User registration set to invite-only because of spam. Email for an invite.

Current events



  • Just so I got this straight, what you're saying is that as a legal institution, marriage should be abolished in its entirety?
  • Get Government out of marriage. That's what I'm saying. That's all I'm saying.
  • He's saying that the government has been using "married" as a way to assume certain things about sharing benefits, tax status, power of attorney, etcetera. And they've been doing this instead of actually asking about all those things--and, further, saying "if you aren't For Reals Married then you can't get those things".
  • Get Government out of marriage. That's what I'm saying. That's all I'm saying.
    Ummm, that is exactly what the left was fighting for. That there should not be any laws saying who I can and can not marry. It was people like Scalia who were fighting to let the goverment be allowed to say who you can and can not marry.


  • edited February 2016
    And therefore he should be demonized, called a bigot and his death should be celebrated.

    It's like if someone was trying to hold a sinking boat together and people saw what he was doing as bad, posthumously. I'm sure Scalia believed in separation of Church and State but he wanted to keep it Christian.

    Otherwise if there's a law you don't agree with don't ever say anything because obviously your wrong.
  • Scalia also believed the government should be able to legislate what type of sex adults have. So
  • Here's what I'm saying: if you are not a bigot, I'd like you to recognize that "get government out of marriage" is a smokescreen used by bigots. Because there's no putting the genie back into the bottle on that one and everyone knows it: marriage conveys certain benefits, those benefits are not going away anytime soon. The groundswell of political noise about getting the government out of marriage did not exist until gay marriage started to become a likely reality. That's because it's an plausibly deniable way of saying "I'd rather nobody to have it if they're going to have it." It is saying "If you ask me to share my toys, I'm going to throw them into the incinerator."

    Only "toys," in this case, are privileges many people would consider to be fundamental, such as inheritance, child custody, and being able to visit a dying loved one in the hospital. If you do not consider yourself a bigot, think about how you are flailing around in their language for... what? You're cherry picking "children" and acting as if there's never been another reason that people marry--and furthermore that there are no *other* benefits, without raising children, that marriage provides, either to the couples themselves or the community at large.

    So I want you to really analyze that argument, which I'm sure came to you entirely on your own, and ask if it's not just a little too convenient that the primary group of people it excludes just happens to be gay people (who actually, as it turns out--gasp!--can raise, or even *birth*, children just as well as anyone else in this modern 21st century!)

    But here's what I'm actually saying: it is infinitely more important to me that LGBT members of this forum feel comfortable here than it is for me to give you a soapbox to spew this particular piece of retrograde bullshit. So be aware of that.
  • It's funny how everything Republicans say is supposedly bigoted. I'm just sticking to the conservative standard which is small government. Get government out of marriage and guess what. Get rid of the welfare state and then open our boarders up all you want.

    I also like how you suggest I'm too stupid to come up with my own opinion. As if leftist aren't already in a echo-chamber of good feelings.

    And as for your last point. Then fucking ban me. As if anything I've said is actually toxic to the LGBT crowd as what has been suggested we do against Republicans on this board.
  • edited February 2016
    I hate election years.

    Edit: Well, presidential election years. No one gives a shit the rest of the time.
  • It's almost time for another gif reset.
  • Been a while since one of these flared up in the forums.
  • I will never celebrate a persons death, but I also wouldn't sympathize when that person spends so much time and energy fighting to dehumanizing me, trying to take as many rights from me as possible, and spreading lies about me and other like me.
  • I can't speak for all liberals, but it seems like the liberals in here weren't celebrating Scalia's death as much as they were saying, I won't shed any tears over that guy being gone.
  • Heres some alternate fuel for the fire. Buuuuuurn
  • It's almost time for another gif reset.
  • I'm not a bigot, I just want to say the things bigots say without being called a bigot. Is that so much to ask?
  • Hey Nick. Tell me why democratically run Chicago became the gun violence capital of the US.
  • This is a fascinating story and a very sad one. The picture of her looking into her sons face at the head of the article is enough to make you weep.
    I'm conflicted regarding her obliviousness but the knowledge of what became of him and that picture are tugging at my heart strings.

  • edited February 2016
    I don't know, you tell me why we need executive orders before any federal laws can be passed on gun control.
  • None of Obama's executive actions would have stopped Sandy Hook or Aurora or San Bernardino. He did literally nothing and then claimed he did something.
  • Bigots have been creating intellectual-sounding justifications for their bigotry since the dawn of time. That doesn't mean that it's a sign of inherent bigotry to say "hey, maybe the solution to the whole mess is to have the government not be the arbiter of who can or cannot call themselves 'married'."

    Like, the reason anyone knew about Kim Davis is that couples who wanted to have a piece of paper saying "these two people are married" had to have that paper signed by her. Imagine if that piece of paper could instead be signed by any notary.

    Old enough to shoot a gun, old enough to drin—no. Old enough to shoot a gun, old enough to driv—no.

    Glad to see we have our priorities in order.

    I mean the actual answer is b/c my dad died and I have no idea how to deal with his inheritance. However, I haven't come this close to the wire since I was like, 18 and had to mail them in on the day of.
  • Dude sorry about your Dad.
  • Yeah, that's really not good.
  • I got to explain to my wife why someone would name a barge Of Course I Still Love You :D
  • Thanks guys. It happened last year, so I'm good with it, just stressing out about the constant loose ends to tie up. But I appreciate the condolences.
  • Early reports are saying Prince just died. What the fucking fuck, 2016?
  • Yep just read that and people relatively young are dying left and right this year.
  • Don't forget Chyna! She also died today.
  • Clinton-supporting super-PAC admits that "BernieBro" was a smear op all along:
  • edited June 2016
    Woke up to the sickening news about the Orlando shooting this morning. I try to stay positive and constructive but right now I feel like retreating from the world, giving up on it and just being glad my life hasn't personally been touched by something like this. That's not a good attitude.
  • edited June 2016
    I took it hard. My best friend and i held our own candle light vigil. I tried to avoid the news all day, I couldn't handel it.
  • edited June 2016
    Omar Mateen is by no means the first time that G4S has turned a blind eye to warning signs of the dangerous volatility of an employee, who ends up going on a killing spree as a result.

    This is exactly what happened in 2009, when military veteran Danny Fitzsimmons was hired by the firm and dispatched to Iraq. Fitzsimmons was a racist with a criminal record, had been diagnosed with PTSD, and at the time of his employment was on bail and not permitted to leave Britain.

    G4S didn’t care. Thirty-six hours after landing in Iraq, Fitzsimmons had shot dead two of his colleagues.

    In Mateen’s case, the response was much the same. Despite repeatedly voicing to his G4S colleagues his desire to kill people, his sympathy for terrorists, along with racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic views, G4S superiors opted to keep Mateen armed, dangerous and on the payroll.
  • My mom worked for G4S, she got in through a temp agency or something. They did make her take some classes and some dude was angry about cops killing folks in Oklahoma (as anybody should be).

    It makes me question this whole model of "send folks to some training to make them act this way"
  • Looks like the UK decided to get the divorce:
  • This should be a lesson for anyone who wants to vote Trump just to "send a message".
  • Yuuuuuuuuuup
  • Let it all burn, I say.
  • ^That is so fake. Boris Johnson isn't prime minister, yet.
  • edited July 2016
    A Minnesota man who legally-owned a gun was executed by police last night after he informed them he had a concealed carry permit for his weapon. I'm sure the NRA will be releasing a statement condemning this shooting as soon as possible.
    Yep, any minute now... Any minute...
    Huh. Wonder why they're taking so long?
  • Well you're right, but they don't seem to cover any negative stories about gun ownership. Their twitter feed seems focused solely on 2A and Good Guy With A Gun stories like this:

    The security guard is black according to this story, but the one the NRA twitter feed linked doesn't have a picture of or an interview with the security guard in the video. That's probably just a coincidence. Probably.
  • I guess as an avenue of protest around all this, BLM decided to harass 911 tonight. These people are likely going to be prosecuted as we are reporting all their info to our higher ups. Not sure how calling me a bitch helps their cause, but c'est la vie.
  • DG_Nick said:

    Well you're right, but they don't seem to cover any negative stories about gun ownership. Their twitter feed seems focused solely on 2A and Good Guy With A Gun stories like this:

    How dare he defend his life! He should have given up his weapon and submitted to death.

    The NRA is focused on good guys with guns because the mainstream media fills the quota of negative gun ownership stories. I'm not gonna pretend that everything is perfect but I think people should have the right to defend themselves and that's all the NRA is doing. Advocating the 2nd Amendment.

    I know no one here will bother to read John Lott's book but there are tons of crimes that go unreported due to the victim being armed or even the thought of a victim being armed and it dissuading the criminal.

    A good friend of mine just moved to Phoenix, Arizona where they relaxed their gun laws and allowed almost anyone to buy a gun and crime dropped precipitously.

    But no, who are the enemies? Christian conservatives. They killed everyone in Orlando with their hate. Fucking stupid.

  • edited July 2016

    I know no one here will bother to read John Lott's book but there are tons of crimes that go unreported due to the victim being armed or even the thought of a victim being armed and it dissuading the criminal.

    What if the true cost of the thought of everyone being armed is an immediate execution by a police officer? What's my incentive to ever want to involve the police in...anything?
  • Because if they shoot the guy you won't get in trouble (shot)?
Sign In or Register to comment.