patrick.net

White women and black men appear more independent then white men and black women.
Plain as day, unless you are blinder-bound....

leoj707 says

thomaswong.1986 says

Dan8267 says

One cannot make a bridge out of empty space.

BLIND!

Thomas, no reading between lines here, I think that you are going to need to come out and state directly what conclusion you expect people to come to after reading your cut-and-paste from Wikipedia.

xrpb11a says

White women and black men appear more independent then white men and black women.

OK, so your take-a-way is couples that have a white woman and a black man are more independent? I am not sure, is independence a good thing here?

Of course you are defining independence as a higher divorce rate.

Thomas do you agree that this is the non-blinder point to your post?

Anyway, so what. What does that point have to do with gay marriage, anti-miscegenation laws and "'Till Death do us part..."?

No, "independence" is defined in the dictionary.
I said "it APPEARS", ie "Seems"

leoj707 says

Of course you are defining independence as a higher divorce rate

Wow, this thread sure took an incomprehensible turn. Wtf ?

The truth (and it's not surprising):

It's no coincidence that the people against gay marriage are the exact same people who were against
- abolition
- the right of blacks to vote
- the right of women to vote
- interracial marriages
- evolution theory
and for
- slavery
- segregation
- lynching
- creationism
- the Patriot Act
- the NDAA

Delurking says

Bap33 says

BUT, for 98% of humanity, deviant sexual behavior is intolerable.

Incorrect, of course, since gayness isn't "deviant", LOL.

As for the less intellectually-dishonest point you were trying to make, the nicer places on this planet -- Scandinavia, Germany, France, blue-state USA -- love gay partnerships (in the majority).

The real shitholes -- we're talking KSA, Iran, Afghanistan, BFE Africa -- kill gays when they find them.

That's all that needs to be said about that.

Can you really conceptualize how utterly wrong you are about this?

I have my doubts.

There are 160+ Electoral votes in US states where a large portion of the population strongly disagrees with what you say above.

It's not the United States of California and Massachusetts!

xrpb11a says

No, "independence" is defined in the dictionary.

Oh, so independent as in:

in·de·pend·ent
adjective
1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.
2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.
3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.
4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
5. not relying on another or others for aid or support.

I am still not sure how the dictionary definition of independence has anything to do with a higher divorce rate.

Marcus - OMG...we agree again!

leoj707 says

Thomas, no reading between lines here, I think that you are going to need to come out and state directly what conclusion you expect people to come to after reading your cut-and-paste from Wikipedia.

Whatever nonsense conclusion Thomas was trying to draw from the largest source of misinformation and blatant disinformation is clearly not relevant to the issue of gay marriage.

Once again, Wikipedia proves that its only useful function is as a filter. If someone quotes Wikipedia, he's post is probably not worth reading.

In most cases to marry is to enter into an arrangement where everything is 'shared'. Dependencies develop...ie..your bed gets made, meals are prepared, cleanup happens magically..etc..
Suddenly, you have someone who must be updated as to your whereabouts ..
Bills appear out of nowhere....etc etc etc blah blah blah....

bottom line, you lose some independence that you had in the unmarried state. Some people may not be able to handle this longterm...

Either that or you are just fucking around and got caught...

leoj707 says

xrpb11a says

No, "independence" is defined in the dictionary.

Oh, so independent as in:

in·de·pend·ent

adjective

1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.

2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.

3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.

4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.

5. not relying on another or others for aid or support.

I am still not sure how the dictionary definition of independence has anything to do with a higher divorce rate.

If you have a marriage, you didn't build that. Someone else performed that ceremony -- oh wait, wrong thread...

Actually, the OB theme "you didn't build that" is so ambiguous, you can make it relevant in in any thread...

Dan8267 says

If you have a marriage, you didn't build that. Someone else performed that ceremony -- oh wait, wrong thread...

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

If California and the NE had any sense, they'd leave the USA! USA! and join the Commonwealth as an independent nation. The rest of it could become a theme park.

I agree. I would suggest the new country include the following states: CA, OR, WA, NY, CT, ME, NH, RI, VT, DL, MD, IL & HI. Others could apply. Not sure what the name should be. I would suggest a Parliamentary Democracy with a President or Premier elected by the voters as well. The remaining United States then could pay their own way as Federal Dollars are pouring out of the above Blue states to Red states that are so fond of bitching about liberal states and the US government all the while taking all their cash. The states in the new country all export more money to the red states with the exception of HI and ME. In the new country, HI would no longer be such a drag on the outflow either, as a good deal of this money is to support unneeded military bases.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2

This is one I agree with in principle, though I don't actually favor breaking up the country. I'd rather see us equalize the tax disproportion as well as the electoral college skewing. Your vote for President in CA equals only about 1/8 that of someone in Wyoming, which is something abjectly against the intent of the US Constitution. It's only allowed because everyone knows that setting all votes strictly equal by proportion would make it so CA + NY decide every election.

Too bad. If that's where the people are, then that's where the votes are.

I also predict if we quit subsidizing the flyover states with coastal/metro taxes there would be a sudden wave of "socialism" sweeping over those voters as they found themselves living in 2nd world conditions.

xrpb11a says

In most cases to marry is to enter into an arrangement where everything is 'shared'. Dependencies develop...blah blah blah....bottom line, you lose some independence that you had in the unmarried state.

OK, thanks for the clarification, I see where you are going with your line of thinking. While I don't totally agree with the idea that marriage ='s a loss of independence, that is more of a philosophical debate for another thread.

However, my other questions still remain...

1. Does Thomas agree that this is the intended "non-blinder" point [when marrying people loose independence and black male/white female couples prefer their independence over marriage] to his/her post?

2. What does that point have to do with gay marriage and anti-miscegenation laws?

Randy H says

I also predict if we quit subsidizing the flyover states with coastal/metro taxes there would be a sudden wave of "socialism" sweeping over those voters as they found themselves living in 2nd world conditions.

Reticulating Splines

Many of the poorest parts of the RED states are already 2nd world. I mean, have you ever been to the poorest parts of TN, KY, WV, SC, NC, VA, LA, NM, AL, MS, etc??? And no, even if they were pushed into third world status they would still vote Republican, because, you know, they don't want the 1% Romney's of the world to pay taxes because they are convinced that they too will win the lottery one day and they don't want to pay any taxes when their fantasy becomes a reality. Of course, they will die waiting for that big payout. Just like they are now.

Buster says

they don't want the 1% Romney's of the world to pay taxes because they are convinced that they too will win the lottery one day and they don't want to pay any taxes

Well, that and they are afraid that they might catch the Gay if same sex marriages are legal.

NO, democRATS want the economy to suck, and people to be meserable and DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT. Then they have a solid base of indentured voters for additional support.

People vote in their own self interest which, by the way, is why Busters post is hogwash. The poorest parts of the above mentioned states won't be voting to make the rich richer, they'll be voting to keep the gravy train moving in their direction.

And barrack hussains "Food Stamp Army" continues to grow in numbers!! What a surprise.

Honest Abe says

People vote in their own self interest which, by the way, is why Busters post is hogwash.

Honestly Abe, get real. Do you really think that the extremely poor white trash in TN, AL, MS, GA, WV, etc. are voting for their best interests voting for the GOP? Please. This is the ONLY reason why the GOP fans the boogyman flames such as catching TeH Gay, a Muslim overthrow of the USA, etc. It is the only tool they have to get these folks to vote for even more tax breaks for billionaires. That is not voting for your best self interest when you are a person who desperately need basic healthcare, a job that pays a living wage and medicare and social security but you vote for the guys who are cutting or preventing these programs because you're afraid of whatever is on the mythical gay agenda or because you fear a President who, according to fox news is a Muslim born in Africa.

No, the GOP was brilliant to scare the ignorant into voting against their best self interests. It worked for a long time. I just think that when it comes to the gay boogyman, this has run its course and most no longer see it as a threat when their simply isn't one.

Due to this I fully expect the GOP to turn up some other scare tactics to convince the poor to vote for them. If I were the Dems, I would use the same tactic. Like telling people that Romney will raise their taxes, cut social security, give more tax breaks for the rich and invade Muslim countries further raising the national debt by a few more TRILLIONS....OH, except that that is the truth so no one will actually believe them....

Buster says

have you ever been to the poorest parts of TN, KY, WV, SC, NC, VA, LA, NM, AL, MS, etc???

Born in Evansville, IN, grew up in SW Ohio. Spent summers with grandparents in West Union, OH. My hometown currently has a 38% unemployment rate since the main employer was acquired and pulled out a few years back.

leoj707 says

Well, that and they are afraid that they might catch the Gay if same sex marriages are legal.

lol .. funny

This isn't a gay vs. straight issue - its an issue of abusive political tyranny which includes the loss of freedom and the loss of jobs.

Well done libs!

I am having a hard time following you as you make no sense at all. Honest Abe says

This isn't a gay vs. straight issue - its an issue of abusive political tyranny which includes the loss of freedom and the loss of jobs.

Well done libs!

No laws have been created to restrict Chick Fil A; where they locate or operate a store or what political views they express or otherwise. OTOH, the tyranny of the majority against the gays, which John Adams warned us about comes into play here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

"The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses"), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots.[1] In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process."

Proposition 8 in California, and similar votes of the majority which has put gay Americans into a second class citizen status by codifying into law unequal civil rights status fits this definition exactly. So stop acting like a victim when in fact you are the perpetrator of such tyrannical laws restricting my rights because it makes you feel better about yourself. Jeesh. Grow up.

Buster says

No laws have been created to restrict Chick Fil A; where they locate or operate a store or what political views they express or otherwise.

right. so, by what authority are the radical militant anti-Christian political monsters taking their action against CFA???
You must have forgotten about The P.C. Police ... a lib brain child... giving unlimited power and unrestrained action to all who worship at the Baal temple known as progressive leftist liberalism. Carte Blanche attacks on America's soul, fiber, and Christian foundation.

Buster says

Proposition 8 in California, and similar votes of the majority which has put gay Americans into a second class citizen status by codifying into law unequal civil rights status fits this definition exactly

Prop 22, and Prop 8, were brought to the ballot box by the Sexual Deviant Nation, and those under their bully thumb, that is tied to a left hand holding a bundle of cash.

gay ... why does this term not cover all sexual deviant behavior? GLBT makes no sense. They are all sexual deviants, and this nation has been made to call sexual deviants "gay". Ok, so we do that. But now, those who perform the acts that qualify for "gay behavior" are still wanting more exacting classification?? How long will it be until we must have a different gay title for the most favorite act of each of the members of each sub-sect of the Sexual Deviant Nation. Maybe, juuuust maybe, the power trip that the progressive liberal mind enjoys from controlling the actions and speech of others is at work here?? If not, why is there any other title for sexual deviants than plain 'ol "gay"?

I also notice each speicalized sub-sect gets some cool Latin or medical sounding name ... except the plain 'ol dudes that pork/get porked by dudes. They have to live with just being called "gay". That is not fair. That is why I call them by their original, and much more correct name, sodomites. Makes sense.

Bap33 says

right. so, by what authority are the radical militant anti-Christian political monsters taking their action against CFA???

The same militant action the christianists are taking against the pro gay companies such as: JC Penney, Ford, Chevy, Mercedes, Google, Yahoo, Micosoft, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Starbucks, General Mills, Macy's, Levi's, Home Depot, Viacom, Disney, Coke, DC Commics, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNBC, HBO, etc. http://www.policymic.com/articles/12108/apple-amazon-and-google-the-11-most-pro-gay-companies-setting-a-progressive-agenda

The christianist right is boycotting all of these and more. You have every right to do so. No one is stopping you. But as you can see, you basically have to stay home in order not to patronize a place of business that shares your bigoted views.

Your claims of victimhood are becoming louder and louder in direct proportion to your marginalization by sane people and companies who understand that hate and bigotry is not good for the bottom line. Sure, CFA may profit from their bigotry and good for them I guess. The other fortune 500 not so much. Hate and bigotry is once again being put in the corner where it belongs.

Grow up, grow some balls and quite being such a adolescent victim. You certainly have showed the world that you can dish it out. So quit crying that you now can't take the backlash.

Bap33 says

Prop 22, and Prop 8, were brought to the ballot box by the Sexual Deviant Nation

No, wrong again. Proposition 8 was sponsored by "ProtectMarriage", a christianist hate group.

lol ... you are so full of hate you can't answer a simple question? lol

lets recap, shall we?

you said: Buster says

No laws have been created to restrict Chick Fil A; where they locate or operate a store or what political views they express or otherwise.

I said: Bap33 says

right. so, by what authority are the radical militant anti-Christian political monsters taking their action against CFA???

and now, it's your turn to answer my question.

by the way, if you equate a company exec giving some money to a squeeky wheel as "support" ... ok, go with that. I mean, geeze, it cant be that they just cut a check to get the freaks out of their face and to avoid trouble .. can it? Or, is it more like a Sexual Deviant Mob demanding protection money? Since someone keeps a list of those who do not need to fear being attacked by the Militant Sexual Deviants, there must be something going on. Right?

Buster says

Bap33 says

Prop 22, and Prop 8, were brought to the ballot box by the Sexual Deviant Nation

No, wrong again. Proposition 8 was sponsored by "ProtectMarriage", a christianist hate group.

Prop 8 ... ok, will you PLEASE tell us WHY it had to be brought back after Prop 22 had been passed?? That is correct, an activist court was pandered to, or threatened to be cut off from cash flow, by the Militant Sexual Deviant Army -- and that court over-turned the voice of the voters. So, Prop 8 was made to come about by the actions of the Militant Sexual Deviant Army, not just pulled from the ass of a religious group.

The deviants spent 30% more money than the non-Sodomite group in thier loss. Hurt much?

Prop 187 (1994) went to the trash heap by an activist court too. And that one cost us everything.

Bap33 says

Prop 8 ... ok, will you PLEASE tell us WHY it had to be brought back after Prop 22 had been passed??

Yes, that is easy. Because it was unconstitutional to make a law that restricted rights to only a minority of its citizens for no discernible advancement of any governmental good.

Bap,
Are you a voter in California? Just asking.

Yes I am.

Buster says

advancement of any governmental good

normal people want normal rules of conduct to have a normal life and a normal country where they can expect normal to be normal -- and "govenmental good" is not only totally subjective, it is NOT wanted by people who enjoy freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
FYI, there are roughly 30,000 laws that restrict a particular sect of the American population - aimed at them exclusively - so, maybe you had another point? Like, maybe you think those who suffer from the mental disorder, or the birth defect, that results in deviant sexual behavior, deserve special treatment?

Randy H says

This is one I agree with in principle, though I don't actually favor breaking up the country. I'd rather see us equalize the tax disproportion as well as the electoral college skewing. Your vote for President in CA equals only about 1/8 that of someone in Wyoming, which is something abjectly against the intent of the US Constitution. It's only allowed because everyone knows that setting all votes strictly equal by proportion would make it so CA + NY decide every election.

Too bad. If that's where the people are, then that's where the votes are.

Reticulating Splines

I live in NY, but I'm not so sure about this. We can't completely disenfranchise the rest of the nation. What would produce fair outcomes would be removing the winner take all system so that elector designation would be based on percentage of the vote in each state. The reason for this is that certain areas of the country have specialized economies, the mining regions and the farm regions, etc, that are not bound by a single state's borders but are extremely important to the nation. Someone from NY or CA might not understand the needs of the people of KY or IA, so they have to retain some level of automony and influence in our national government, without giving them disproportionate control.

If Cal was not winner take all, the D's might be in deep shit. The central valley, where I reside, votes conservative, from Bakersfield to Galt.

Bap33 says

Yes I am.

That's good.

Because too many non-California voters have too much to say about Prop-8. It's a state issue and it's not anyone else's business.

Buster says

Proposition 8 in California, and similar votes of the majority which has put gay Americans into a second class citizen status by codifying into law unequal civil rights status fits this definition exactly.

Marriage is NOT a civil or human right !

thomaswong.1986 says

Buster says

Proposition 8 in California, and similar votes of the majority which has put gay Americans into a second class citizen status by codifying into law unequal civil rights status fits this definition exactly.

Marriage is NOT a civil or human right !

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you has repeatedly stated that marriage is a fundamental right. Many lower courts have come to the same conclusion:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967). Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state. The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.
In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry. The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring. The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

The supreme courts of three states (Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut) have, as of 2009, found bans on gay marriage to violate state constitutional provisions. In November 2008, however, California voters narrowly approved a proposition designed to overturn the decision of that state's supreme court. The legality of the voters' action is now an issue in the California courts. Meanwhile, many states have, by legislation or voter initiative, enacted "defense of marriage" laws to keep marriage an institution exclusively for a man and a woman.