patrick.net

MrEd saysI can reverse my avatar if you want to kiss it now...The horse or the man?

Im not sure. Which do you think he prefers?

That is like saying white people were "disenfranchised" by being denied the right to send their kids to whites-only public schools.

Yes it is.

MrEd says

Yes it is.

At least you're clear about your opinion, but most people would say there isn't a right to whites-only public institutions, or whites-only marriage. If the only reason certain people went to school was because it only allowed white people, that is their loss, but they aren't disenfranchised.

Your attempt to substitute a limited subset of examples for a definition does not displace the actual definition. The fact that most people who got married in America, for most of American history, were white doesn't limit marriage to whites only.

It is interesting though that you choose as an avatar Sherman Hemsley, who never married and was widely thought to be gay (whether he was or not I don't know).

And they were. But that is an exceptional example that was necessitated for the greater public good.

There is no greater public good being served by redefining marriage. While it serves gay people iit disenfranchises married people.

The only attempts to redefine marriage were in the opposite direction, e.g. the unconstitutional "DoMA", which sought to redefine marriage for the purpose of discriminating against gay couples. No good was accomplished by that, no one got any benefit from it, except politicians because it appealed to ignorant voters who wanted to feel superior despite being stupider than a horse's ass.

Whats more interesting is your topic redirect from disenfranchised married people to racial issues. But that is an expected diversion from those commenting from the left.

I stole the horse's head from the web I didn't know Hensley was on the backend as a gif..

Your statement ignores the precedent of millions of marriages throughtout hisfory.
That is why it is to be recognized as false.

The only attempts to redefine marriage were in the opposite direction, e.g. the unconstitutional "DoMA", which sought to redefine marriage for the purpose of discriminating against gay couples.

Again, the example (or precedent) of millions of white couples getting married doesn't restrict marriage to whites only. It doesn't affect the definition at all.

I'm just wondering, is your motivation really about a word? Did you get this worked up about the historical definition of facsimile, when fax machines became popular? Even if you didn't know that same-sex marriages go back further in history than Christmas or even Christianity, why would your ignorance on that point become so important to maintain? Most people support same-sex marriage, so I'm curious why it bothers you so much?

Precisely my point. Why all the hubbub?
Define your own word.
I have no problem with you getting all legal benefits has married couples.
  I'm just wondering, is your motivation really about a word?

Words have meaning don't disenfranchised married people by stealing their word

MrEd says

I have no problem with you....

MrEd says

stealing their word

You don't know anything about me, but I support the Constitution including the 14th amendment and therefore I have a problem with you trying to hijack the laws of my country. The word marriage, as defined in law, is not the private property of one particular horse's ass or sect or even of married couples specifically. And since you refer to married couples in the third person, you seem to be undertaking your attack on same-sex marriage as an unauthorized effort supposedly on behalf of people who mostly disagree with you. Why don't you let some married couples speak for themselves about what marriage means to them, instead of asserting they got married because gay couples weren't allowed to, and now feel deprived of that "right" to discriminate against other couples?

sbh says

Cap I can't understand a thing you've said, as usual. Mell, how does this further OK's conservatives' efforts to legally ban gay marriage? If all you need is a priest, or a ceremony, then how can gays be prevented? If the cons think by de-legalizing marriage for everyone they've somehow robbed gay marriage of accessing legal spousal benefits, are they really willing to rob everyone's access just in order to keep it away from gay people?

While this may be another effort of a conservative to prevent gay marriage, if the outcome is that institutionalized marriage is removed, then I support it. Government has no business meddling in people's relationships. You can argue that it is not very likely that the government will get out of marriage and therefore it is better to include as many lifestyles as possible in an effort to be non-discriminatory, but that's not how I want to do politics. Modern, government sanctioned marriage is a farce and not a civil right.

There's grandma there's grandpa. They wanted their union to be special. So they got married based on what that word meant to them and the precedent that was set over time. And now you want to shit on their graves by clumping their heterosexual uniom in with what they would consider to be deviant and abhorrent.
Why can't you show some civility and just choose another goddamn word?

mell says

that's not how I want to do politics.

Ah, but that's because you're not a politician. From the perspective of the Oklahoma politicians behind this latest farce, the purpose is to keep voters distracted in order to rob them. "Look, elephant! Look, gay couples "disenfranchising" you! Look, unicorns!" If Mike Turner can't use marriage to distract Horse's Behind and misrule people, he's not interested. BTW, like Horse's Behind, Turner isn't married, though he's "active" in his church.

And there is your blindspot.
Having different words for different circumstances is not discrimination.
Man fucking man is different than man fucking woman or woman fucking woman or curiouz kissing mrEd's ass.
But nooooo! You want to clump it all together and disenfranchised everybody.

Well sorry but heteros got the dibs on the word marriage through history and precedent.
And if you persist in hijacking words well then...whats good for the goose....

Why don't you let some married couples speak for themselves about what marriage means to them, instead of asserting they got married because gay couples weren't allowed to, and now feel deprived of that "right" to discriminate against other couples?

curious2 says

mell says

that's not how I want to do politics.

Ah, but that's because you're not a politician. From the perspective of the politicians behind this latest farce, the purpose is to keep voters distracted in order to rob them. "Look, elephant! Look, gay couples "disenfranchising" you! Look, unicorns!" If Turner can't use marriage to distract Horse's Behind and misrule people, he's not interested. BTW, like Horse's Behind, Turner isn't married, though he's "active" in his church.

If the only two choices are marriage for straight couples only and marriage for straight and gay couples only, then I support marriage for straight and gay couples. But as you can see with bills like these even possible and being discussed (no matter what the motivation is), times are changing and I believe, esp. with the grand Obama disillusion, there is significant potential for real change towards liberty. And why can't somebody be unmarried and active in church?

MrEd says

Having different words for different circumstances is not discrimination.

Man fucking man is different than man fucking woman or woman fucking woman or curiouz kissing mrEd's ass.

But nooooo! You want to clump it all together and disenfranchised everybody.

The problem is that there are "perks" for the married (though far less then people assume and a lot of disadvantages esp. for the man) and therefore an argument can be made for discrimination. If you don't make a distinction between positive and negative discrimination, then you will have a hard time defending the position that only men and woman can marry. But then a lot of currently existing laws would be discriminatory and need to be thrown out, such as affirmative action and gender-specific laws. If the government would only give tax/money incentives for married straight couples, then I don't see anything but "positive" discrimination which IMO is legal and used every day by every government. As soon though as you give married couples certain rights just for being married that unmarried couples don't have, then it gets dicey and into discriminatory territory.

I support Unions of straight and gay couples with equal benefits for all.
I support calling straight unions 'marriages'.
I support calling gay unions anything that does not disenfranchise another group of individuals.

mell says

And why can't somebody be unmarried and active in church?

He can be, of course, many are, and some are even married.

MrEd says

I support calling gay unions anything that does not disenfranchise another group of individuals.

That would be anything then, including marriage. Your attempts to redefine "disenfranchise," like your morbid attempts to redefine "marriage" by purporting to channel dead grandparents, do not fool anyone other than yourself about your motivations. When I see photos of you picketing the manufacturers of fax machines for "hijacking" the word facsimile, I'll believe you are really obsessed with definitions, and not something else.

curious2 says

mell says

And why can't somebody be unmarried and active in church?

He can be, of course, many are.

Doesn't surprise me, only very few people are born to have no relationships except for the one with their creator :)

Create a law that overrides the word' marriage 'with ' union'.
All perks can vo to unions.
Problem solved.
No disenfranchisement of anybody

I should have guessed that jackass is actually crab in disguise:

http://patrick.net/whoelse.php?user_ID=73164

I didn't check until I saw two "Likes" above the most disgustingly uncivil comment on the thread. That made me suspect someone was using two accounts. Crab/jackass, it's bad enough you're a bigoted troll, but don't ascribe your bigotry to dead people who are no longer around to speak for themselves.

What disguise? You click on a users name and see their aliases. Are you so obtuse as to consider that a disguise?
curious2 said: I should have guessed that jackass is actually crab in disguise:http://patrick.net/whoelse.php?user_ID=73164

Your example does not hold water.
Nobody is excluded from unions or marriage.
Your soldier scenario excludes females.
Any gay person can get married. Straights can marry.

sbh said: Ed, your historical franchise depends on being able to exclude others from what you think of as yours. So it is exactly as if American soldiers might claim their service to our nation is disenfranchised if women are allowed to serve

FYI, the jackass crab troll has reinstated the disguise so that clicking on Aliases no longer reveals Jackass Crab in its full trollishness. No point debating further with a worthless troll sitting alone on a Saturday night in Texas, waiting for the next Rick Perry campaign; DFTT applies.

reinstated the disguise?? WTF?? Does MrEd run this website?
Tell us all how MrEd would go about circumventing patricks code to do what you describe? We need a laugh...
me thinks you're freaking out.
probably due to MrEd putting forth a winning argument for which you have no answers...

curious2 says

FYI, the jackass crab troll has reinstated the disguise so that clicking on Aliases no longer reveals Jackass Crab in its full trollishness. No point debating further with a worthless troll sitting alone on a Saturday night in Texas, waiting for the next Rick Perry campaign; DFTT applies.

curious2 says

FYI, the jackass crab troll has reinstated the disguise so that clicking on Aliases no longer reveals Jackass Crab in its full trollishness. No point debating further with a worthless troll sitting alone on a Saturday night in Texas, waiting for the next Rick Perry campaign; DFTT applies.

Not sure WTH your talking about below, but after reading this thread it's apparent you have a 'thing' against the traditional definition of marriage.
Why do you hate married people??

curious2 says

I should have guessed that jackass is actually crab in disguise:

http://patrick.net/whoelse.php?user_ID=73164

I didn't check until I saw two "Likes" above the most disgustingly uncivil comment on the thread. That made me suspect someone was using two accounts. Crab/jackass, it's bad enough you're a bigoted troll, but don't ascribe your bigotry to dead people who are no longer around to speak for themselves.