Author Topic: Dear California  (Read 40181 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Dear California
« Reply #60 on: November 05, 2008, 01:32:30 PM »
Dan Savage is pissed.

Quote from: Dan Savage
Black Homophobia

posted by Dan Savage on November 5 at 9:55 AM

African American voters in California voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8, writing anti-gay discrimination into Californiaís constitution and banning same-sex marriage in that state. Seventy percent of African American voters approved Prop 8, according to exit polls, compared to 53% of Latino voters, 49% of white voters, 49% of Asian voters.

Iím not sure what to do with this. Iím thrilled that weíve just elected our first African-American president. I wept last night. I wept reading the papers this morning. But I canít help but feeling hurt that the love and support arenít mutual.

I do know this, though: Iím done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out thereóand theyíre out there, and I think theyíre scumóare a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.

This will get my name scratched of the invite list of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which is famous for its anti-racist-training seminars, but whatever.

Finally, Iím searching for some exit poll data from California. Iíll eat my shorts if gay and lesbian voters went for McCain at anything approaching the rate that black voters went for Prop 8.
野球

jiji

  • Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #61 on: November 05, 2008, 01:38:52 PM »
I apologize for this shitty state of Utah.  :-\
OTL

OptimoPeach

  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #62 on: November 05, 2008, 01:41:55 PM »
Is there a site that shows all the props for each state?

Also bullet trains >>>>> equal rights. Sorry guys.  :-[
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/
hi5

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
Re: Dear California
« Reply #63 on: November 05, 2008, 01:54:27 PM »
I don't buy those exit polls; they don't add up to how the final vote is gonna end up being.  I think there's probably some sort of weird effect where white people said they voted against it but voted for it in the booth.  Call it the "Agadore Spartacus" Effect.
yar

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #64 on: November 05, 2008, 01:57:31 PM »
Yeah, I honestly didn't expect this shit to fly in Cali.

Just out of curiosity, is there any legitimate non-religiotard reason people want to ban gay marriage?

MyNameIsMethodis

  • QUIT
  • Ebola Carrier
Re: Dear California
« Reply #65 on: November 05, 2008, 01:58:15 PM »
Atleast Arizona Proposition 202:
Hiring Illegal Immigrants

didn't pass.

Fuck illegals.
USA

Howard Alan Treesong

  • キング・メタル・ドラゴン
  • Icon
Re: Dear California
« Reply #66 on: November 05, 2008, 02:08:11 PM »
hey, where's that comic about getting with a dude? I think that may give us some insight into the African American community
乱学者

Phoenix Dark

  • The only nicca Sade dated
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #67 on: November 05, 2008, 02:08:37 PM »
Anyone have the exit poll results pic, on race?
010

Howard Alan Treesong

  • キング・メタル・ドラゴン
  • Icon
Re: Dear California
« Reply #68 on: November 05, 2008, 02:15:13 PM »
Anyone have the exit poll results pic, on race?

乱学者

Phoenix Dark

  • The only nicca Sade dated
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #69 on: November 05, 2008, 02:43:24 PM »
It's a shame that on a night where we shattered a 400 year high glass ceiling we helped to segregate another demographic
010

demi

  • cooler than willco
  • Administrator
Re: Dear California
« Reply #70 on: November 05, 2008, 02:44:16 PM »
And you wonder why you guys are fucking USELESS. You can't even do anything aside from make peanut butter.
fat

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #71 on: November 05, 2008, 02:52:55 PM »
NtGay

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #72 on: November 05, 2008, 03:01:08 PM »
I see. 

So has it officially failed now?

I really like hoe Obama mentioned gays in his speech, just as they are getting rights removed.

Also what rights don't people get with civil union as compared to marriage? 
NtGay

Howard Alan Treesong

  • キング・メタル・ドラゴン
  • Icon
Re: Dear California
« Reply #73 on: November 05, 2008, 03:04:35 PM »
http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

Civil unions are basically "separate but equal," except they're not equal.

It's like a nest of confusing laws that not everyone recognizes vs. "THAT'S MY HUSBAND"
乱学者


Howard Alan Treesong

  • キング・メタル・ドラゴン
  • Icon
Re: Dear California
« Reply #75 on: November 05, 2008, 03:19:24 PM »
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/5/13351/5326/393/654565

Sums up why I'm not beating myself up, though I am certainly mad:

1) It was close, and history and demographics are on our side.
2) No on 8 was, frankly, incompetent. They brought a knife to a NUKE fight. Yes on 8 used every dirty lying trick in the book, and No on 8 just sort of asked people to please be nice, if it's not too much trouble. By the time No on 8 woke up to what was happening, they'd already squandered a 20-point advantage. As Obama showed, it's not enough to be right - you also have to be ruthless. Next time will be different from the start.
3) In addition to being incompetent, No on 8 completely failed to seek out or use any of its high-profile endorsements. Why didn't Schwarzenegger cut an ad? Why didn't Obama? Why didn't any of the hundreds of celebrities who opposed this?
4) I am mad. Lots of people are mad. I only realized how close this was and started fighting a few weeks before the election. Unfortunately, a lot of Californians are being surprised by Yes on 8's success for the first time this morning. So they're mad, too, and they'll join the fight.
5) An Obama victory means a more progressive direction for America, the mainstreaming of LGBT opinions into the national discourse, and more liberal judges and justices if this gets challenged in court. All of these will be advantages the next time it's challenges.

So yeah. It sucks, and it's a setback, but it's a temporary one. The thing which makes me maddest is that we have to wait until 2010 for our first rematch.
乱学者

Olivia Wilde Homo

  • Proud Kinkshamer
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #76 on: November 05, 2008, 03:25:38 PM »
Gay marriage will happen in our lifetimes.  This is just a relatively minor inconvenience.  If people were shocked that it passed, they will come out in numbers to bring back gay marriage in CA, along with greater endorsements.

Losing the battle, winning the war, etc.
8===D

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #77 on: November 05, 2008, 03:38:23 PM »
It's still pretty comical to me that people living in Utah care so much about the sex lives of Californians. :S
©ZH

hyp

  • Casual Gamerô
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #78 on: November 05, 2008, 03:40:52 PM »
look on the bright side.  we voted for the bullet train from SF to LA  :rock

cool, maybe the gays can sit in the back

 :lol
pyh

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #79 on: November 05, 2008, 03:42:13 PM »
 :lol
NtGay

xnikki118x

  • Hanson Defense Force
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #80 on: November 05, 2008, 03:43:17 PM »
It's still pretty comical to me that people living in Utah care so much about the sex lives of Californians. :S

Yes, this. WTF?

I'm still holding onto hope!
:-*

Fresh Prince

  • a one-eyed cat peepin' in a seafood store
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #81 on: November 05, 2008, 04:01:08 PM »
It's still pretty comical to me that people living in Utah care so much about the sex lives of Californians. :S
Gay is passed on by wind.
888

muckhole

  • AMBASSADOR
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #82 on: November 05, 2008, 05:43:41 PM »
Gay is passed on by wind.

There's a bad "The Happening" joke in there somewhere, but I'm not clever enough to dig it out.
fek

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
Re: Dear California
« Reply #83 on: November 05, 2008, 06:10:17 PM »
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/5/13351/5326/393/654565

Sums up why I'm not beating myself up, though I am certainly mad:

1) It was close, and history and demographics are on our side.
2) No on 8 was, frankly, incompetent. They brought a knife to a NUKE fight. Yes on 8 used every dirty lying trick in the book, and No on 8 just sort of asked people to please be nice, if it's not too much trouble. By the time No on 8 woke up to what was happening, they'd already squandered a 20-point advantage. As Obama showed, it's not enough to be right - you also have to be ruthless. Next time will be different from the start.
3) In addition to being incompetent, No on 8 completely failed to seek out or use any of its high-profile endorsements. Why didn't Schwarzenegger cut an ad? Why didn't Obama? Why didn't any of the hundreds of celebrities who opposed this?
4) I am mad. Lots of people are mad. I only realized how close this was and started fighting a few weeks before the election. Unfortunately, a lot of Californians are being surprised by Yes on 8's success for the first time this morning. So they're mad, too, and they'll join the fight.
5) An Obama victory means a more progressive direction for America, the mainstreaming of LGBT opinions into the national discourse, and more liberal judges and justices if this gets challenged in court. All of these will be advantages the next time it's challenges.

So yeah. It sucks, and it's a setback, but it's a temporary one. The thing which makes me maddest is that we have to wait until 2010 for our first rematch.

this. we won the white house, and now it's time to drop the hammer on the homophobes.
duc

Phoenix Dark

  • The only nicca Sade dated
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #84 on: November 05, 2008, 07:33:05 PM »
My wife had to break up a screaming match at her work over prop 8. :-\

It's interesting that even the most liberal states can be so against gay marriage, hell even the thought of gays marrying. wtf mang

010

Howard Alan Treesong

  • キング・メタル・ドラゴン
  • Icon
Re: Dear California
« Reply #85 on: November 05, 2008, 08:31:54 PM »
wrong thread
« Last Edit: November 05, 2008, 08:35:19 PM by Synthesizer Patel »
乱学者

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #86 on: November 05, 2008, 11:25:27 PM »
Yeah, I honestly didn't expect this shit to fly in Cali.

Just out of curiosity, is there any legitimate non-religiotard reason people want to ban gay marriage?

Protect the "traditional nuclear family." Protect "traditional marriage" (traditional in America, not traditional dating back to Sumerian days). Those are the reasons I've heard. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other.

I realize that you've got a neutral position here but neither of those strike me as legitimate. Both hinge on the word 'traditional'. ANY new law or amendment is going to alter what is deemed 'traditional' (i.e. what the law has decreed to that point).
vjj

OptimoPeach

  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #87 on: November 06, 2008, 12:54:18 AM »

Among the people I talked to who voted Yes, it is true that some of them do hate homosexuals and believe that they will burn in hell, but most of them don't actually hate homosexuals. They simply see homosexuality as unnatural.
...
most of the people I know who voted Yes don't hate them; rather, they simply want to keep marriage between a man and a woman, and they don't see marriage as a "civil right."

I have more trouble understanding this point of view. At least I can write off the fundies and Mormons as brainwashed nutters, but clinging to this romanticized notion of sanctifying love and all that crap is just inane. My dad was trying to argue this same bullshit a couple of weeks ago.  It's more about the legal issues than anything, eg joint taxation, joint property rights, and survivor's pension.
hi5

Re: Dear California
« Reply #88 on: November 06, 2008, 01:04:46 AM »
The best possible argument I could think up is one in which I assume that homosexuality is completely a choice. Making this assumption, marriage, along with the tolerance of the community at large, might cause many people to "choose" to become gay. This might then lead to a massive drop in the birth-rate, destabilizing society, and leading to a Communist take-over lead by Triumph.

Sure, it's a silly, implausible argument with a false premise, but it's better than the "Bible says it's wrong" or "it's unnatural" or "shit Webster's will have to change their definition of marriage."
« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 01:10:32 AM by Night Man »

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
Re: Dear California
« Reply #89 on: November 06, 2008, 01:11:00 AM »
I have more trouble understanding this point of view. At least I can write off the fundies and Mormons as brainwashed nutters, but clinging to this romanticized notion of sanctifying love and all that crap is just inane. My dad was trying to argue this same bullshit a couple of weeks ago.  It's more about the legal issues than anything, eg joint taxation, joint property rights, and survivor's pension.

I think I didn't explain well enough. Most of the people I talked to who voted Yes are in favor of all of those things being given to gay couples. They are in favor of homosexual civil unions being expanded to include every right that married couples have. They are opposed to the word "marriage" being used to describe these unions.

then they're even more idiotic if they'd condemn a large group of people to second-class status because of the their perceived definition of a fucking word.
duc

OptimoPeach

  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #90 on: November 06, 2008, 01:14:16 AM »
I have more trouble understanding this point of view. At least I can write off the fundies and Mormons as brainwashed nutters, but clinging to this romanticized notion of sanctifying love and all that crap is just inane. My dad was trying to argue this same bullshit a couple of weeks ago.  It's more about the legal issues than anything, eg joint taxation, joint property rights, and survivor's pension.

I think I didn't explain well enough. Most of the people I talked to who voted Yes are in favor of all of those things being given to gay couples. They are in favor of homosexual civil unions being expanded to include every right that married couples have. They are opposed to the word "marriage" being used to describe these unions.

Not seeing why the distinction even needs to be made, other than for the sake of preserving tradition that is inherently wrong. "Those cigarillos are going dirty up our marriage" is pretty much all that says
hi5

Phoenix Dark

  • The only nicca Sade dated
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #91 on: November 06, 2008, 01:15:30 AM »
last time i checked the divorce rate was 50%+

hateros have already fucked marriage up enough
010

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: Dear California
« Reply #92 on: November 06, 2008, 01:16:08 AM »
I don't buy those exit polls; they don't add up to how the final vote is gonna end up being.  I think there's probably some sort of weird effect where white people said they voted against it but voted for it in the booth.  Call it the "Agadore Spartacus" Effect.

hahahahaha ugh

Re: Dear California
« Reply #93 on: November 06, 2008, 01:18:28 AM »
last time i checked the divorce rate was 50%+

hateros have already fucked marriage up enough
From what I understand, that stat is inflated (it's more in the low forties). But your point stands, marriage is not some sacred institution that gays will fuck up.

Olivia Wilde Homo

  • Proud Kinkshamer
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #94 on: November 06, 2008, 01:19:03 AM »
Gays are the last group that can be openly hated on in the US.  Well, maybe the Muslims and in certain backwater pockets, black people.

WASPs just want to cling onto their one last group to hate.  
8===D

Re: Dear California
« Reply #95 on: November 06, 2008, 01:20:15 AM »
Gays are the last group that can be openly hated on in the US.  Well, maybe the Muslims and in certain backwater pockets, black people.

WASPs just want to cling onto their one last group to hate.  
Yes, I blame it on the WASPS!

Re: Dear California
« Reply #96 on: November 06, 2008, 01:25:55 AM »
I think we could think of some groups that are more likely to oppose gay marriage than White Anglo-Saxons from mainline protestant denominations, a group that I doubt makes up more than 15% of Americans.


Hollywood

  • Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #97 on: November 06, 2008, 01:43:19 AM »
Eh, they should let people marry whoever they want. I wonder if the supporters think there should be 3 way marriages too, like some polygamist people want. If not, that seems kind of hypocritical too. What is marriage despite being some document saying you are and some marginal legal rights, usually when the other person is sick or dies or whatever? It really shouldn't even be a big deal or voted on, just do it, who gives a crap what people do. Gay folk should have the right to ruin their life through the sanctity of marriage like any other pussy loving folk.  :P

Cormacaroni

  • Poster of the Forever
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #98 on: November 06, 2008, 01:49:24 AM »
I have more trouble understanding this point of view. At least I can write off the fundies and Mormons as brainwashed nutters, but clinging to this romanticized notion of sanctifying love and all that crap is just inane. My dad was trying to argue this same bullshit a couple of weeks ago.  It's more about the legal issues than anything, eg joint taxation, joint property rights, and survivor's pension.

I think I didn't explain well enough. Most of the people I talked to who voted Yes are in favor of all of those things being given to gay couples. They are in favor of homosexual civil unions being expanded to include every right that married couples have. They are opposed to the word "marriage" being used to describe these unions.

then they're even more idiotic if they'd condemn a large group of people to second-class status because of the their perceived definition of a fucking word.

:bow
vjj

OptimoPeach

  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #99 on: November 06, 2008, 01:54:19 AM »
Gays are the last group that can be openly hated on in the US.  Well, maybe the Muslims and in certain backwater pockets, black people.

WASPs just want to cling onto their one last group to hate.  
what the fuck are you talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant
hi5

Hollywood

  • Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #100 on: November 06, 2008, 01:54:44 AM »
I have more trouble understanding this point of view. At least I can write off the fundies and Mormons as brainwashed nutters, but clinging to this romanticized notion of sanctifying love and all that crap is just inane. My dad was trying to argue this same bullshit a couple of weeks ago.  It's more about the legal issues than anything, eg joint taxation, joint property rights, and survivor's pension.

I think I didn't explain well enough. Most of the people I talked to who voted Yes are in favor of all of those things being given to gay couples. They are in favor of homosexual civil unions being expanded to include every right that married couples have. They are opposed to the word "marriage" being used to describe these unions.

then they're even more idiotic if they'd condemn a large group of people to second-class status because of the their perceived definition of a fucking word.

Sounds like some people calling video games, "non games." IT DOESN'T FIT THE DEFINITION OF A GAME, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CALL IT THAT!  :lol

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
Re: Dear California
« Reply #101 on: November 06, 2008, 02:04:17 AM »
well, ludicrous analogy likening videogames to human beings aside, you pretty much set the standard for "butthurt ninthing" by sticking THAT little non sequitur in a serious thread
duc

BobFromPikeCreek

  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #102 on: November 06, 2008, 02:09:41 AM »
I have more trouble understanding this point of view. At least I can write off the fundies and Mormons as brainwashed nutters, but clinging to this romanticized notion of sanctifying love and all that crap is just inane. My dad was trying to argue this same bullshit a couple of weeks ago.  It's more about the legal issues than anything, eg joint taxation, joint property rights, and survivor's pension.

I think I didn't explain well enough. Most of the people I talked to who voted Yes are in favor of all of those things being given to gay couples. They are in favor of homosexual civil unions being expanded to include every right that married couples have. They are opposed to the word "marriage" being used to describe these unions.

then they're even more idiotic if they'd condemn a large group of people to second-class status because of the their perceived definition of a fucking word.

Sounds like some people calling video games, "non games." IT DOESN'T FIT THE DEFINITION OF A GAME, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CALL IT THAT!  :lol

zzzzz

Hollywood

  • Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #103 on: November 06, 2008, 02:11:58 AM »
well, ludicrous analogy likening videogames to human beings aside, you pretty much set the standard for "butthurt ninthing" by sticking THAT little non sequitur in a serious thread

Not comparing that with people, just showing that some people make a huge deal out of perceived definitions all the time. So for whatever reason, the people who don't want gay marriage are likely married people who think their little marriage category should only be a man and a woman.

I just find it ironic YOU of all people are saying something about not sticking with "perceived" definitions since you've been the internet king of waggle/non game/kiddie whatever else definition for about 95% of your posts for forever.  :lol

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
Re: Dear California
« Reply #104 on: November 06, 2008, 02:16:51 AM »
the purpose of analogy is comparison, waggletard. you are claiming that mocking nintendo's irrelevant new direction directly correlates to the sort of thinking that deprived hundreds of thousands of californians of basic respect and dignity. this is why ninthings don't get laid!
duc

BobFromPikeCreek

  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #105 on: November 06, 2008, 02:16:55 AM »
well, ludicrous analogy likening videogames to human beings aside, you pretty much set the standard for "butthurt ninthing" by sticking THAT little non sequitur in a serious thread

Not comparing that with people, just showing that some people make a huge deal out of perceived definitions all the time. So for whatever reason, the people who don't want gay marriage are likely married people who think their little marriage category should only be a man and a woman.

I just find it ironic YOU of all people are saying something about not sticking with "perceived" definitions since you've been the internet king of waggle/non game/kiddie whatever else definition for about 95% of your posts for forever.  :lol
zzzzz

Hollywood

  • Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #106 on: November 06, 2008, 02:23:38 AM »
the purpose of analogy is comparison, waggletard. you are claiming that mocking nintendo's irrelevant new direction directly correlates to the sort of thinking that deprived hundreds of thousands of californians of basic respect and dignity. this is why ninthings don't get laid!

I'm comparing the way you act to that group of people who are set on making clarifications about the definition of message. Since you're known for being a troll, mostly in video games, I just find it funny you take offense at a bunch of homophobe's being a stiff ass about who's allowed to be declared married when you troll all the time about little definitions of shit.

I honestly expected a standard Drinky classic "HOMOS AM CRY :catlogo :catlogo :catlogo" response. It's just funny that you actually take this seriously and act like you don't understand intolerance, of all people.  :lol

OptimoPeach

  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #107 on: November 06, 2008, 02:26:12 AM »
Dude, video games != politics

I don't think it's possible to simplify it much more
hi5

Re: Dear California
« Reply #108 on: November 06, 2008, 02:26:51 AM »
Calling wii music a non-game is the equivalent of not allowing gay people to marry? :-\

I blame this on the WASPs, those fucking pale, tennis-playing Episcopalians!
« Last Edit: November 06, 2008, 02:28:23 AM by Night Man »

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: Dear California
« Reply #109 on: November 06, 2008, 02:29:38 AM »
Prole (or recursive) write me a law wherein the longer serious internet dissussion goes on the probability of a nintendo/anime comparison gets closer to one.

Since I've given up the gaming side at GAF it's pretty jarring when somebody does that.

A poster makes some analogy where the candidates are game company execs I don't know and I just think "go back to your ghetto!"

TVC 15

  • its me your little burpee bitch
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #110 on: November 06, 2008, 02:29:59 AM »
Pro-wrestling and Nintendo fan doesn't understand that important issues are judged on different standards than video games.  News at 11.
serge

BobFromPikeCreek

  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #111 on: November 06, 2008, 02:33:32 AM »
There aren't enough Hank Hill face palms in the world.
zzzzz

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
Re: Dear California
« Reply #112 on: November 06, 2008, 02:35:03 AM »
the purpose of analogy is comparison, waggletard. you are claiming that mocking nintendo's irrelevant new direction directly correlates to the sort of thinking that deprived hundreds of thousands of californians of basic respect and dignity. this is why ninthings don't get laid!


I'm comparing the way you act to that group of people who are set on making clarifications about the definition of message. Since you're known for being a troll, mostly in video games, I just find it funny you take offense at a bunch of homophobe's being a stiff ass about who's allowed to be declared married when you troll all the time about little definitions of shit.

I honestly expected a standard Drinky classic "HOMOS AM CRY :catlogo :catlogo :catlogo" response. It's just funny that you actually take this seriously and act like you don't understand intolerance, of all people.  :lol


just as nintendo's mad spiral into gaming's trailer park weights you with righteous gravitas, so does seeing several hundred thousand fellow human beings stripped of their dignity make me into a SERIOUS FACE. the difference, of course, escapes you
duc

Hollywood

  • Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #113 on: November 06, 2008, 02:35:57 AM »
the purpose of analogy is comparison, waggletard. you are claiming that mocking nintendo's irrelevant new direction directly correlates to the sort of thinking that deprived hundreds of thousands of californians of basic respect and dignity. this is why ninthings don't get laid!

I'm comparing the way you act to that group of people who are set on making clarifications about the definition of message. Since you're known for being a troll, mostly in video games, I just find it funny you take offense at a bunch of homophobe's being a stiff ass about who's allowed to be declared married when you troll all the time about little definitions of shit.

I honestly expected a standard Drinky classic "HOMOS AM CRY :catlogo :catlogo :catlogo" response. It's just funny that you actually take this seriously and act like you don't understand intolerance, of all people.  :lol

My wife was in tears last night because a bunch of our friends were voted second class citizens last night by millions of people.  Way to take videogames too seriously.

It wasn't a gay marriage-videogames analogy, it was an intolerance analogy. Drinky's known for trolling everything and being intolerant. I just found it ironic HIM of all people suddenly is clueless as to how the group of idiots in California who care far too much about something that doesn't concern them is governed, just because of how they define something. He spends all his time trolling something that doesn't concern him, its not a different sentiment than people in California "trolling" with anti-gay marriage stuff and voting against it when it doesn't concern them. So I'm not sure how he doesn't understand how people have that sentiment, when he does all the time, although much less relevant.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #114 on: November 06, 2008, 02:36:41 AM »
I have more trouble understanding this point of view. At least I can write off the fundies and Mormons as brainwashed nutters, but clinging to this romanticized notion of sanctifying love and all that crap is just inane. My dad was trying to argue this same bullshit a couple of weeks ago.  It's more about the legal issues than anything, eg joint taxation, joint property rights, and survivor's pension.

I think I didn't explain well enough. Most of the people I talked to who voted Yes are in favor of all of those things being given to gay couples. They are in favor of homosexual civil unions being expanded to include every right that married couples have. They are opposed to the word "marriage" being used to describe these unions.

Not seeing why the distinction even needs to be made, other than for the sake of preserving tradition that is inherently wrong. "Those distinguished effete fellows are going dirty up our marriage" is pretty much all that says

If it is a religious tradition(And in this country, it is.) then the state saying what a marriage is against the church's definition is a conflict of church and state.  Of course, voting to define it within the state is as well.  So, prop 8 is just part of a redundant cycle of Cali politics.  

I wait for universal civil unions.

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: Dear California
« Reply #115 on: November 06, 2008, 02:36:45 AM »
Pro-wrestling and Nintendo fan doesn't understand that important issues are judged on different standards than video games.  News at 11.

Hey, both those descriptors would have applied to me as recently as... eight years ago.

Oh God I've wasted so much time on forums.

TVC 15

  • its me your little burpee bitch
  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #116 on: November 06, 2008, 02:38:30 AM »
Pro-wrestling and Nintendo fan doesn't understand that important issues are judged on different standards than video games.  News at 11.

Hey, both those descriptors would have applied to me as recently as... eight years ago.

Oh God I've wasted so much time on forums.

Last year, I averaged out all my posts on GAF and EB, and I figured that I type at a minimum 10 words in each post.  I did the math and realized I could have written like, lotsa lotsa novels with all of those ultimately wasted words.
serge

Rman

  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #117 on: November 06, 2008, 02:38:53 AM »
Jesus this thread devolved of rational discussion quickly.  videogaming analogies in political discussion is nonsensical.

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Re: Dear California
« Reply #118 on: November 06, 2008, 02:41:05 AM »
Hollywood: Most of GAF and any GAF refugees think its totally okay to be complete hypocrites because they are on the internet.

Re: Dear California
« Reply #119 on: November 06, 2008, 02:42:06 AM »
Pro-wrestling and Nintendo fan doesn't understand that important issues are judged on different standards than video games.  News at 11.

Hey, both those descriptors would have applied to me as recently as... eight years ago.

Oh God I've wasted so much time on forums.

Last year, I averaged out all my posts on GAF and EB, and I figured that I type at a minimum 10 words in each post.  I did the math and realized I could have written like, lotsa lotsa novels with all of those ultimately wasted words.

On the bright side, you've written and posted several erotic, though highly disturbing, short stories involving necrophilia.