Profile
Search
Register
Log in
*sigh* Gay Marriage Ban Upheld
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6495
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

Embryo wrote:
if you don't think there was a backlash against the MA ruling, or if you don't think it's at all instructive, you are just plain trippin', Mr. Mean.

I said "recent." I would exclude the first of these decisions from "recent."
Post Tue May 26, 2009 3:53 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6495
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

Embryo wrote:
Hmm. I don't remember discussing this particular aspect of this issue before. What is your basis for saying this?

We discussed this (and more) on pages 6-11 of the thread titled "New Hampshire in the "Socio-Political Party" forum. A quick skim of that thread and I see a discussion of different strategies for change. I don't think we hit specifically on courts v. legislatures, but our positions fit the frameworks that we argued there.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 4:17 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

I just reviewed that thread and there's... no relationship at all between these two discussions. In that thread I was discussing what I mentioned earlier in this one, which is my belief that marriages between members of any sex shouldn't be something the state has anything to do with, and it would be better to separate the legal aspects of union from religious marriage. Ironically, my basis for that was because it would be a quicker way of achieving short-term gains in terms of partner rights. I was wrong about that part, anyway.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 4:32 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

Sorry, I just read the rest of it. That was a pretty good discussion and it's not entirely unrelated afterall. I feel like if there is a common thread between the two, it's that I tend to prioritize process details higher than you do. Which I can respect. And since we seem to be making gains with marriage, I don't feel the need to push the "partner rights are what are really key here" thought train. Other than that though it's about a different issue.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 4:49 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
neveragainlikesheep



Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2536
Location: TKO from Tokyo
 Reply with quote  

Arizona bay.. any day now..
Post Tue May 26, 2009 4:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
xGasPricesx



Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1505
 Reply with quote  

Post Tue May 26, 2009 7:28 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
neveragainlikesheep



Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2536
Location: TKO from Tokyo
 Reply with quote  

xGasPricesx wrote:



HA! HA! XD
Post Tue May 26, 2009 7:32 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dr Sagacious



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1843
Location: Redford
 Reply with quote  

neveragainlikesheep wrote:
Arizona bay.. any day now..


I'll see you down there.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 8:36 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Jack



Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 678
 Reply with quote  

That "Jesus had 2 dads" poster is a classic.
Post Tue May 26, 2009 9:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
poisonfree



Joined: 23 Aug 2002
Posts: 1516
Location: Macramento
 Reply with quote  

I too don't think people need to have a certain level of credentials, skills, or representation to be treated like the rest of us heteros.

EDIT: That 2dads Sign is amazing. Lollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Post Wed May 27, 2009 5:15 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
the mean
Certified O.G.


Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 6495
Location: philly/sacto/kauai/ohio
 Reply with quote  

Don't want to cut and paste this entire bad boy, but LULZ abound.
Post Wed May 27, 2009 7:06 am
 View user's profile Send private message
xGasPricesx



Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1505
 Reply with quote  

the mean wrote:
Don't want to cut and paste this entire bad boy, but LULZ abound.


No. fucking. way. They really published that? I had to keep double checking the url just to be sure that it wasn't really the Onion or something. That guy is fucking crazy.
Post Wed May 27, 2009 3:12 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

xGasPricesx wrote:
the mean wrote:
Don't want to cut and paste this entire bad boy, but LULZ abound.


No. fucking. way. They really published that? I had to keep double checking the url just to be sure that it wasn't really the Onion or something. That guy is fucking crazy.


this guy was on NPR yesterday too (mean, is that how you found him?). I didn't hear it until the evening drive home from work. But yeah, this guy is fucking bonkers. All the other guests and callers just kinda talked around him, they were like, you are too ridiculous for words. He said that marriage was a patriarchal device that exists mainly.... for women. well done guy
Post Thu May 28, 2009 10:20 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Jesse



Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless
 Reply with quote  

Embryo wrote:
He said that marriage was a patriarchal device that exists mainly.... for women. well done guy
No no no that actually works if you recognize it as patronizing and belittling and only "for" them in a paternalistic, objectifying sense.

What I feel like I'm reading in this article is a very powerful argument against marriage altogether. I find it hard to convince myself that it isn't intended that way. The truth is that what he's saying about traditional marriage is absolutely accurate, but the conclusion he purports to draw from it is unsupportable because he glosses over the fact that those traditions are no longer favoured and what he dismisses as so-called "romance marriages" are the kind of married that people get now.

The article goes completely off the rails once he starts trying to describe the potential societal ills of defying that already-defied tradition, and that's where I am robbed of my previously gathering belief that what I'm reading is expert satire aimed at exposing the sickness of marriage. Either the satire falls apart or - and I fear this latter is more likely - Schulman reveals himself as stark fucking apeshit crazy.

I'm tempted to edit this into the document I wish it were.
Post Thu May 28, 2009 10:35 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

yeah, that's exactly what it is, Jesse. It's bizarrely honest about the true motives behind the tradition of marriage, stated as clearly as the most brazen feminist theory on the topic. But then he says it's a great thing. That's insanity. Dude is such a weirdo.
Post Thu May 28, 2009 10:41 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:46 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon