PDA

View Full Version : blah blah blah gay marriage...


Taco John
06-06-2006, 01:30 AM
I ran across this and found it amusing. It hits the mark pretty much dead center, IMO...


AMERICAblog reader Bill writes in about his phone call to Senator Crapo's office (R-ID) this afternoon:

Is Senator Crapo in favor of traditional marriage?
Yes he is, he's a cosponsor of the bill.
He is? Can you tell me if he masturbates?
I could not tell you that.
Can you tell me, do you masturbate?
I cannot tell you that either.
Can you tell me, does he commit sodomy, analingus, cunnilingus or fellatio?
What is the purpose of this questioning?
It's regarding his views on traditional marriage.
Okay, he supports the bill.
Yes, but could you tell me does he commit sodomy?
I could not give you an answer on that.
Is he willing to pledge that he has not or will not commit sodomy?
I could not answer that.
Has he ever had sex before or outside of marriage?
Again, sir, what is the point of this questioning?
It's regarding traditional marriage and how far his support goes.
Any one of those questions I could not answer.
Have you ever had sex outside of marriage?
Again, I will not answer that.
It's nobody's business, right?
That's right.
Okay, thank you.


http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/06/best-phone-call-ever.html

Taco John
06-06-2006, 01:34 AM
I loved Bush's speech today, and the irony of him saying that he wanted to take marraige away from the activist judges and put it into the hands of the people... I found it amusing that he wasn't talking about individuals making decisions for themselves, but rather a collective welfare of people.

It's all a sham anyway. Bush doesn't GAF about gay marraige. He just wants a Constitutional convention.

patteeu
06-06-2006, 06:36 AM
I think gay marriage would be a good thing, but I find it disturbing that courts are beginning to find a right to gay marriage in the 14th amendment. I can only think of two ways to put an end to that: a constitutional amendment (although not the one that has been proposed) or more justices like Scalia and Thomas.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 06:43 AM
It's nobody's business, right?
That's right

If it's nobody's business then why do so many of them want to make it our business?

Braincase
06-06-2006, 06:50 AM
This is a reverse Lewinsky... instead of a bomb to distract from the blowjob, we're talking blowjobs to distract from the bombs.

Radar Chief
06-06-2006, 06:52 AM
If it's nobody's business then why do so many of them want to make it our business?

STFU And take the gay marriage like a man. ;)

KC Jones
06-06-2006, 07:13 AM
This is a reverse Lewinsky... instead of a bomb to distract from the blowjob, we're talking blowjobs to distract from the bombs.

Exactly, what to do about gay marriage is far short of the pressing issues of the day, but it's a convenient one if you can turn it into something to motivate your base.

jspchief
06-06-2006, 07:14 AM
If it's nobody's business then why do so many of them want to make it our business?There are currently advantages to being married that are not available to gay couples.

They don't want to "make it your business", they just want the legal equality.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 07:18 AM
There are currently advantages to being married that are not available to gay couples.

They don't want to "make it your business", they just want the legal equality.
That's not really the point I'm making though.
You've missed many of my posts.
Currently, marriage is a public thing.
I say keep all marriages private....like it was for thousands of years.

jspchief
06-06-2006, 07:20 AM
That's not really the point I'm making though.
You've missed many of my posts.
Currently, marriage is a public thing.
I say keep all marriages private....like it was for thousands of years.That I agree with. The crux of the problem is that the government decided to use "marriage" as a legal term.

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 08:11 AM
Is Senator Crapo in favor of traditional marriage?
Yes he is, he's a cosponsor of the bill.
He is? Can you tell me if he masturbates?
I could not tell you that.
Can you tell me, do you masturbate?
I cannot tell you that either.
Can you tell me, does he commit sodomy, analingus, cunnilingus or fellatio?
What is the purpose of this questioning?
It's regarding his views on traditional marriage.
Okay, he supports the bill.
Yes, but could you tell me does he commit sodomy?
I could not give you an answer on that.
Is he willing to pledge that he has not or will not commit sodomy?
I could not answer that.
Has he ever had sex before or outside of marriage?
Again, sir, what is the point of this questioning?
It's regarding traditional marriage and how far his support goes.
Any one of those questions I could not answer.
Have you ever had sex outside of marriage?
Again, I will not answer that.
It's nobody's business, right?
That's right.
Okay, thank you.
What does this have to do with anything? Defining marriage isn't about private activities. It's about public recognitions and privileges. How does defining 'marriage' as between one man and one woman, OR ANY amalgam of consenting adults, affect anything brought up above?

banyon
06-06-2006, 08:43 AM
I think gay marriage would be a good thing, but I find it disturbing that courts are beginning to find a right to gay marriage in the 14th amendment. I can only think of two ways to put an end to that: a constitutional amendment (although not the one that has been proposed) or more justices like Scalia and Thomas.

Yikes. Sign me up for option #1.

Taco John
06-06-2006, 08:59 AM
If it's nobody's business then why do so many of them want to make it our business?


They don't. They just want the same rights as anyone else.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 09:03 AM
They don't. They just want the same rights as anyone else.

They have the same rights as all "persons:"
The right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
They reject that for whatever reason. I don't care what the reason is.
Attaching the word "gay" before rights makes is a "special" right.

The only solution to the controversy, imo, is to make ALL marriage private.
That's the only way this issue remains can be kept neutral in the eyes of the state or the public.

Taco John
06-06-2006, 09:22 AM
That's always been my position. When people complain about the sanctity of Marraige, it's not gays that they should be concerned with... It's the government who has warped it by taking the term marraige and using it as a legal term.

It is what it is, though, and so we have to move forward, not backwards. And ultimately, it doesn't matter what it's call, so long as they're given equal access to it. This way they become "rights," not "gay rights."

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 11:25 AM
They don't. They just want the same rights as anyone else.
Can two old men, or old biddies, get married with no romantic attachment, just for the rights and privileges?
Two college roomates?
An entire frat house?
A commune?
Some guy in Wyoming, and someone from Indonesia he/she only knows online?

Are you aware that [and I can't recall the venue right now, but I know I saw it], in some venues where Gay Civil Unions are recognized, the new issue is the state requiring proof of sexual activity to maintain their status. ie, making sure it isn't just a couple of dudes or couple of chicks seeking the status for economic reasons?

go bowe
06-06-2006, 02:10 PM
Can two old men, or old biddies, get married with no romantic attachment, just for the rights and privileges?
Two college roomates?
An entire frat house?
A commune?
Some guy in Wyoming, and someone from Indonesia he/she only knows online?

Are you aware that [and I can't recall the venue right now, but I know I saw it], in some venues where Gay Civil Unions are recognized, the new issue is the state requiring proof of sexual activity to maintain their status. ie, making sure it isn't just a couple of dudes or couple of chicks seeking the status for economic reasons?how the hell can you prove sexual activity short of ****ing right in front of the government official?

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 02:32 PM
how the hell can you prove sexual activity short of ****ing right in front of the government official?
Hey it may just have to come to that if the left/liberals keep making sex a public issue:


http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/7805/iwantyou2gh.jpg


ROFL ROFL

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 02:38 PM
how the hell can you prove sexual activity short of ****ing right in front of the government official?
1. There are assumably the methods already employed to verify green-card marriages, personal info quizzes, etc.
2. I think this was raised because the state [or maybe it was an ins co.? ?] was requiring signed and a notarized letter on file stating "I'm a big flamer and I love to snuggle with my big bear of a man." . . . or something to that effect.

go bowe
06-06-2006, 02:48 PM
1. There are assumably the methods already employed to verify green-card marriages, personal info quizzes, etc.
2. I think this was raised because the state [or maybe it was an ins co.? ?] was requiring signed and a notarized letter on file stating "I'm a big flamer and I love to snuggle with my big bear of a man." . . . or something to that effect.i can attest to the futility of determining the validity of a marriage in the immigation field...

it is extremely easy to fake an ongoing marriage for immigration purposes, i've seen it done zillions of times...

well, maybe not zillions...

and a notarized statement can be no more than a pack of lies too...

in my experience, lots of people will readily lie regarding the actual validity of their marriage if it will benefit them to do so...

i have no faith in any system which would attempt to determine the validity of a marriage where the two people are actually living together...

(that shows my bias, i refer to 2 people, not 3 or more, and not a dog or a sheep, or a tree...)

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 02:50 PM
go bo,

Where do you stand on religious based polygamy?
Such as Mormons or wealthy Muslims.

jAZ
06-06-2006, 02:54 PM
Can two old men, or old biddies, get married with no romantic attachment, just for the rights and privileges?
Two college roomates?
An entire frat house?
A commune?
Some guy in Wyoming, and someone from Indonesia he/she only knows online?
A man and a woman that stopped living together and stopped loving each other and only stay together for the benefits?

go bowe
06-06-2006, 02:57 PM
go bo,

Where do you stand on religious based polygamy?
Such as Mormons or wealthy Muslims.as long as it not forced upon the women and they are free to leave whenever they want, i figure their marital status is none of my business, more or less...

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 02:59 PM
as long as it not forced upon the women and they are free to leave whenever they want, i figure their marital status is none of my business, more or less...

That seems reasonable.

Would you allow for non-religious based polygamy?

go bowe
06-06-2006, 03:02 PM
A man and a woman that stopped living together and stopped loving each other and only stay together for the benefits?good point, my man...

there are always abuses of any right/privelege/entitlement...

it's human nature, but it shouldn't be allowed to effect whether or not such rights/privileges/entitilements are available to all who qualify, on an equal basis...

go bowe
06-06-2006, 03:02 PM
That seems reasonable.

Would you allow for non-religious based polygamy?same view...

Baby Lee
06-06-2006, 03:11 PM
it's human nature, but it shouldn't be allowed to effect whether or not such rights/privileges/entitilements are available to all who qualify, on an equal basis...
And my point is, if man/woman union isn't a consideration, and love isn't either, is fidelity, sexual attraction, cohabitation, having met, anything?

Taking the broadest view, it seems like we're not moving towards actual equality, so much as extending to gay 'couples' the same recognition and goodies as hetero-sexual couples. We're still excluding a vast panoply of non-traditional unions on equally quaint bases.

go bowe
06-06-2006, 04:06 PM
And my point is, if man/woman union isn't a consideration, and love isn't either, is fidelity, sexual attraction, cohabitation, having met, anything?

Taking the broadest view, it seems like we're not moving towards actual equality, so much as extending to gay 'couples' the same recognition and goodies as hetero-sexual couples. We're still excluding a vast panoply of non-traditional unions on equally quaint bases.as to your first comment, it clearly is a difficult issue to determine what the criteria should be, let alone trying to enforce/implement whatever that criteria turns out to be...

i would assume cohabitation would be one criteria, but that can be faked as well...

as far as actual equality and extending the rights/benefits of marriage, i'm not sure i understand what acutal equality would mean...

as an abstract, it is nice and all, but actual equality is impossible...

legal equality is possible, however...

and i totally agree with the notion that the current criteria is "quaint", even if you were kidding...

Dave Lane
06-06-2006, 04:50 PM
If it's nobody's business then why do so many of them want to make it our business?

Thats exactly the point. Marriage is just a piece of paper. As far as I'm concerned they should have to suffer in marriage as well as most others that are married. Why let them have a single life for life.

Sorry honey I'd love to marry ya but shucks well I just can't

Dvae

Taco John
06-06-2006, 05:26 PM
Can two old men, or old biddies, get married with no romantic attachment, just for the rights and privileges?
Two college roomates?
An entire frat house?
A commune?
Some guy in Wyoming, and someone from Indonesia he/she only knows online?


If the term "married" that you are referring to is the public word co-opted by the government as a legal term describing the unionization of two individual citizens without regard for race, religion, or gender, then why not? If they're citizens, why shouldn't they be able to take advantage of ANY tax shelter that's available to them?

For public purposes, I don't see a reason why two individuals cannot form a government recognized union that affords them the same rights as anyone else who is taking advantage of the tax shelter by virtue of their civic union.

They clearly can't get religiously married. But that's not even the issue... It's just the straw man on the table.


Are you aware that [and I can't recall the venue right now, but I know I saw it], in some venues where Gay Civil Unions are recognized, the new issue is the state requiring proof of sexual activity to maintain their status. ie, making sure it isn't just a couple of dudes or couple of chicks seeking the status for economic reasons?

Ah, wonderful... The government getting FULLY involved in our sex lives. That's just precious. Yeah, I find that ridiculous. I think the government should eject from the sexual aspect of these unions. They have no business there.

patteeu
06-06-2006, 05:47 PM
First of all, I agree with BucEyedPea that it would be best if government minimized/eliminated it's involvement in marriage to begin with, but given that that's not going to happen here are my thoughts.

Equality shouldn't be the goal of a civil definition of marriage. The only reason I can think of to have a civil marriage institution is to encourage one social outcome over another. If you want to encourage families where the father and mother stay together and have kids, heterosexual marriage is a decent rough cut at doing so. It could be a more refined incentive that only applies to couples who aren't sterile or those who actually have kids, but those are implementation details that may or may not be worth the trouble. There is no requirement that an incentive be perfectly tailored to encourage exactly what it is intended to encourage and nothing more/nothing less.

You can't encourage one social outcome over another if you treat both equally. (E.g. if single life earned you the same government provided benefits and protections that married life did, the civil marriage institution wouldn't be much of an incentive).

BucEyedPea
06-06-2006, 05:48 PM
Thats exactly the point. Marriage is just a piece of paper. As far as I'm concerned they should have to suffer in marriage as well as most others that are married. Why let them have a single life for life.

Sorry honey I'd love to marry ya but shucks well I just can't

Dvae

Well I don't think it's just a piece of paper...if it were, it'd be a hell of a lot easier to get out of.

Suffer in marriage? Hmmmmmm.... :hmmm: Well...'er if that's how you wanna look at it. Not sayin' it's an easy gig. But from what I've read it's women that are least happy being married, and the happy bachelor is not as common as thought. The happiest group is supposed to be married men. :harumph:

You wanna marry me? I'm flattered. But you'll have to get in line. ROFL

Ultra Peanut
06-07-2006, 04:08 AM
Oh, the human-on-manity!

Hey it may just have to come to that if the left/liberals keep making sex a public issue:The irony being, of course, that it's the "small government" "conservatives" who break out the "let's overreach our bounds and ban something that has no business being banned" card during election years to rally their base.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2006, 06:34 AM
Oh, the human-on-manity!

The irony being, of course, that it's the "small government" "conservatives" who break out the "let's overreach our bounds and ban something that has no business being banned" card during election years to rally their base.

That's illogical. Those are things that have usually been banned for a long time before. You can't ban something people have never been allowed to do can you? No society, not even tolerant Greece and Rome, had gay marriage.

Small govt conservatives, if they hold true to their ideas, does not mean certain things won't be banned either. It means the Federal govt stays within it's specific & enumerated powers...leaving the rest to the states or the people. That being said there is too much at all levels.

patteeu
06-07-2006, 06:43 AM
Oh, the human-on-manity!

ROFL

Ultra Peanut
06-08-2006, 12:42 AM
You can't ban something people have never been allowed to do can you? So this constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is just a figment of everyone's imagination, then? Oh, wait, it's just "protecting" "traditional" marriage... from what? Bears? Martian invaders? Or the horrible specter of two adults who love each other cementing their love and being granted the same protections that other, more socially-accepted couples are given?

But yeah, persecution and discrimination is totally fine if it's been going on for a long enough time. I say it's about time we round up all the Christians and feed them to the lions again, and then we can enslave a bunch of other people and have them fight to the death for our entertainment.

Small govt conservatives, if they hold true to their ideas, does not mean certain things won't be banned either. It means the Federal govt stays within it's specific & enumerated powers...leaving the rest to the states or the people.Yeah, nothing says "small government" like legislating morality and getting involved in affairs that are already being handled at the state level. They're totally sticking to their supposed ideals by expanding the bureaucracy further in order to gain extra political power.

No way is this just a cheap ploy for votes.

Taco John
06-08-2006, 02:09 AM
Oh, the human-on-manity!




-source: Ed Helms, The Daily Show ;)

Ultra Peanut
06-08-2006, 02:54 AM
You mean Rob Cordry, the Daily Show's gay expert.

Taco John
06-08-2006, 03:10 AM
You mean Rob Cordry, the Daily Show's gay expert.


Dur... :drool:

I can't believe I made that mistake...

He's not the gay expert. He's the gay correspondant. Not the gay correspondant. He's the gay correspondant. :)