A few posts back, Anonymous (dude, seriously, please: Pick a fucking name if you're going to be a regular commenter. If anyone else decides to post anonymously, it's going to confuse the hell out of everyone) told me that there was no Rebublican War on Women. That it was as fictitious as the Liberals' War on Christmas. Well, I suppose he's half right.
Considering that the Violence Against Women act passed despite Republican inaction and opposition, the fact that the Republican Platform now wants to outlaw abortion WITHOUT a rape exception, that fact that, on top of that, they fight mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives which, as Sandra Fluke so eloquently pointed out last year, puts women's health at risk when insurance companies refuse to pay for their MEDICAL use (such as the treatment of endometriosis) on the ground that they don't cover CONTRACEPTIVES, the fact that the defunded Planned Parenthood, one of the leading providers of Cancer Screenings, Pre-Natal Care, and Family Planning services for poor women, the fact that they opposed equal pay for Women, the Lilly Ledbetter act and equal employment opportunities...
The only reason that any women should vote Republican would be that she's a religious nut-bag or terminally misinformed. (Or just plain fucking stupid.) If you have any doubts of this, here's a brilliant piece for the defacto mouthpiece of the Right Wing in America:
WOW, right?
Also curious is this...
Yeah, there's no War on Women here!
As offensive as it is that he mocks domestic violence, date rape, and every other form of violence that countless women face every day in this country, and the bill that provides training to law enforcement to properly fight against it, the hypocrisy of this partiuclar stand makes it more disgusting by an order of magnitude:
Estimates of the number of women that are the victims of violence every year range form 600,000 to 6 Million (http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/abusiverelationships/a/physicalabusestatistics.htm) and yet, this act - which does nothing more that TRAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT, and has been effective in reducing the rate of occurrence of this crime since its passage in 1994 - is treated like a joke.
And yet, this is the same Party that is perfectly happy disenfranchising millions of people, and going out of their way to make it more difficult for people to exercise the FUNDAMENTAL, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to VOTE, due to their fears of "voter fraud." A crime in which actual cases (of in-person voter fraud) numbered in the SINGLE DIGITS in the past few elections.
You know what? Fuck these people! Seriously.
----------FORTY-X-FORTY-UPDATE---------
Date: 3/9/13 (Day 14)
Last Night's Bedtime Weight: 209.1
Morning Weight:
207.7 (BMI: 31.6)
Pounds Down: 8
Pounds to go: 32
Days Left:
194
Workout Summary: Eliptical Climber, 33 min, 403 cal; Rope, 10 min, 253 cal; Bike, 35 min, 271 cal; Eliptical, 13 min, 142 cal. Light/Short weights. TOTAL: 1069 Calories.
You sound an awful lot like brabantio. He has unfounded fears of alternative lifestyles and he uses his bigoted inbreeding to express it. As far as the stuff you bring, eddie, "lemmings" come to mind.
ReplyDeleteSo, in your article you are insinuating that if we don't handle women with 'kid gloves' then that constitutes a "war on women". Example: you said 600K to 6M women are victims of violent crime. During the same time period that you use, how many men were the victim of violent crime? Is there a "war on men" too?
And: "disenfranchising millions of people". You ARE brabantio ... you just make up numbers and expect all to believe you.
As far as equal pay: I'll bet Danica Patrick got paid the same for finishing 8th place (at Daytona) as a man would have if he had finished 8th.
There are plenty of other numbers in that link I gave you. (You mjight try looking at some o fthem.) And there's plenty more info out there. It's not like this infomration is hard to find, so there's really no need to ask stupid questions.
DeleteAnd if you're suggesting that female on male violence occurs at anywhere near the same rate, or carries anywhere near the same risk, then you truly are a moron. And, once agian, you (barely) address one of MANY points I bought up (and not really, because that reply was pathetic even for you) and leave everythng else unchallenegd. So... THANK YOU. I'll accept your concession on everything else.
I mean... Do you REALLY think that your meager reply JUST to the VAWA is sufficent to debunk everything I said? And you're seriously going to use Danica Patrick - who represents ONE DATA POINT, and an ANOMOLOUS one at that - to suggest that women get equal pay?! Despite the countless studies that show it at about 80%, tops?!
Are you TRYING to make yourself look misinfoirmed?! Because, seriously, that's all you're accomplishing here.
As for me "being" Brabantio? (1) I'm not. And (2) thank you for the conclusion with COMPLETELY DIFFERENT logic trains. On Stem Cecomparison. I usually find his posts to be both thoughtful and enlightening. Of course, if you weren't such a complete fucking moron, you might notice how we often reach the same ll Reseacrh, as I recall, for example, we had the same position, be he completey rejected my argument supporting it. See... THAT'S what individual thought looks like.
YOU, OTOH, sound so much like William, that everyone here assumed you WERE. And he was a fucking idiot! (You'd have gotten along with him.) I will say this: You seem marginally more intelligent and reasonable, particular when you asnwer my question about your personaly faith (thak you, BTW) then I give him credit for. But (1) that's roughly like saying you're smarter than a monkey, and (2) you're still are making 99% of the same points, with the same arguments, from the same, flawed, sources.
So... when you say "you think for yoursef?" It really only reveals a complete lack of self awareness as to just how brainwashed all of you lot really are.
Where did I "make up numbers"? Meanwhile, you admitted you pulled "50-100" out of thin air. Is there any criticism you make that doesn't apply directly to you? I don't think I've seen one.
ReplyDeleteYour Danica Patrick line is absurd. One person's pay is supposed to address the discrepancy in average pay? Oprah makes much more money than you, so maybe we should legislate lowering women's pay.
The question of how many men are abused is controversial, because there are factors that make it difficult to determine accurately (police bias, reluctance to report, for examples). However, the problem with your argument is threefold:first, severe injury and death are more likely to occur to women, so the bill still has merit;second, you can address domestic violence towards men as well as towards women, so it's not one or the other, and;third, a rise in the ratio of men being abused could be because of a lowering of women being abused, which could be, at least in part, a result of this bill's existence.
"Where did I "make up numbers"?" ... Do you remember this one: "3,000% jump in court cases"
ReplyDelete"The question of how many men are abused is controversial, because there are factors that make it difficult to determine accurately (police bias, reluctance to report, for examples)." ... Look, you've shown that YOU cannot answer questions. Why do you even try. I don't care if it is more difficult to find out an answer. Just find it out. Fearmongering stats were brought into the conversation, I'm simply asking if it is equal on the other side of the coin. Don't give me your liberaleze excuses. We've heard them all before. Just answer the question. Or avoid yet another one.
"first, severe injury and death are more likely to occur to women, so the bill still has merit;" ... You just can't bring any FACTS to prove that, right?
"Your Danica Patrick line is absurd. One person's pay is supposed to address the discrepancy in average pay?" ... Not true. ALL female race drivers get the same pay as men when they race with the men. Not just one. It's simple: do the same work get the same pay.
Delete"Oprah makes much more money than you, so maybe we should legislate lowering women's pay." ... Of course your idea would be to lower women's pay. You ARE the bigot. When you say you want to lower women's pay, does that mean across the board or just in certain industries?
"... Do you remember this one: "3,000% jump in court cases""
DeleteDo you remember the word "if" that preceded it? I bet you do, because you posted it on the other thread.
"... Look, you've shown that YOU cannot answer questions."
It's difficult to quantify. Do some research into it yourself and see for yourself. The point is that it's not particularly relevant, for reasons cited.
"Don't give me your liberaleze excuses."
I'm sorry that the complexities of life bother you. It's really not my fault that things aren't always cut-and-dried, it's your fault for not accepting that.
"... You just can't bring any FACTS to prove that, right?"
There are some facts, whether you accept them or not is up to you, of course:"However, females reported higher levels of repeated violence and were more likely than men to experience serious injuries; 23% of females versus 15% of males were faced with the most serious forms of violence including being beaten, choked, or threatened with or having a gun or knife used against them."
And:
"Women are more likely than men to be murdered by an intimate partner. Of those killed by an intimate partner about three quarters are female and about a quarter are male. In 1999 in the United States 1,218 women and 424 men were killed by an intimate partner,[142] and 1181 females and 329 males were killed by their intimate partners in 2005.[143][144] In England and Wales about 100 women are killed by partners or former partners each year while 21 men were killed in 2010"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#Gender_aspects_of_abuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#Violence_against_women
Bonus:"Determining how many instances of domestic violence actually involve male victims is difficult. Male domestic violence victims may be reluctant to get help for a number of reasons.[153] Some studies have shown that women who assaulted their male partners were more likely to avoid arrest even when the male victim contacts police.[154] Another study examined the differences in how male and female batterers were treated by the criminal justice system. The study concluded that female intimate violence perpetrators are frequently viewed by law enforcement and the criminal justice system as victims rather than the actual offenders of violence against men.[155] Other studies have also demonstrated a high degree of acceptance of aggression against men by women.[156]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#Violence_against_men
"It's simple: do the same work get the same pay."
DeleteIf you're a race-car driver. How about women who work in corporations, for instance, and don't get the same pay?
"... Of course your idea would be to lower women's pay. You ARE the bigot. When you say you want to lower women's pay, does that mean across the board or just in certain industries?"
It means I'm mocking your idiotic argument.
"Do you remember the word "if" that preceded it? " ... Yeah, I do, you moron. It was similar to you taking my "I THINK" statement and considering it fact. Why do you think I even MADE that statement? It was to catch you in a spot that you couldn't get out of. Just like this one. God, you're so easy.
Delete"Some studies have shown that women who assaulted their male partners were more likely to avoid arrest even when the male victim contacts police." ... Again, this goes to show what a moron you are. You're ONLY including violence against men that occurred by the spouse (or significant other), while you evidence for women abuse include ALL abuse situations, not just spousal (or significant other). Your stats are flawed.
How about bringing the stats for overall violence against men instead of limiting it to a small fraction of all incidences?
"It means I'm mocking your idiotic argument." ... oh, is that what it means?
" ... Yeah, I do, you moron. It was similar to you taking my "I THINK" statement and considering it fact."
DeleteLie. The first time you used the number, you did not include those words. You also did not explain the number when asked.
"... Again, this goes to show what a moron you are. You're ONLY including violence against men that occurred by the spouse (or significant other), while you evidence for women abuse include ALL abuse situations, not just spousal (or significant other). Your stats are flawed."
The statistic you cited (600K-6 million) came from a link with the words "divorce support" and "abusive relationships" in it. Obviously you didn't even read the hypertext, never mind the actual site. So, men abused in relationships would be the proper comparison.
Also note, since you're talking about VAWA:"Male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking may also be covered." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act) So, your concern about a "war on men" is addressed by the very thing you're criticizing.
"... oh, is that what it means?"
Yes.
"The first time you used the number, you did not include those words." .. Really? You got something that shows that?
DeleteThere is no war on women. That is made up by democrats to fearmonger. Just like the war on Christmas ... it's all a figment of your imagination.
You:"And, how much "drain" on the system can 50-100 people have? (if that is you main concern about the "drain" on the economics of our American financial system)".
DeleteSo, how much drain CAN 50-100 people have on the system? Obviously that is a hypothetical number. Anyone with a brain can figure that out? Just like your hypothetical number. What is it you are whining about, here, anyway? That I had the gall to make up a number ... just like you do?
Delete"Obviously you didn't even read the hypertext, never mind the actual site" ... It's much easier not reading propoganda than falling for it.
"So, how much drain CAN 50-100 people have on the system?"
DeleteEmphasizing "can" is supposed to show how it's an obvious hypothetical? No, it doesn't. If you had solid numbers that there were actual polygamists in rural Utah or someplace, you could still use the exact same phrasing. "Can" doesn't change the meaning of anything there, sorry.
Did you notice that you went from claiming that you used specific wording to show how you weren't asserting a fact to claiming that what you actually said just made it obvious (somehow)? So, were you blowing smoke when you demanded proof, or what? And if "can" is supposed to carry a clear meaning, then how the hell do you think you could argue that I made up a number when I specifically said "if" in front of it? You can't have it both ways. If I'm supposed to buy this current excuse, then you were outright lying when you accused me of pushing a number as fact (as well as "the gall to make up a number" in the post I'm responding to). And if I'm not supposed to accept the garbage you're pushing right now, then you're being intellectually dishonest making the defense. Still want to play this game?
"... It's much easier not reading propoganda than falling for it."
So a site for victims of domestic abuse, which doesn't even advocate any political position, is "propoganda" [sic]? How do you figure that?
"[sic]" ... run out of viable arguments? Now, you've lowered yourself to correcting spelling?
Delete"So, how much drain CAN 50-100 people have on the system?" ... Tell you what. To make this easier for you to understand, just tell me what the drain on the system that ANY 50-100 people can have. That way you don't have to screw that poor brain of yours around trying to understand hypotheticals and hypocrisy.
"... run out of viable arguments? Now, you've lowered yourself to correcting spelling?"
ReplyDeleteIt must be a viable argument, since you're trying to dodge it by whining about the notation (which is simply to inform that it's not my error).
"... Tell you what. To make this easier for you to understand, just tell me what the drain on the system that ANY 50-100 people can have."
Wow. Simply wow. You got called out on your grammatical bullshit efforts, and now you want to assert that 50-100 people - a number you admit you pulled out of thin air - are going to have a minor effect on the system.
Let's go back a few steps and highlight your quote which started this particular exchange:"You ARE brabantio ... you just make up numbers and expect all to believe you." Now, that's funny. Not only do you make up a number and try to hide that fact by not answering questions about it when asked, but now you want that number to have credibility.
"That way you don't have to screw that poor brain of yours around trying to understand hypotheticals and hypocrisy."
Says the clown that's been asking for proof of hypothetical situations and who thinks that evaluating two completely separate concepts and coming to two separate conclusions is "hypocrisy". Would you like to go down that road? The dictionary will not be your friend, just so you have some idea of what's in store.
" and now you want to assert that 50-100 people - a number you admit you pulled out of thin air - are going to have a minor effect on the system." ... I've always asserted that. You have asserted they will have a major impact on our court system. Even more than the gay marriage issue has caused. Which, BTW, has clogged the court systim since the 1980's (which I have already brought evidence to show). I'm waiting for some kind of evidence that will show a potential 3,000 PERCENT increase in court actions, therefor clogging the court system and providing you with the ONLY reasen you can think of to not allow marriage rights for polygamists.
Delete"Says the clown that's been asking for proof of hypothetical situations and who thinks that evaluating two completely separate concepts and coming to two separate conclusions is "hypocrisy"." ... If only any of that were true. You're good at making false statements, aren't you? 1) the situations do NOT have completely different concepts. 2) hypotheticals have to be provenn all the time by scientists in order to get funding for their causes. I'm surprised you're having so much trouble trying to find proof of your unwarranted fear of polygamy. With such a great fear, most would think you could find all kinds of evidence to support your bigoted fearmongering.
hypocrisy: : 1 a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not;
hypothetical: being or involving a hypothesis : conjectural
Any other words you need looked up for you?
"... I've always asserted that."
DeleteThen it was hypocritical for you to chastise me for "making up numbers".
"You have asserted they will have a major impact on our court system."
Based off of patterns of recognized human behavior, yes. What's your basis for "50-100", outside of wishful thinking?
"Even more than the gay marriage issue has caused."
So legalize gay marriage, and you won't have any more court cases. And no, your google search doesn't prove anything, as noted multiple times.
" I'm waiting for some kind of evidence that will show a potential 3,000 PERCENT increase in court actions, therefor clogging the court system and providing you with the ONLY reasen [sic] you can think of to not allow marriage rights for polygamists."
Funny, because that number didn't apply to court cases. It was regarding government benefits, which also shows that your "ONLY" reason claim is a lie.
"1) the situations do NOT have completely different concepts."
They most certainly do. Monogamous homosexuality is not the same as polygamy. Polygamy does not involve two consenting adults.
"2) hypotheticals have to be provenn all the time by scientists in order to get funding for their causes."
First off, we're not talking about science. Also, they have to support, not prove, otherwise they would no longer be hypotheticals.
"1 a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not;"
So, specifically, how does that supposedly apply to me? You haven't shown any inconsistency in my views.
"hypothetical: being or involving a hypothesis : conjectural"
Which means there are no facts proving it. That definition is consistent with how I've used the term, and not with how you've been reacting to it. Feel free to pull quotes that you think demonstrate otherwise, because it's all too easy to find your call for "facts".
"Based off of patterns of recognized human behavior, yes." ... What "pattern" do you have that shows the court system will clog up and cost the taxpayers an immense amount of money because of legalized polygamy?
Delete"So legalize gay marriage, and you won't have any more court cases." .. So legalize polygamy and you will continue to not have any court cases. Eccept through your bigoted fears.
"Polygamy does not involve two consenting adults." .. But, they include "consenting adults", pursuits of life/liberty and happiness, and cause no harm. Where is the "COMPLETELY DIFFERENT" aspect?
"Which means there are no facts proving it." ... Facts? We've been talking about facts? I thought you've been talking about hypotheticals, so where is the evidence of viable possiblility that it will happen?
"... What "pattern" do you have that shows the court system will clog up and cost the taxpayers an immense amount of money because of legalized polygamy?"
DeleteHow did you inject the taxpayers into this? You specified the courts this time. People like to have control and power, so if you give multiple spouses equal standing, they will fight for said control and power at the opportunity. That would have to involve court action.
".. So legalize polygamy and you will continue to not have any court cases."
That's absurd. See above reply.
" .. But, they include "consenting adults", pursuits of life/liberty and happiness, and cause no harm. Where is the "COMPLETELY DIFFERENT" aspect?"
The erasure of the word "two", which creates a completely different framework for legal marriage, and carries over concepts that were established with "two consenting adults" in mind (like benefits and inheritance rights) over to an undetermined amount of spouses.
"... Facts? We've been talking about facts?"
You have, yes. Do you deny your demands for facts, really?
"I thought you've been talking about hypotheticals, so where is the evidence of viable possiblility that it will happen?"
Would this "evidence" require "facts", by any chance?
"Would this "evidence" require "facts", by any chance?" .. No, just make up some more numbers, like you've been doing. That will continue to make you look very intelligent.
Delete"People like to have control and power, so if you give multiple spouses equal standing, they will fight for said control and power at the opportunity. That would have to involve court action." ... So, like I said, a couple people suing each other isn't going to clog the system (which is YOUR fear).
And, of course, you KNOW they "will fight" based on what? Could that be the same basis to deny gay marriage? Because, low and behold, gays fight too, while in relationships. How is one going to create more congestion than the other?
".. No, just make up some more numbers, like you've been doing."
DeleteAre you really this stupid? You made up numbers, admittedly, while I issued a hypothetical complete with the word "if" in it. The question was serious. What sort of "evidence" are you talking about?
"... So, like I said, a couple people suing each other isn't going to clog the system (which is YOUR fear)."
What "couple people"? You get one case which involves five spouses, and that's much more complicated than the average divorce. The more lawyers you have, the more motions and maneuvering you have against all parties involved. It increases the courtload exponentially.
"And, of course, you KNOW they "will fight" based on what?"
Do you grasp why I said you deny human nature, since you ask stupid questions like that? You don't think people want control, honestly?
"Could that be the same basis to deny gay marriage? Because, low [sic] and behold, gays fight too while in relationships."
No, because that would be a reason to oppose traditional marriage as well. You want people to "choose" to be straight, so those people could just as easily fight with their heterosexual partners. You're not demonstrating any disparity at all.
"How is one going to create more congestion than the other?"
How would gay marriage create more congestion than traditional marriage, then, as pointed out above? Also note the point about how increased litigants complicates the process. In gay marriage you have two, just like in heterosexual marriage.
"You get one case which involves five spouses, and that's much more complicated than the average divorce." ... So you're BIG fear is that 5 people will argue over a retirement package if polygamy is made legal?
Delete"Do you grasp why I said you deny human nature, since you ask stupid questions like that?" .. You want to know why I won't accept that reason? Do YOU? Here: when are YOU going to STOP scaming the government and quit being a drain on the taxpayers of this country? Since it is "human nature" to scam the government that means you are doing it right now.
"No, because that would be a reason to oppose traditional marriage as well." ... Ok, let's oppose all marriages based on YOUR fear that "they WILL fight". Now, are you happy? Since you admit that "fighting" is a disqualifier of marriage rights (for polygamists) you must treat all equally.
"... So you're [sic] BIG fear is that 5 people will argue over a retirement package if polygamy is made legal?"
ReplyDeletePeople will argue over all sorts of things. End-of-life issues, money, power of attorney, any issue that's normally cut-and-dried for one spouse.
"Here: when are YOU going to STOP scaming the government and quit being a drain on the taxpayers of this country? Since it is "human nature" to scam the government that means you are doing it right now."
What opportunity or loophole am I supposedly exploiting? It's not "all or nothing", you know. "Human nature" doesn't mean that every single person on the planet is a scam artist, it means that you can expect some number of people to be when presented the opportunity. This, again, is why we have laws and tax codes.
"Ok, let's oppose all marriages based on YOUR fear that "they WILL fight"."
That's obviously not my position.
"Since you admit that "fighting" is a disqualifier of marriage rights (for polygamists) you must treat all equally."
Strawman. I didn't say "fighting" is a disqualifier for anything. It's a factor in the complexity of potential legal action which people would have the right to take, being granted equal standing with any number of other spouses.
"What opportunity or loophole am I supposedly exploiting? It's not "all or nothing", you know." ... It doesn't matter. But you have said it is "human nature" to scam the government. That means you ARE doing it. If not all will scam the government, then what percentage of people are "natural" cheats (are they born that way?). Then it should be easier to divulge how much it will cost. You say "human nature" will cause polygamists and welfare recipients to cheat the government. But, you say not all of them. How many will (according to your 'human nature' models)?
Delete"This, again, is why we have laws and tax codes." ... If we have these laws and tax codes, why do you fear polygamy? Since laws and tax codes will prevent any type of scamming of the US taxpayers. Unless you have no faith in your government, too, after obviously showing no faith in man-kind. (go figure an athiest who has no faith)
"Strawman. I didn't say "fighting" is a disqualifier for anything." ... That's what I've been saying about your argument the entire tiem. YOU claimed that polygamists WILL fight and cost the taxpayers an amount of mony. So, YES, you ARE saying that fighting is a disqualifier for marriage rights.
"... It doesn't matter. But you have said it is "human nature" to scam the government. That means you ARE doing it."
DeleteAgain, it's not "all or nothing". You quote it, but don't understand it. It's not a complicated concept, either.
"If not all will scam the government, then what percentage of people are "natural" cheats (are they born that way?)."
What is a "natural" cheat, and where did this distinction come from?
"How many will (according to your 'human nature' models)?"
How is that supposed to be quantifiable?
"Since laws and tax codes will prevent any type of scamming of the US taxpayers."
So, you know polygamy is illegal, yet you think that laws and tax codes are supposed to take polygamy into account?
"So, YES, you ARE saying that fighting is a disqualifier for marriage rights.
No, because it's not about marriage in general. There's a difference between allowing for divorce, and setting up a situation where people are given equal rights regarding multiple issues which have to be worked out in court amongst any number of litigants and their lawyers.
"What is a "natural" cheat, and where did this distinction come from?" ... It came from you. You say cheating is "human nature". Of course that means it would be "natural".
Delete"So, you know polygamy is illegal, yet you think that laws and tax codes are supposed to take polygamy into account?" ... Just as laws and tax codes for gay marriage would need to be changed, so would they for polygamy. Just so you know, gay marriage is ilegal too.
"No, because it's not about marriage in general" ... That's right. YOU have a bigoted view of polygamy, only. Not the other types of alternative lifestyles.
"... It came from you. You say cheating is "human nature". Of course that means it would be "natural"."
DeleteThat makes no sense, because you're not explaining the contrast. What other kind of cheat would there be?
"... Just as laws and tax codes for gay marriage would need to be changed, so would they for polygamy."
What would need to change for gay marriage? Be specific.
"... That's right. YOU have a bigoted view of polygamy, only."
Non sequitur. That has no logical connection to what I posted.
"What other kind of cheat would there be?" ... I don't know, you're the one bringing cheats into this discussion.
Delete"What would need to change for gay marriage?" .. I don't know. I'm not a tax expert or lawyer. However, it is plain to see that something is amiss if they continually clogg the court system to get their demands met.
" ... I don't know, you're the one bringing cheats into this discussion."
DeleteThat's classic. As if exploiting loopholes doesn't have a place in a conversation about changing the law.
".. I don't know. I'm not a tax expert or lawyer. However, it is plain to see that something is amiss if they continually clogg the court system to get their demands met."
Really? So you can't explain what differences could possibly exist in the law, while you reflexively say "gay marriage" to every potential problem with polygamy. Let's just go ahead and say there are no changes needed, so you can quit embarrassing yourself with that idiotic reaction. Unless you really want to pursue the point, which you may be dumb enough to try.
Next, let's analyze how something is "amiss" because people are fighting for rights. Is there some legal problem with equal pay for women? They litigate to get demands met. There was litigation during the civil rights movement. Something must have been "amiss" there, too. And, to cut off your utterly inane and predictable "it's a choice" argument, it doesn't apply. Obviously the people fighting for rights don't seem to think so, and unless you want to claim that you can read their minds, you can't very well assert that they're lying.
"Let's just go ahead and say there are no changes needed, so you can quit embarrassing yourself with that idiotic reaction." ... You can say that, but anyone with a brain (and knows how to use it) would obviously say that is incorrect. Courts across this land have been inundated with cases involving gay marriage rights. Entire elections have been centered around gay marriage rights. And the best you can do is say 'no way, that's not possible'?
Delete" ... You can say that, but anyone with a brain (and knows how to use it) would obviously say that is incorrect."
DeleteThen you should be able to demonstrate at least one difference that will have to be made in the law to accommodate same-sex marriage. Meaning some sort of complication that would arise that would require adjustment of existing laws, just to make that crystal clear for you.
"And the best you can do is say 'no way, that's not possible'?"
How is it possible, since in both heterosexual or homosexual marriage you have two consenting adults? And try to realize that the burden of proof is on you, because you're the one who said that laws and tax codes would have to change. You made that claim. I've explained why they don't have to change, now you bring something to the table besides your abrasive blathering.
"How is it possible, since in both heterosexual or homosexual marriage you have two consenting adults?" ... Look up the word "context", please. Since I was obviously talking about how the courts have been pounded with case after case involving gay marriage, I don't know how you got "two consenting adults" out of that.
DeleteContext? Sure, let's look at the context:
DeleteMe:"What would need to change for gay marriage?"
You:".. I don't know. I'm not a tax expert or lawyer."
Me:"Let's just go ahead and say there are no changes needed, so you can quit embarrassing yourself with that idiotic reaction."
You:" ... You can say that, but anyone with a brain (and knows how to use it) would obviously say that is incorrect."
So, "no changes needed" was the quote you posted, therefore I have to believe that's what you were addressing. Since you were talking about the changes to the law that you claimed were needed for gay marriage, that's what I was talking about. If you posted the wrong quote, then say so.
Meanwhile, have you come up with any laws that would need to be changed? You said they existed, so it seems strange that you wouldn't have any idea of what they might be.
"Meanwhile, have you come up with any laws that would need to be changed?" ... Were you born stupid or grow into it? Obviously, "gay marriage" is illegal (as I said earlier). THAT law would need to be changed. THAT is what is clogging the court system currently. While you are worried about "possible" future clogging of the courts.
DeleteSo, your point is that the law that would have to change because gay marriage is legalized is the law itself?
DeleteLet's review to show how stupid your response truly is:
Me:"So, you know polygamy is illegal, yet you think that laws and tax codes are supposed to take polygamy into account?"
You:"... Just as laws and tax codes for gay marriage would need to be changed, so would they for polygamy"
"Laws and tax codes" would need to be changed for gay marriage, during a discussion about what would happen if polygamy was legalized. Ergo, you know full well that we're talking about what would happen if gay marriage was nationally legalized. So I'm going to conclude that you posted that knowing that it was redundant and a glaring failure to support the claim that you made.
Try again?
"Try again?" ... No. I answered the question sufficiently and acurately.
DeleteNo, because the task of citing laws that have to changed as a result of legalizing gay marriage is not satisfied by citing the legalization of gay marriage all by itself. You can't address that, because you know you just got caught.
DeleteAre you done now? No other bullshit to throw around here?
"You can't address that, because you know you just got caught." ... I got caught not providing information of claims that YOU make? You're the one who says that legalizing polygamy would cause a rash of lawsuits in an effort to cheat the system. You tell me what laws give you a problem to the degree that you would unreasonably deny marriage rights to them. I merely pointed out that gay rights activists are already doing that in their particular efforts. So, now you demand that I provide the laws that cover the bigoted fears you possess?
DeleteWho is throwing that bullshit? I think it's you.
"... I got caught not providing information of claims that YOU make?"
DeleteWait, I claimed that laws and tax codes would have to change if gay marriage was legal? No, that was you. Let's have you own up to your claims before you demand anything else from me. Or tell me how that's not fair.
I know you can't.
I wouldn't be so concerned over if I "own up" to anything. You have SO much you have ignored and bypassed to keep your diversionary tactics going.
Delete"You have SO much you have ignored and bypassed to keep your diversionary tactics going."
ReplyDeleteIronic, since that's a lie you're using as a diversionary tactic.
It doesn't matter, though. You made a knee-jerk "gay marriage" response because you're bigoted against homosexuality. It's not as if you didn't make that obvious any other number of ways.
I've said that over and over, but you don't seem to want to accept that I've said it. Because of my religious views, you demoncrats will call me a bigot. It is obvious we both are bigots toward certain sexual deviances. You just choose to live in denial. I don't. Maybe that's a key difference between right and left wingers.
DeleteSo you admit that your "...laws and tax codes for gay marriage would need to be changed" comment was a lie, made in order to support your bigoted views? Thanks.
Delete"Ironic, since that's a lie you're using as a diversionary tactic." ... So you admit that you've lied, ignored and bypassed so many topic pertinent questions. Thanks
DeleteHow would I "admit" that when I called your claim a "lie"? You even quoted me using the word. That was stupid, even for you.
DeleteGot anything else?
Because you used the word "ironic". For it to be ironic, you must be doing the same things you claim I am. That was stupid, even for you.
DeleteI don't need anything else. I've wiped the floor with everything you've brought. Unless you got more crap to clean up, I don't need any more of your bigotry.
"For it to be ironic, you must be doing the same things you claim I am."
DeleteMore hilarity. You specify things I "claim" you do. But at the same time, your claim isn't enough for me to say it's ironic? If we're working on the same standard, then you must be admitting that you were making a diversion as well. Either it's truth for both or claim for both, so you can't mix-and-match there.
In any event, the word "lie" dispels any ambiguity. Your interpretation of "ironic" doesn't trump the clear meaning of that word.