Mmmm... Kewpie. Mr melt introduced me to that when we visited the local Japanese grocery store a few months back. He has also got me hook on gyudon, gyosa, and yaksoba, not to mention the ever amazing ponzu sauce.
Funny I see puddles mentioned, as I was just filing my nails today.
HI DAVID!!!!! How long are you south of C-bus? It would be so cool if we could meet up, just not about the logistics of it all.
Observant that's because Canada is so fkucing awesome. And you know....Ron Paul. USA is so easy to poke fun at.
And frankly my crack is true. Farms here are still family run and usually just a few acres and there are no cheap workers slipping under the border and even fewer farmers willing to use them if they are here. So we pay more. Even after liberalization farm goods cost a shiteload. I kinda like the setup to be honest. Not against American way either ce think on it.
I am on a road trip right now, (in the states) and happen to have about 10 apples with me, staring at me right now as I read this, and it prompted an uhmazing idea: can I pay for a trip to Japan by bringing a few suitcases of apples and selling them there? I am only halfway kidding. I know customs would get me, but this is a fun thought experiment.
They'd have to be pretty awesome apples. Japanese don't accept anything but the good stuff.
The cool thing is the expensive apples signify/ensure that economic gaps are not as extreme in Japan, cuz the govt has worked hard to make it so. Working wages, mandated healthcare insurance, no guns, and the better the school the lower the tuition (meritocracy based education, wtf?). It's like Rachel Maddow designed the country with advice from Ron Paul to make sure the govt stayed out where it wasn't needed.
Scientists still need to go to America to make the dream real though. Same like wit the baseball players. America stays way ahead on the place to be chart even with all that seems wrong with it. Which is pretty cool if you think about it. What do people really want? Seems like it is not really the stuff everyone is fighting about but another category of stuff altogether.
I think I told you all that even a tiny dive bar in Brussels has delicious freshly-made high quality food? In the US we've just become so accustomed to cardboard-flavored enormous everything.
Thankfully, not in my town, Dona. My town is more like Brussels. Not everywhere in the US is giant cardboard food... and we have reasonably priced apples grown locally on small family farms. Didn't realize I should be so thankful for all this!
GOooooD MoRNINg, so, my structural engineer decided to read the geotech report yesterday, good, it's important to read those things i guess. although, now i'm just guessing here, it's probably more important to read those reports, i don't know, earlier than one week prior to bid documents being due? right?
beta, i think it's a big win they read the report before the backhoe is rented.
there isn't really a lot of information in a geotech report except to occasionally say you have to do it different this one time. a project tends to take as long as the time allotted, so if you have a week to do something that should only take 5 minutes, it's probably going to take a week (and there is a fair chance it will still be 2 days late). as long as the geotech report doesn't say you need piers, the structure guy has plenty of time to copy and paste from their last project.
i hope by 'bid documents due' you mean you send out for bid rather than bids are due.
sounds not good beta, if the structure needs to change as a result...?
agree donna, the food quality in usa and europe was appallingly horrible compared to here. japan is a nation of foodies and we eat well. hole in the wall restaurants are awesome delish. very lucky. even a guy like me who doesn't care that much can taste the difference.
@melt. i dunno, if you wanna do cutting research i wouldn't say japan is the place to be for a lot of it. and amerika is still the place to go to monetize the discoveries. there are a few nobel winners hanging around but am pretty sure the bulk of winners are still in north america. will be interesting to see if that changes as amerika pushes to dismantle its once awesome educational system...although listening to the gay marriage testimony today it does sound like some senior lawyish folk don't have a clue about how reproduction works, so maybe its too late already. amazing
Someone told me that Japan is the largest importer of US grains and those imports are at an all time high. I find this hard to believe, especially since I thought Japan banned GMO's, but I googled it and found it's true. Food for thought.
Will, we don't spell your home country Kanada, so drop your animosity for Amerika. Oh, yeah, the Supreme Court. You've got Kagan who is making the reproduction argument and you've got Scalia who says that the institution of same-sex marriage is newer than cell phones or the internet. I'm with Scalia. It's amazing. So much of the modern world is polarized these days. You either think "total left" or "total right." There's no representation for those who think "middle of the road." The whole thing with same sex marriage is about semantics, so people can flout a time-honored institution. Many/most don't care about the domestic partnership label, and even the rights that come with it, but this is a fight over a word ... a true pissing contest. It's also generational. When it comes up in university settings in their social science departments for discourse - yes, discourse, where it actually does occur, as opposed to a-school - profs. are indicating that students who hold the unpopular opinion (i.e. CON) are not speaking up to avoid being ostracized by their peers for the politically incorrect point of view. Kind of like driving a Prius when you're flush with cash ... to make a statement, that is ...
you're arguing semantics because your position has no merit. it isn't a "total left" and "total right" polarization. it's "total right" and everyone else. a moderate isn't going to deny another human being the same rights they have and everyone else has. keep dwelling on your religion and it's word though. if we were all treated equal you might look bad for hating other people.
Your point with that youtube is kind of drastic. That youtube is in very bad taste and any person can see that.
Some people are totally cool with people's partnerships and grew up with same sex couples owning and renting houses on the same street, and they didn't get an ounce of flack . We are not interested in "let's see if we can push the envelope another time." BTW, there are architectural environments, not particularly progressive ones, that don't treat the GLB crowd particularly well, regardless of relationship status. Again, this is a Prius-alike thing. In the general pop, the division is 50:50. In the arch. crowd, I'm sure it's more like 90:10, when underneath it all, there is also discrimination. Hate? Another stretch on your part. Here's what I hate - You're at work and you hear "We had an architect who worked on the (type of) projects. He (or she) was from Baltimore," yet, for someone else, you hear "We had an architect who worked on the (type of) projects. He (or she) was gay (or lesbian)." Far more inappropriate and judgmental than saying "Yeah, man, shack up, buy that brownstone, and whatever floats your boat."
It's an extension of another argument. Do I want people with a HS to continue to be able to license? Surface answer, to be PC, even among some educators, who would then have no one to educate: "Oh, sure, I want to be the profession to be more inclusive." Real answer: "Hell no, not after what I had to go through and the loans I have to pay off." Same thing with same sex marriage. What's wrong with the way things were in that arena, in more progressive urban areas, circa 1995 to 2000? Nothing, really.
observant, this is not the place for ranty shit, set up a thread and i'll answer you there, no worries. you can write canada anyway you want, why would i care? although i do think amerika suits more and more lately. seriously. sing the one road song too if you like.
about the gay marriage thing, i suspect you are not talking to the choir here with your comments, but in any case I was not taking a stance wither way.
was just amazed that the judges seemed not to notice the non sequitur responses they were giving when posed with the possibility that a couple over 55 could not have kids and therefore should also not be allowed to marry according to the rules being promulgated for "the gays". clearly they either think extramarital affairs are totally cool (in which case, wtf right?) or they skipped the chapter on how kids are conceived in junior highschool, or perhaps they didn't get educated at all cuz...argh, sex is scary, keep it away. and these good lawyer people are making serious decisions?
@there is there, i guess that doesn't surprise me either. wonder what they (we) are doing with it all. everyone is secretly eating bread or something. either way, 450 g bag of flour is like 3 bucks, which is crazy expensive. if i make apple pies i need to go to the bank first.
It was Justice Alito, not Scalia, that compared gay marriage with cell phones. Second, you don't know what you're talking about. Gay marriage is not a "semantics" debate, it's about equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, you tool.
Fine. Alito. I heard what Kagan and Bader-Ginsburg (sp) had to say. You know they're going to pawn this off. It's too controversial.
Here's the deal. We've already done a great job of eroding the middle class, a significant staple of the modern world's economic health. And, all the while, people perversely watch that reality show with Donald Trump and echo "You're fired" with delight, and where everyone is a "project manager." Usually, a project manager requires some qualifications other than being a dimpled celebrity. So, while we're there, let's eradicate middle of the road thinking. Being able to see the pros and cons of a debate is better than being outright fanatical, one way or the other.
I am sure there are all kinds of intelligent people across all walks of life who held a progressive view but not on this specific issue. Please call them asshats. When people go into the voting booth, you have no idea which way these intelligent asshats, some of whom may be your friends, will vote.
If my friends don't approve of equal rights for all, then they are not my friends. They are not progressive if they are not for equal rights, I don't care if they voted for Obama, or if the vote for Clinton in 2016; they are wrong. There is no debate, don't mistake this, as a debate either. You're a clown for even trying to intellectualize the unintelligible. You're a bore, your inane threads are a bore, and I'm about ready to start kicking sand in your face.
If you digress into name calling, you are not making your point effectively. Don't expect to change people's minds. That's why there are continua in life, because there are different points along them.
I really don't get why we're still having this debate - didn't gay marriage win like 5 or 6 years ago? It's like you're telling us that there's still life in the sun revolves around the earth theory. let's move on.
Yep. Call them all civil unions for governmental purposes. Let the churches, temples, and mosques decide for what they'll issue a marriage certificate. If that ain't separation of church and state, I don't know what is.
That's all we got here. Wedding ceremony itself is cultural not legal.
There are issues about long term strategy that make it better for the case to be kept within California apparently. But apart from that I don't get the middle road on this one. If there is a right I don't see how it can be withheld. The language and arguments and objections are earily similar to arguments about recognizing the right to vote or to marry outside race.
Being reasonable about any of those things was never useful was it?
The middle of the road is easy. When Prop 8 was in California, you voted Obama and voted against Prop 8. The middle of the road is two words: Shack up. That way we don't have to change everything for a very small number of people who will make use of this anyway. The best solution, which no one wants to touch and for which the results might be politically skewed in the interest of political correctness, is to have a very detailed sociological and psychological study of how commonly used this vehicle is, and its viability over the long-term. I believe that's what the cell phone analogy was about. And that 83 y.o. lady? Looks like nobody kept her from happily living with her partner in NYC and having employment (one of them worked for IBM) that was better than what most people have. Marriage is largely a religious concept that seeped into mainstream usage because, at one time, almost all people belonged to a traditional worship group. On the other hand, words like partnership and civil union are perfect to describe ALL the possible combinations, since they are governmental and legalistic. The operative word is "flout."
are you serious? shack up. plus 1,138 statutory provisions including rights and responsibilities denied to that couple. did your bible list those as religious, or were they legal requirements of the state? the united states declared in it's first amendment to the constitution that our government would not limit a person's right based on their religions practice. you like the constitution right?
why do you still think there is some sort of discussion here? some of us want to treat our fellow human beings equal and some are dumb bigots.
human beings are not cars. civil liberties and equal treatment before the law is not a politically correct fad. giving everyone equal access to the same institution is not "changing everything" and it does not require a study of any sort.
I know numerous Dems in America's big cities who have always been pro-gay rights but not for this, or they sort of shrug about it in an almost exasperated manner. You can argue until the cows come home. It won't change peoples' opinions. What's wrong with turning everything over to the term "civil union," then, including weddings for men and women, performed in a governmental setting or in Las Vegas? On second thought, "24 hour Civil Union Chapel" doesn't sound too good.
observant, just because your obvious retardation prevents you from examining the essential facts in the DOMA case before the court, i've actually gone to our trusty internets, and believe me, it was hard, and here are the facts;
"In 2007, Edith "Edie" Windsor and Thea Spyer, residents of New York, married in Toronto, Ontario, after 40 years of romantic partnership.[1] Canada's first openly gay judge, Justice Harvey Brownstone officiated.[2] Windsor had first suggested engagement in 1965.[3] Spyer died in 2009, at which time New York legally recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.[4][5] After Spyer's death, Windsor was required to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her inheritance of her wife's estate. If federal law accorded their marriage the same status as different-sex marriages recognized by their state, she would have paid no taxes.[6][7]
Windsor approached several gay rights organizations, all of whom turned her down. She was then referred to Roberta Kaplan, at the firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who had unsuccessfully argued the case challenging the inability of same-sex couples to marry in New York before the New York Court of Appeals in 2006. "When I heard her story, it took me about five seconds, maybe less," said Kaplan, who was joined in Windsor's case by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)."
why don't you shut your fucking pie-hole already, clown. you're embarrassing yourself.
so. fucking. what. if you think she looks happy, or even lived happily with her wife, she was still discriminated against, and suffered injury based on that discrimination. jesus christ on a half shell, you are what my friends at Python would call, a first class, upper class twit.
Religion is a business. the whole reason this particular group of people are opposed to same-sex-marriage (especially the terminology) is that it is a threat to their ability to maintain or gain new membership ($$) - and a threat to their political influence in their communities - especially since these specific groups have defined themselves in contrast to what they are not. No one is telling them that they are forced to marry same sex couples (like if you are clergy you don't have to marry people from other religions).
so - for them defining "marriage" in a particular way is about societal control and influence - this noise from religious organizations about marriage is essentially them trying to assert control over the state because it affects their ability to grow and generate revenue.
anyway - religions have a decision to make - either accept societal changes or become increasingly marginalized within that society. it's like any business (religion sells ideology and community) - you can either choose to adapt and outsmart your competition - or you keep doing things the same way and attempt to squash your competition through various means - used to be you'd just kill them, these days we do it through legislation.
Keep in mind that those who identify with a religion don't necessarily buy in 100% as to what that religion has to say. In fact, it's quite common that they don't. I am in conformance with my religion in its ministries to help the poor and the marginalized. I am not in conformance with my religion on some of their stances with regard to moral issues. Some of us can think for ourselves. The "noise" you refer to on THIS issue doesn't necessarily come from religious organizations. It also comes from people, individuals, who have different beliefs across different topics which don't come in tidy packaged form.
You discriminate when you diminish someone's quality of life with respect to their housing, employment, schooling, and things like that. This is about a WORD. It makes those pushing for it feel bad because they can't get the SAME word. That's not discrimination. It's not what my parents or my friends' parents have. Most of us who are reasonably liberal and are CON on this issue look at it this way. Did you grow up in big cities? We all accepted same sex couples as our neighbors and coworkers when we were kids. If someone started in on them in a malicious way, we told them to STFU. Oftentimes, you had 2 working adults who lived well and had a lot of disposable income. Sometimes, both were professionals. In fact, what combination would provide for more disposable income than 2 child-free professional adults under the same roof? Adopting the kids was not yet trendy. And many of these relationships were obviously open and unconventional, based on what happened to some of these otherwise nice folks in these relationships. Change has come at an accelerating pace, and sometimes that's not necessarily good. It is entirely a fight over semantics. For some reason, rolling back to "civil unions" wouldn't make them happy, if it was done across the board. I'm sure that a lot of M-F couples wouldn't care if the government issued them a civil union certificate, and they went to church for their wedding ceremony. Why is that not a solution? It's just as feasible.
it's not about a *word*. it never was. that's some crap right wing lunatics made up so it doesn't sound like they're hateful jerks. since it's a weak and transparent attempt, it's not working.
this is about 1,138 statutory provisions directly related to people who are "married." for example, in the case of Edith Windsor it's about $363,000.
more to the point, it's about treating human beings equal. now you say you think we should create one 'marriage' for a certain group of people and a different 'marriage' for another group of people. they're equal marriages, they're just separate. we've been through that in america, and our courts decided separate but equal is bullshit.
i doubt vado's turtle's acceptance of a marriage would constitute consent.
Thread Central
Better late then never...
Mmmm... Kewpie. Mr melt introduced me to that when we visited the local Japanese grocery store a few months back. He has also got me hook on gyudon, gyosa, and yaksoba, not to mention the ever amazing ponzu sauce.
Funny I see puddles mentioned, as I was just filing my nails today.
HI DAVID!!!!! How long are you south of C-bus? It would be so cool if we could meet up, just not about the logistics of it all.
HI VADO!!!!
And with that it's back in the mist I go
Canada's like southern indiana with single payer health care.
Nah, Canada is exactly like the states adjacent to it, with metric speed signage and single payer health care.
so - like north "life begins at conception" dakota?
Observant that's because Canada is so fkucing awesome. And you know....Ron Paul. USA is so easy to poke fun at.
And frankly my crack is true. Farms here are still family run and usually just a few acres and there are no cheap workers slipping under the border and even fewer farmers willing to use them if they are here. So we pay more. Even after liberalization farm goods cost a shiteload. I kinda like the setup to be honest. Not against American way either ce think on it.
I am on a road trip right now, (in the states) and happen to have about 10 apples with me, staring at me right now as I read this, and it prompted an uhmazing idea: can I pay for a trip to Japan by bringing a few suitcases of apples and selling them there? I am only halfway kidding. I know customs would get me, but this is a fun thought experiment.
Nah, just pack your apples inside a box full of old clothes.
Observant that's because Canada is so fkucing awesome.
Yes, and if you read my post, you'll see I am in agreement with you. Canada IS awesome. No argument there.
The cool thing is the expensive apples signify/ensure that economic gaps are not as extreme in Japan, cuz the govt has worked hard to make it so. Working wages, mandated healthcare insurance, no guns, and the better the school the lower the tuition (meritocracy based education, wtf?). It's like Rachel Maddow designed the country with advice from Ron Paul to make sure the govt stayed out where it wasn't needed.
Scientists still need to go to America to make the dream real though. Same like wit the baseball players. America stays way ahead on the place to be chart even with all that seems wrong with it. Which is pretty cool if you think about it. What do people really want? Seems like it is not really the stuff everyone is fighting about but another category of stuff altogether.
I think I told you all that even a tiny dive bar in Brussels has delicious freshly-made high quality food? In the US we've just become so accustomed to cardboard-flavored enormous everything.
It really surprises me that scientists have to make their dream real. I always thought Japan was years ahead of us in that department.
Thankfully, not in my town, Dona. My town is more like Brussels. Not everywhere in the US is giant cardboard food... and we have reasonably priced apples grown locally on small family farms. Didn't realize I should be so thankful for all this!
In the US we've just become so accustomed to cardboard-flavored enormous everything.
oh man - I can think of about a dozen or so really offensive comments here....
good morning all. I was at a 6 am meeting this am. Good news is i get to start going to it every week now!
also @toasteroven i wonder how many of us went there...
GOooooD MoRNINg, so, my structural engineer decided to read the geotech report yesterday, good, it's important to read those things i guess. although, now i'm just guessing here, it's probably more important to read those reports, i don't know, earlier than one week prior to bid documents being due? right?
beta, i think it's a big win they read the report before the backhoe is rented.
there isn't really a lot of information in a geotech report except to occasionally say you have to do it different this one time. a project tends to take as long as the time allotted, so if you have a week to do something that should only take 5 minutes, it's probably going to take a week (and there is a fair chance it will still be 2 days late). as long as the geotech report doesn't say you need piers, the structure guy has plenty of time to copy and paste from their last project.
i hope by 'bid documents due' you mean you send out for bid rather than bids are due.
sounds not good beta, if the structure needs to change as a result...?
agree donna, the food quality in usa and europe was appallingly horrible compared to here. japan is a nation of foodies and we eat well. hole in the wall restaurants are awesome delish. very lucky. even a guy like me who doesn't care that much can taste the difference.
@melt. i dunno, if you wanna do cutting research i wouldn't say japan is the place to be for a lot of it. and amerika is still the place to go to monetize the discoveries. there are a few nobel winners hanging around but am pretty sure the bulk of winners are still in north america. will be interesting to see if that changes as amerika pushes to dismantle its once awesome educational system...although listening to the gay marriage testimony today it does sound like some senior lawyish folk don't have a clue about how reproduction works, so maybe its too late already. amazing
Someone told me that Japan is the largest importer of US grains and those imports are at an all time high. I find this hard to believe, especially since I thought Japan banned GMO's, but I googled it and found it's true. Food for thought.
Will, we don't spell your home country Kanada, so drop your animosity for Amerika. Oh, yeah, the Supreme Court. You've got Kagan who is making the reproduction argument and you've got Scalia who says that the institution of same-sex marriage is newer than cell phones or the internet. I'm with Scalia. It's amazing. So much of the modern world is polarized these days. You either think "total left" or "total right." There's no representation for those who think "middle of the road." The whole thing with same sex marriage is about semantics, so people can flout a time-honored institution. Many/most don't care about the domestic partnership label, and even the rights that come with it, but this is a fight over a word ... a true pissing contest. It's also generational. When it comes up in university settings in their social science departments for discourse - yes, discourse, where it actually does occur, as opposed to a-school - profs. are indicating that students who hold the unpopular opinion (i.e. CON) are not speaking up to avoid being ostracized by their peers for the politically incorrect point of view. Kind of like driving a Prius when you're flush with cash ... to make a statement, that is ...
i understand why you're concerned observant
http://youtu.be/CrpyCB5j8_w
you're arguing semantics because your position has no merit. it isn't a "total left" and "total right" polarization. it's "total right" and everyone else. a moderate isn't going to deny another human being the same rights they have and everyone else has. keep dwelling on your religion and it's word though. if we were all treated equal you might look bad for hating other people.
Come on, curt.
Your point with that youtube is kind of drastic. That youtube is in very bad taste and any person can see that.
Some people are totally cool with people's partnerships and grew up with same sex couples owning and renting houses on the same street, and they didn't get an ounce of flack . We are not interested in "let's see if we can push the envelope another time." BTW, there are architectural environments, not particularly progressive ones, that don't treat the GLB crowd particularly well, regardless of relationship status. Again, this is a Prius-alike thing. In the general pop, the division is 50:50. In the arch. crowd, I'm sure it's more like 90:10, when underneath it all, there is also discrimination. Hate? Another stretch on your part. Here's what I hate - You're at work and you hear "We had an architect who worked on the (type of) projects. He (or she) was from Baltimore," yet, for someone else, you hear "We had an architect who worked on the (type of) projects. He (or she) was gay (or lesbian)." Far more inappropriate and judgmental than saying "Yeah, man, shack up, buy that brownstone, and whatever floats your boat."
It's an extension of another argument. Do I want people with a HS to continue to be able to license? Surface answer, to be PC, even among some educators, who would then have no one to educate: "Oh, sure, I want to be the profession to be more inclusive." Real answer: "Hell no, not after what I had to go through and the loans I have to pay off." Same thing with same sex marriage. What's wrong with the way things were in that arena, in more progressive urban areas, circa 1995 to 2000? Nothing, really.
observant, this is not the place for ranty shit, set up a thread and i'll answer you there, no worries. you can write canada anyway you want, why would i care? although i do think amerika suits more and more lately. seriously. sing the one road song too if you like.
about the gay marriage thing, i suspect you are not talking to the choir here with your comments, but in any case I was not taking a stance wither way.
was just amazed that the judges seemed not to notice the non sequitur responses they were giving when posed with the possibility that a couple over 55 could not have kids and therefore should also not be allowed to marry according to the rules being promulgated for "the gays". clearly they either think extramarital affairs are totally cool (in which case, wtf right?) or they skipped the chapter on how kids are conceived in junior highschool, or perhaps they didn't get educated at all cuz...argh, sex is scary, keep it away. and these good lawyer people are making serious decisions?
surreal.
but funny!
@there is there, i guess that doesn't surprise me either. wonder what they (we) are doing with it all. everyone is secretly eating bread or something. either way, 450 g bag of flour is like 3 bucks, which is crazy expensive. if i make apple pies i need to go to the bank first.
you've got Scalia who says that the institution of same-sex marriage is newer than cell phones or the internet.
the cell phone was invented in ancient greece?
oops - sorry - ancient egypt.
It was Justice Alito, not Scalia, that compared gay marriage with cell phones. Second, you don't know what you're talking about. Gay marriage is not a "semantics" debate, it's about equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, you tool.
Will, I'm thinking it is for livestock feed.
^^
Fine. Alito. I heard what Kagan and Bader-Ginsburg (sp) had to say. You know they're going to pawn this off. It's too controversial.
Here's the deal. We've already done a great job of eroding the middle class, a significant staple of the modern world's economic health. And, all the while, people perversely watch that reality show with Donald Trump and echo "You're fired" with delight, and where everyone is a "project manager." Usually, a project manager requires some qualifications other than being a dimpled celebrity. So, while we're there, let's eradicate middle of the road thinking. Being able to see the pros and cons of a debate is better than being outright fanatical, one way or the other.
Human rights are not debatable, asshat.
Human rights are not debatable, asshat.
I am sure there are all kinds of intelligent people across all walks of life who held a progressive view but not on this specific issue. Please call them asshats. When people go into the voting booth, you have no idea which way these intelligent asshats, some of whom may be your friends, will vote.
Very nice article on People for Urban Progress and the work we are doing here. Brian and I get a mention, as does Angus!
If my friends don't approve of equal rights for all, then they are not my friends. They are not progressive if they are not for equal rights, I don't care if they voted for Obama, or if the vote for Clinton in 2016; they are wrong. There is no debate, don't mistake this, as a debate either. You're a clown for even trying to intellectualize the unintelligible. You're a bore, your inane threads are a bore, and I'm about ready to start kicking sand in your face.
If you digress into name calling, you are not making your point effectively. Don't expect to change people's minds. That's why there are continua in life, because there are different points along them.
Let's just ban all marriage.
I really don't get why we're still having this debate - didn't gay marriage win like 5 or 6 years ago? It's like you're telling us that there's still life in the sun revolves around the earth theory. let's move on.
Let's just ban all marriage.
Yep. Call them all civil unions for governmental purposes. Let the churches, temples, and mosques decide for what they'll issue a marriage certificate. If that ain't separation of church and state, I don't know what is.
There are issues about long term strategy that make it better for the case to be kept within California apparently. But apart from that I don't get the middle road on this one. If there is a right I don't see how it can be withheld. The language and arguments and objections are earily similar to arguments about recognizing the right to vote or to marry outside race.
Being reasonable about any of those things was never useful was it?
The middle of the road is easy. When Prop 8 was in California, you voted Obama and voted against Prop 8. The middle of the road is two words: Shack up. That way we don't have to change everything for a very small number of people who will make use of this anyway. The best solution, which no one wants to touch and for which the results might be politically skewed in the interest of political correctness, is to have a very detailed sociological and psychological study of how commonly used this vehicle is, and its viability over the long-term. I believe that's what the cell phone analogy was about. And that 83 y.o. lady? Looks like nobody kept her from happily living with her partner in NYC and having employment (one of them worked for IBM) that was better than what most people have. Marriage is largely a religious concept that seeped into mainstream usage because, at one time, almost all people belonged to a traditional worship group. On the other hand, words like partnership and civil union are perfect to describe ALL the possible combinations, since they are governmental and legalistic. The operative word is "flout."
are you serious? shack up. plus 1,138 statutory provisions including rights and responsibilities denied to that couple. did your bible list those as religious, or were they legal requirements of the state? the united states declared in it's first amendment to the constitution that our government would not limit a person's right based on their religions practice. you like the constitution right?
why do you still think there is some sort of discussion here? some of us want to treat our fellow human beings equal and some are dumb bigots.
human beings are not cars. civil liberties and equal treatment before the law is not a politically correct fad. giving everyone equal access to the same institution is not "changing everything" and it does not require a study of any sort.
I know numerous Dems in America's big cities who have always been pro-gay rights but not for this, or they sort of shrug about it in an almost exasperated manner. You can argue until the cows come home. It won't change peoples' opinions. What's wrong with turning everything over to the term "civil union," then, including weddings for men and women, performed in a governmental setting or in Las Vegas? On second thought, "24 hour Civil Union Chapel" doesn't sound too good.
observant, just because your obvious retardation prevents you from examining the essential facts in the DOMA case before the court, i've actually gone to our trusty internets, and believe me, it was hard, and here are the facts;
"In 2007, Edith "Edie" Windsor and Thea Spyer, residents of New York, married in Toronto, Ontario, after 40 years of romantic partnership.[1] Canada's first openly gay judge, Justice Harvey Brownstone officiated.[2] Windsor had first suggested engagement in 1965.[3] Spyer died in 2009, at which time New York legally recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.[4][5] After Spyer's death, Windsor was required to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her inheritance of her wife's estate. If federal law accorded their marriage the same status as different-sex marriages recognized by their state, she would have paid no taxes.[6][7]
Windsor approached several gay rights organizations, all of whom turned her down. She was then referred to Roberta Kaplan, at the firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who had unsuccessfully argued the case challenging the inability of same-sex couples to marry in New York before the New York Court of Appeals in 2006. "When I heard her story, it took me about five seconds, maybe less," said Kaplan, who was joined in Windsor's case by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)."
why don't you shut your fucking pie-hole already, clown. you're embarrassing yourself.
so. fucking. what. if you think she looks happy, or even lived happily with her wife, she was still discriminated against, and suffered injury based on that discrimination. jesus christ on a half shell, you are what my friends at Python would call, a first class, upper class twit.
Agreed. There should have been laws to allow them to register as domestic partners and exempt the surviving partner from the hefty tax. I hear ya.
wow! FRaC and i agree on something, maybe we should get married.
Religion is a business. the whole reason this particular group of people are opposed to same-sex-marriage (especially the terminology) is that it is a threat to their ability to maintain or gain new membership ($$) - and a threat to their political influence in their communities - especially since these specific groups have defined themselves in contrast to what they are not. No one is telling them that they are forced to marry same sex couples (like if you are clergy you don't have to marry people from other religions).
so - for them defining "marriage" in a particular way is about societal control and influence - this noise from religious organizations about marriage is essentially them trying to assert control over the state because it affects their ability to grow and generate revenue.
anyway - religions have a decision to make - either accept societal changes or become increasingly marginalized within that society. it's like any business (religion sells ideology and community) - you can either choose to adapt and outsmart your competition - or you keep doing things the same way and attempt to squash your competition through various means - used to be you'd just kill them, these days we do it through legislation.
^
Keep in mind that those who identify with a religion don't necessarily buy in 100% as to what that religion has to say. In fact, it's quite common that they don't. I am in conformance with my religion in its ministries to help the poor and the marginalized. I am not in conformance with my religion on some of their stances with regard to moral issues. Some of us can think for ourselves. The "noise" you refer to on THIS issue doesn't necessarily come from religious organizations. It also comes from people, individuals, who have different beliefs across different topics which don't come in tidy packaged form.
if it's not religious, then why do you want to discriminate against gay people?
You discriminate when you diminish someone's quality of life with respect to their housing, employment, schooling, and things like that. This is about a WORD. It makes those pushing for it feel bad because they can't get the SAME word. That's not discrimination. It's not what my parents or my friends' parents have. Most of us who are reasonably liberal and are CON on this issue look at it this way. Did you grow up in big cities? We all accepted same sex couples as our neighbors and coworkers when we were kids. If someone started in on them in a malicious way, we told them to STFU. Oftentimes, you had 2 working adults who lived well and had a lot of disposable income. Sometimes, both were professionals. In fact, what combination would provide for more disposable income than 2 child-free professional adults under the same roof? Adopting the kids was not yet trendy. And many of these relationships were obviously open and unconventional, based on what happened to some of these otherwise nice folks in these relationships. Change has come at an accelerating pace, and sometimes that's not necessarily good. It is entirely a fight over semantics. For some reason, rolling back to "civil unions" wouldn't make them happy, if it was done across the board. I'm sure that a lot of M-F couples wouldn't care if the government issued them a civil union certificate, and they went to church for their wedding ceremony. Why is that not a solution? It's just as feasible.
I wish to live to see the day when Vado is finally free to marry his turtle.
it's not about a *word*. it never was. that's some crap right wing lunatics made up so it doesn't sound like they're hateful jerks. since it's a weak and transparent attempt, it's not working.
this is about 1,138 statutory provisions directly related to people who are "married." for example, in the case of Edith Windsor it's about $363,000.
more to the point, it's about treating human beings equal. now you say you think we should create one 'marriage' for a certain group of people and a different 'marriage' for another group of people. they're equal marriages, they're just separate. we've been through that in america, and our courts decided separate but equal is bullshit.
i doubt vado's turtle's acceptance of a marriage would constitute consent.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.