The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Rezzy wrote:

A two drink minimum makes anything funny.

Even Dane Cook?

KingGorilla wrote:
Rezzy wrote:

A two drink minimum makes anything funny.

Even Dane Cook?

If I have a two drink minimum to see Dane Cook, those drinks better be heavily laced with cyanide.

I need to know, however...why is it small minded, often bigoted comments are the only ones taken out of context. Is there a good light to use the negative connoted "gay?" Context does not necessitate backpedaling or excuse making. Whether you consider it PC or not, is there any other context than seeing Rand Paul making gay synonymous with bad?

I was listening to local morning radio on a rock station today...I defy you to find a context to make that funny, short of severe blunt force trauma to my brain.

KingGorilla wrote:

I need to know, however...why is it small minded, often bigoted comments are the only ones taken out of context. Is there a good light to use the negative connoted "gay?" Context does not necessitate backpedaling or excuse making. Whether you consider it PC or not, is there any other context than seeing Rand Paul making gay synonymous with bad?

Tangential, but demands for "understanding context" and what not bug me. Apparently, the LDS church released their stance of same-sex marriage (spoiler: they don't like it), and some FB associates shared it, leading off with, basically "Please hear us out and listen to our reasons before you judge us."

My response is 1- No. and 2- f*ck you. I don't need to listen to your rationalizations for small-minded bigotry, I don't give a sh*t about why you're a small-minded bigot. The very idea that thought went into coming up with rationalizations and justifications just makes me angrier, actually. When it's just some toothless cracker saying "I jes don't like them homo types," that's easy to brush off as ignorant, unreflective dumbassery. But investing brain power into justifications, rather than overcoming hateful ignorance is just infuriating to me.

I'm further tempted to point out the lack of moral clarity and fortitude betrayed here. If they had those, they wouldn't worry about people saying mean things about their stance. I've got the clarity and fortitude here, because I don't give a sh*t what you think when I say "No, f*ck you, I'm not wasting my time giving credence to your lame ass reasons for being a hateful little bigot. Sorry."

Sorry, had to vent.

To appropriate Sterling Archer, the amount of alcohol needed to make Dane Cook funny would literally kill. Catch-22.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

awesome venting

I am intrigued by what you say and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

My response is 1- No. and 2- f*ck you. I don't need to listen to your rationalizations for small-minded bigotry, I don't give a sh*t about why you're a small-minded bigot.

IMAGE(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s149/MilkmanDanimal/internet-high-five.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/5/14/49BTqP1cskCbSUrz24UK9w2.jpg)

And the first person who THINKS "Yeah, but we have changed or that worked for that culture" And STILL maintains that God forbids gay marriage, let's see if you ate a cheeseburger or shellfish this year and we will stone you.

KingGorilla wrote:
Rezzy wrote:

A two drink minimum makes anything funny.

Even Dane Cook?

FFS. Really?
Why not:
Even Self-Destructive Alcoholism?
Even Child-Abuse?
It's called a Generalization.
You know... like "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?"
Even the poisonous, bush-dwelling velociraptor bird?
YES! In the cumulative average of ALL HUMAN EXPERIENCE, which will include certain statistical blips, A two drink minimum makes anything funny.

Even your post?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. :D)

NSMike wrote:

Even your post?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. :D)

Did I mention the blips?

Rezzy wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:
Rezzy wrote:

A two drink minimum makes anything funny.

Even Dane Cook?

FFS. Really?
Why not:
Even Self-Destructive Alcoholism?
Even Child-Abuse?
It's called a Generalization.
You know... like "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?"
Even the poisonous, bush-dwelling velociraptor bird?
YES! In the cumulative average of ALL HUMAN EXPERIENCE, which will include certain statistical blips, A two drink minimum makes anything funny.

Even Tyler Perry?

Just I remember something similar when John Rocker put his clete in his teeth. Or when Tiger won his first Green Jacket.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

My response is 1- No. and 2- f*ck you. I don't need to listen to your rationalizations for small-minded bigotry, I don't give a sh*t about why you're a small-minded bigot.

I was listening to a discussion on NPR about marriage equality, and Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, actually made the dumbest argument I have heard yet.

And one of the disagreements we have -- I think there's a lot of fair-minded people who believe that gay marriage is just going to add a couple of people into this institution, give some people some benefits and not really have a transformative effect on the marriage culture as a whole.

But I have to say, from my own experience in participating in this debate, it has tended to confirm my sense that we're dealing with a foundational shift in a core social institution, that after gay marriage, people who believe that children need a mother and father and that these marriages' most important public role are going to be treated like people opposed to interracial marriage.And that's going to make it very hard to transmit a strength and marriage culture to the next generation.

I mean, bans on interracial marriage were based on a racist effort to keep the races separate so that one race could oppress the other, and marriage is fundamentally based on integrating the two great halves of humanity so children have mothers and fathers. I mean, bans on interracial marriage were bad, but our marriage tradition, in my view, is good. That's the difference.

See, if we let gays marry, then good Christians like Maggie Gallagher will be made to feel like bigots for teaching their children that they can only marry the opposite sex. She can't be a bigot if she feels her bigoted views are good.

When you attempt to rationalize an irrational position, all your arguments are going to sound dumb.

KingGorilla wrote:

Even Tyler Perry?

Just I remember something similar when John Rocker put his clete in his teeth. Or when Tiger won his first Green Jacket.

See, now I'm not sure if after my satirical rationalization and forced (though technically accurate) outrage you think I'm actually defending the idiocy on display in that video....

Rezzy wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Even Tyler Perry?

Just I remember something similar when John Rocker put his clete in his teeth. Or when Tiger won his first Green Jacket.

See, now I'm not sure if after my satirical rationalization and forced (though technically accurate) outrage you think I'm actually defending the idiocy on display in that video....

I took it as implicit that by being presented with an explaination or the speech in its entirety, you posited that we could reach a separate conclusion.

I notice that the likes of Michael Richards talks about being taken out of context. But Neal Brennan and Bill Burr can do race humor at the Appolo and be fine. Then there is the classic of why can Christ Rock say N****?

The line between humor and hate is hate, not drinks. I am not sure if Rand Paul standing next to Dean Martin makes his comments different.

I think the context is that Rand Paul has prejudice in his heart, but when Louis CK tells a "{homophobic slur}" joke, he does not.

KingGorilla wrote:

The line between humor and hate is hate, not drinks.

Which was exactly my point when in my fictitious 'context' claim the quote didn't come from the mind of the speaker, but that the speaker was reading a posting from a commenter on Youtube... at an Open-Mic event... presumably at a comedy club. The only context in which a comment like that could even begin to be okay.

Once again proving that I amuse only myself. Luckily I'm okay with that.

EDIT: See, we're on the same wavelength but coming at it from different angles: My point was that if I pretend that this was a comedian with a clever bit about morons on the internet it isn't as horrible as coming from the mouth of an elected official to the great delight of his audience.

EDIT2: The drinks were added to make me hate the audience less. I can excuse laughing at a bad joke about horrible stuff morons on the internet say if there's alcohol involved. Otherwise at least five people should have audibly groaned. That laughter was instantaneous and hard.

Jayhawker wrote:

See, if we let gays marry, then good Christians like Maggie Gallagher will be made to feel like bigots for teaching their children that they can only marry the opposite sex.

Yeah, this also drive me batty. "Good, you should feel bad," I say.

Rezzy wrote:

That laughter was instantaneous and hard. :(

For some reason that sounds dirty.

CheezePavilion wrote:

For some reason that sounds dirty.

If it persists for more than 4 hours consult your doctor immediately.

Personal story time, feel free to ignore.

I recently went on a weekend vacation with several friends to a large cabin in Gatlinburg, Tennessee that my wife's family owns. One of the couples with us was a gay couple in their early 30's. They've been together for 5 years and live in Alabama.

The whole time we were there they never openly showed affection to each other while we were out and even hated having to explain to waiters that they were on the same bill. At one point I was sitting with them outside a shop that was next to a wedding chappel while we waited on the rest of the group to join us. One of the guys said to his boyfriend, "Hey, think if we went over to the chapel and asked to get married they'd notice we were two guys?" Which eventually got me to talking about this thread and the progress and/or lack thereof around the country for gay rights to which they were extremely optimistic.

It also opened up an opportunity for me to ask them about why they felt like they could be affectionate with each other when they were at the cabin with just us around but not in public. They basically said they weren't ashamed but it was just easier to pretend they were two "regular guys" and avoid the hassle of ignorant rednecks. I know I should've had this realization a long time ago but that was when it really hit me just how bad it must be for gay couples in certain parts of our country. I always knew that "coming out" was often the hardest thing a person could do but I never really thought about just living your life after that. I mean these are two guy who are completely committed to each other but they feel like they can't be themselves in public, even down to just saying they're together, because of the bigotry they might encounter.

For people who try to deny the comparison to racist attitudes, I just can't see it. It's the same type of mindset. You're still trying to paint another group as somehow being less than you, that they aren't entitled to the same rights and protections or that they are somehow defective.

On NPR I recently heard a black pastor giving a vigorous "defense of marriage" and when asked wasn't this the same situation that gave rise to the civil rights movement he strongly objected stating that people can't choose to be black but they can choose to be gay. It just made my stomach churn. With these kinds of mindsets I know there's a large part of the population who's never going to change their mind but I can only hope as the population ages that these will become the minority. Overall I'm still optimistic that there's going to be a massive seachange on this topic in the next 20 years but things like what happened in North Carolina still make me ashamed of my country.

People can choose whether they want to marry outside of their race. Are we sayoing Chuck Berry had no choice in taking white girls into his hotel? Was Jack Johnson's (The Boxer) marriage arranged?

KingGorilla wrote:

People can choose whether they want to marry outside of their race. Are we sayoing Chuck Berry had no choice in taking white girls into his hotel? Was Jack Johnson's (The Boxer) marriage arranged?

accurate, but i don't like the angle. I don't like the line of thought that says "okay even if being gay is a choice, you're still wrong."

Being gay isn't a choice. if a person says it is, the proper response is "nuh uh."

(or some variation)

The cynical take is that these people believe being gay is a choice because they are, in fact, gay, and are so filled with self-loathing by that fact that they choose to act heterosexual and use their internalized shame as a force to bludgeon those who are more comfortable with their own sexuality. They're choosing to be straight, so they figure everybody else should have to as well.

As Dan Savage pointed out, any man who claims that one can choose to be gay ought to be able to back up their claim by happily choking down a big juicy boner, right?

It's a delightful way to call BS on that particular claim.

Jonman wrote:

As Dan Savage pointed out, any man who claims that one can choose to be gay ought to be able to back up their claim by happily choking down a big juicy boner, right?

It's a delightful way to call BS on that particular claim.

What does that mean for Penn Jillette's Bacon and a Kiss Airlines?

Here is the thing, natural vs free choice is not a logical argument, it is not a legal argument. It is not holding water in numerous challenges in court. You also have the burden of establishing why in this instance nature should be law, when we ban other natural inclinations. There is a salient argument as to why rape is natural. Just where are these people getting their Anthropology degrees anyway?

It is not natural for me to wear clothes, yet if I go out in public in my natural state, everyone gets all weirded out and barfy.

Nature is a poor arbiter of justice, ask Mr. Hobbes.

Funny how the national debate focuses so much on the idea that civil rights are only about things we cannot chose, yet there's supposedly a war on those who choose to be Christian in America we all need to be aware of.

Paleocon wrote:

Stay classy, Virginia.

Sometimes I'm glad I live on the People's Republic of Maryland side of the beltway.

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Stay classy, Virginia.

Sometimes I'm glad I live on the People's Republic of Maryland side of the beltway. :D

Having spent seven years in Northern Virginia, I never understood why Arlington, Fairfax, Prince William, and Loudon counties just didn't secede from the rest of the damn state and form their own non-redneck union.