I seriously doubt anybody suspected, even for a moment, that you supported those views, V.

I am sorry if I offended anyone I will lake the lessons I learned on this message board and apply them to the next board I am exiled to.

What lessons have you learned?

Good question, here's why.

When you say stupid shit, you attract attention to yourself. When you say really stupid shit, repeatedly and loudly, you attract LOTS of attention to your stupid comments. When you drape yourself in stupidity, people can't see anything else, even if there is a reasonable person underneath.

And when I say "you", I mean anybody. But in this case, I mean you. That you say you would "off all the people at a gay pride parade", that qualifies as really stupid shit, and you repeated it, you've draped yourself in stupid shit. What else is there for us to see? What *should* we be reacting to?

I'm not gay. Aparentaly everyone here is... and that's why the communications gap. I don't expect you to see anything I'm here for the good times not to get caught up in some lost world.

By the teachings of Christ, Ibram is blessed:

Luke 6:22

Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you [from their company], and reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.


By the teachings of Christ, JB is instructed:

Luke 6:37

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Why not try what our Aussie Aboriginal Friends might call "going walkabout?" (doing so metaphorically, I mean)

There are many experiences to be had in the world. Have some. Perhaps you will gain insight from these self-defining experiences.

There may be a BBS that will be more in line with your beliefs and needs to be discovered.

I totally agree, but don't I have that right.. one mans junk is another mans treasure.. and besides that I really like the cellar.. I think Ibram is a great person (despite our differences) I do not doubt you guys have superior talents, it's just that I am a diagnosed skitzo/bipollar who is just now getting to the point where I am stable... I am trying to "integrate" myself back into society and this place has been a real help..

On the one hand, I'm all for punishing threats of violence, but on the other, I'm leery of sending a person with mental instability off in search of a forum where threats of violence against gays are not discouraged.

On the gripping hand.... I got nuthin.

To Ibs metaphor ... I see it as JB came into the coffee shop screaming and ranting and slapped a gun down on the table threatening to shoot.
Thats a little bit, IMO A LOT, over the line. Perhaps a time out at least.

Almost. More that he came into the coffee shop with a sandwich board proclaiming hellfire and damnation, screaming and ranting and claiming he has a gun at home, honest, and he's not afraid to use it.

I never claimed to have a gun.. your just playing on fear.. trying to manipulate the .gov either way I'm from the gun shine state.. I saw people down loading kiddy porn and when I called the fbi they ran away..

It was a metaphor.

A stupid metaphor.

Never said it was a good metaphor.

maybe I just need to be filled in on the 'rules' of this society..

Rule for this society: "I just might kill someone" is not a good joke.
Rule for yourself: A society where "I just might kill someone" is a good joke is not a good society to be in.

Metaphors do not work well when there is a disease involved in which concrete interpretation of metaphorical statements is a common symptom.

(if you've ever had a therapist ask you to explain proverbs, they're testing for schizophrenia)

Correction: not everyone here is ƒucking crazy. You are, but that's excusable. You're stupid, too. Also excusable. The poorly conveyed, even more poorly understood Christian claptrap, also excusable. Put them all together and you still pass the threshhold afforded by our collective sense of pity mixed with morbid fascination and insuppressible laughter.

However, there is a line.

You've crossed it, in case you hadn't noticed.

You are truly, deeply, and possibly irrevocably, what is known as a real "piece of shit" human being. It doesn't make me feel good to tell you this.

But maybe, just maybe, upon receiving the verbal equivalent of being smashed directly in the ego with a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick, you'll say to yourself "Hey, I ƒucked up bad. I need to reexamine my shit, like deep down, to the darkest nooks and crannies of my malformed abortion of what passes--these days--for a human soul."

You think you're better than anybody? Because you can parrot childish fairy tales from a mediocre, 2,000 year-old self-help book? Get a ƒucking clue, if you're able (which I doubt). You can hide behind whatever books you like, it won't "fix" what's broken inside you.

You haven't just misspoken, you've revelaed your true colors.

I disagree and again, stand by my statement. YMMV

I BLEED red white and blue..

You're French?

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21).

The red, white and blue are Caesar's. Do not be overly bothered by the earthly authority of government.

I agree with Flint. JBK is a piece of shit. But, unlike JB, shit can be useful.

So long as you are bleeding, that's all that matters.

Violence begets violence.

Isn't that inbreeding?

Seems to be.

You know, like the aristocrat kind, not the hillbilly kind.

No offense to aristocrats or hillbillies, mind you. :rolleyes:

Violence is kinda offended, tho'.....

Well Apparently America got slavery wrong too, so how much credit do we give the constitution... He made a very good point. One that I don't know how to explain except to say that enlightenment is impossible without darkness. :Wisdom excels folly as light excels darkness: The Jews 'Gods Chosen' were slaves themselves to Egypt. And a Slave is only a Slave to what has mastered him. All things are permissible but not all things are beneficial. We are not in the dark ages anymore. Society, specifically America, is progressing. And I will be mastered by nothing.

I think that's possibly the most lucid answer I've seen you give.

So you support the presidents latest attack on Christians?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...sociate-Savage

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ion-Dan-Savage

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ies-Dan-Savage

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...it-White-House

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...n-Savage-Bully

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...avage-Santorum

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...rum-Saddleback

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...enounce-Savage

This IS the Obama Administration. As long as if fits an agenda, as long as a special interest group can be exploited for purposes of re-election and the illusion of inclusion this Administration will exploit it. Now the Obama Administration is directly aligned in a straight line fashion with a Bully of G-L-Bi-Transgendered people. They have embraced this. They own it. I will never let them or others forget. They are scum.

you learn something new every day..


lu·cid   [loo-sid] Show IPA
adjective
1.
easily understood; completely intelligible or comprehensible: a lucid explanation.
2.
characterized by clear perception or understanding; rational or sane: a lucid moment in his madness.
3.
shining or bright.
4.
clear; pellucid; transparent.

Jeez merc, how do you remember all these things you're never going to let anyone forget? I'd have difficulty keeping track.

I don't support Obama's attacks on Christians.. he said "America is No Longer a Christian Nation"

Either
A. He's Just a Total Fool
B. He dose not know what he's doing
C. He's the Anti Christ
D. He got Aliens Up his Ass

I miss Bush.

I don't miss Bush.

I will not give Obama a pass as some kind of touchy feely friend of GayBiLesbTrGend people. He is not. His exploiting it for re-election. Period.

dOOd - did you really just quote breitbart? :eyebrow:

Obama Just endorsed same sex marriage. While I don't agree with homosexuality, I think that same sex marriage could be a good thing. But only in the fact that it might just bring the 2 people to a conclusion that faith is something to consider. The same goes for that gay priest in the catholic church. Kind of like turning in to a skid after the car is out of control. You first regain control of the car then recover.

*yawn*

also, lols to your bullshit that gay people can't be people of faith.

oh, I like that.

Why should the gay community be insulated from the glories of divorce?

Let 'em marry (or unionize or couple or whatever).

As Biden said, a gay couple should enjoy all the same rights, privileges, and liberties as a straight couple. The couple should also 'enjoy' all the same burdens, responsibilities, miseries, and failures.

The failure rate for hetero-marriage is, what?, 50% or more?

No damn reason why gays shouldn't be as self-humiliated as straights.

#

"lols to your bullshit that gay people can't be people of faith"

Question is: why would any one want to be 'that'?

In higher ed, there is a push for benefits for domestic partners. This would not have been an idea except for the fact that gays cannot marry. This is what makes benefits unfair: a couple cannot have the extended family benefits because they cannot marry.

Of course, a straight unmarried couple could not enjoy extended benefits either.

I never thought much about this: the couple times I've lived with someone I wouldn't have dreamed that there should be benefits for domestic partnerships because, let's face it, it's awfully hard to define. Joe and Joann may just be roommates, but can use the same insurance that Mark and Marsha, who are legally married, use. It's really insane when you think how far this can extend. I mean, Homeless Guy Parasite could have been covered under MY insurance. Uh. No. I don't even want that option.

The solution is so obvious I can't stand it. Gays should be able to marry. There should be no difference between ANY kind of married couple or ANY kind of 'domestic partnerships.'

If Joe and Joann, Mark and Marsha, Jim and John, and Blaine and Bill want the economic benefits, they get married.

I don't get why this is such a big deal.

Oh yeah, religious wingnuts who know what is best for everyone.

The real solution to the 'problem' is, of course, the one no one brings up, that being: remove gov sanctioning of marriage, return the event to the religious sphere and leave it there.

Under this scheme: no one gets any financial breaks by way of marriage (and the 'state' gets no licensing fees). If Joe and Jack wanna tie the knot: find a Unitarian Universalist minister, or, go to war with the Roman Catholic Church (or the Jewish or the Islamic Orthodoxies).

Government (those 'in' it) wouldn't (shouldn't) have any say either way (in sanctioning or condemning).

IM, I agree. All united couples should have the same opportunities for benefits and the negatives also.
For example, a very good friend recently lost his partner after a long debilitating illness with much hospitalization and procedures, finally culminating with hospice care in "their" home.
My friend recently told me that he was thankful they weren't legally married. That was the only thing that saved him from complete financial ruin...
Just sharing the other side.

hq:
I almost agree. I think that the government SHOULDN'T recognize marriages - but I think the government SHOULD recognize civil unions.
You wanna get married? go to a church.
You want a civil partnership defined by a legal contract? get a civil union.
Voila!

I agree totally with that. Marriage Defined by the bible is between a man and a woman. I don't think we should cross that line.

No, I meant ALL marriages. The government shouldn't recognize ANYBODY's marriage EVER.

"You want a civil partnership defined by a legal contract? get a civil union."

Better yet: just go to a shyster and have an idiosyncratic contract drawn up between you and your honey, one binding on the two of you, one granting each all the pleasures and burdens of living exclusively with the other and 'forsaking all others'.

With this: the gov (by way of the courts) can act as final arbiter in contract disputes but never as bestower of 'right'.

In fact: most couples (gay or straight) can do this now and cut out the middle man ('government').

Sure: it might cost a pretty penny in shyster fees, but not a one (gay or straight) has to wait for (or, fight for) the nation to 'accept' his or her proclivities.

that's the perfect example of homosexuals being "faithless".

Nope, JB. You just aren't paying attention to the entirety of what I said.
I said that the government has no business in a religious rite like marriage, and therefore this whole debate would go away if the government would recognize only legal contracts between individuals.

edit: plus, i'm not homosexual, asshole.

hq:
the problem with that is the sheer volume of things that the government recognizes as rights afforded to married couples, that any lawyer's contract can't afford you. Like filing joint taxes, or other tax deductions, or certain domestic violence protections, or important custody norms and rights, or... the list goes on. On top of that, no private institution, like hospitals or schools or insurers, would be legally compelled to recognize a private 3rd-party contract, and could deny those contracted couples the same things they offer to all married couples.

All true, Ib, but ain't nuthin' for free...for every sanction and protection issued by gov there's a price (usually a kind of hobbling of mind, if not body)...most folks (it seems) are willing to be overseen (hell, many folks crave being overseen!) by gov so as to safeguard what you outline above; some ill-fitting pieces, however, willingly (gleefully, even) reject the oversight by gov so as to better go his or her own way.

I speak for at least one of those ill-fitting pieces...*shrug*

And I in no way think that people who want to engage in legal unions without governmental protections of that union shouldn't have the right to go their own way. In fact I think it's fabulous. But you and I clearly fundamentally disagree on the role of government. I think it's there to defend civil and human rights - of which I believe "marriage" or a civil institution with the same role is one of - and to construct a safety net to ensure a minimum quality of life for all citizens. You don't believe that, and that's fine - but I think most people who make up our country agree on those points, even if they disagree what sort of safety net should exist, how high, and how many civil rights should be afforded to the population at large.

"...you and I clearly fundamentally disagree on the role of government."

HA! Ya think?

#

"I think most people who make up our country agree on those points..."

No doubt...I essentially say this with, 'most folks (it seems) are willing to be overseen (hell, many folks crave being overseen!) by gov so as to safeguard what you outline above..."

Me: just offering two solutions in this thread to the 'problem' of gays and marriage...never said either solution was appealing, only that both are options (in particular, the second wherein a couple tells the gov, and society, to go fuck itself).

That many or most may turn a nose up at my suggestions is no nevermind to me.

asshole; it's whats for dinner... :)

Why, jbk? They were having an exchange of ideas. It was a good conversation. No assholes were harmed in the making of those posts. ;)

Infi, for a long time in UK there has been "common-law" marriage. If two people live together as married partners for 6 months (I think), they can claim any rights afforded to the legally married. It works just fine in the main. No need for marriage, no need for declaration of official intent. piss or get off the pot.