing every argument for as stupid, so far this thread. That hardly makes you sound pro, does it?
(And frankly, all the arguments from either side are stupid as there shouldn't be any fucking debate over this in the first place.)

Really? The only actual thing they get is a piece of paper and benefits, and the piece of paper isn't worth shit. It's the benefits, the civil benefits and privileges afforded married couples.
"To show how much we love each other" - Oh? You can't love each other before you're married? You have to get married to buy each other rings? Do you love each other more because you stood in front of many people who know you both and professed your love for each other? I walk away with them either fuming or in a stunned silence.
"We want to have the same privileges and benefits that married couples get, like a tax break, visitation rights, being able to be covered under each other's insurance, etc." - Yes, you should have those. I completely agree. Best of luck with that. If it comes to a vote, I'll vote your way.
"We want to spit in the eye of the pious moral overlords who attempt to mis-define us by their narrow interpretations of their religions." - Really? That's why? I walk away shaking my head.
In all 3 cases, I'd still end up voting the same way, but there is only support voiced for one argument.

Or....and this is the one I'm going with,it's the "equality thing"
And in my opinion they need no further argument to be on the side of the angles [:)]


But, Mike, equality in what? Is it simply so you can say that you are married? Did you know that a Catholic priest actually doesn't "marry" anyone, but merely stands in as a witness for God and the Church as the two exchange vows? Being married is an internal thing. Outside of a religious setting, it's a civil contract between two people.

What are they looking at becoming equal to heterosexuals with?




slvemike4u -> RE: Republican Stupidity or Republican Graft?? (1/17/2013 3:01:28 PM)

What DOMA does is codify a segment of the population as "less than".
As not being eligible for marriage by dint of their preference.
By definition that can not,in our society,be constitutional .
We have long ago chosen equality under the law as our benchmark....we can not now in the post civil rights era fashion laws that as intent are meant to create a "less than"class.
It is as plain as the nose on your face and only someone with a bias or a prejudice can claim not to see that.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125