There was a day when I could be Gay.

[Denny Crane]

Your sense of humour and my sense of humour are like two positively charged ions, Den. I hardly understand what you're going for, here.

I thought my version of what you wrote was funnier? It looked self deprecating if you'd said it and it took a swipe at hockey done by a Canadian.

 

[Eastoff]

Oh good!!!! I was a little worried.

I like to eat the spent cucumbers in a salad after. Does that make me "green"?

Did you see 2012 Hump festival too?

 

[Further]

Poor MarAzul. Why do we queers have to confuse him/her by calling ourselves human beings? Maybe we should come up with some other term, you know, untermenschen perhaps, so he/she won't have to worry about being associated with us.

And the Flintstones will still have a gay old time. Maria will still feel pretty and witty and gay. And Tyson Gay runs really fast.

You are acting so nonchalant for being a thief. And you're not just a one time thief stealing a word to feed your family, you keep stealing words, over and over. I'm surprised there are any words left for us good Americans. I stole a glance one, but never a word. How dare you!

 

[crandc]

You are acting so nonchalant for being a thief. And you're not just a one time thief stealing a word to feed your family, you keep stealing words, over and over. I'm surprised there are any words left for us good Americans. I stole a glance one, but never a word. How dare you!

Bull! I'm not a thief! I paid for the right to be out & proud! Years and years of activism. Jobs lost. "Friends" lost.

All so I could take the words right out of your mouth. Be grateful I'm not taking anything else out of your mouth....

 

[Further]

Bull! I'm not a thief! I paid for the right to be out & proud! Years and years of activism. Jobs lost. "Friends" lost.

All so I could take the words right out of your mouth. Be grateful I'm not taking anything else out of your mouth....

uhmmmussdllt akoidddleumm (trying to speak but something is lodged in my mouth)

 

[MarAzul]

Poor MarAzul. Why do we queers have to confuse him/her by calling ourselves human beings? Maybe we should come up with some other term, you know, untermenschen perhaps, so he/she won't have to worry about being associated with us.

And the Flintstones will still have a gay old time. Maria will still feel pretty and witty and gay. And Tyson Gay runs really fast.

Wow! I just thought I would ask why do such confusing things. God answered pretty well, the old contrary story just because it isn't available. But I had no idea you felt so inferior. Well buck up fella, the creator gave you a
Brain, a dick, a full complement of parts. Now read the instruction manual and join the human race, no need to stick it out with the untermenschen.

 

[Eastoff]

Wow! I just thought I would ask why do such confusing things. God answered pretty well, the old contrary story just because it isn't available. But I had no idea you felt so inferior. Well buck up fella, the creator gave you a
Brain, a dick, a full complement of parts. Now read the instruction manual and join the human race, no need to stick it out with the untermenschen.

Crand is a woman. Why are you so misogynistic to assume everyone that loves sports is a man? Do you refuse to let your daughters play sports too?

 

[MarAzul]

Ha! I was afraid that would happen. Oh well make the appropriate minor correction and the comment stands. Daughter is doing fine, not so great at sports but she is a professor at UNC. She has contributed one Grandson too.

 

[Further]

MarAzul, back to the topic at hand.

I hope you are able to look at these changes in different light. There is no conspiracy to steal words from the language, or to corrupt your ceremony. There are people who feel they are not giving the rights that the rest of society is accorded. They are simply fighting to right what they (and I) see as an inequity. Sometimes emotions run high on these issues for all parties involved. I sincerely hope you are able to, even if you don't agree, understand that this is not an attack but an attempt to correct. These are not people out to make a mockery of your religion or pastimes, they are out to live a free and companion-filled life, with all the perks afforded the rest of society.

 

[MarAzul]

MarAzul, back to the topic at hand.

I hope you are able to look at these changes in different light. There is no conspiracy to steal words from the language, or to corrupt your ceremony. There are people who feel they are not giving the rights that the rest of society is accorded. They are simply fighting to right what they (and I) see as an inequity. Sometimes emotions run high on these issues for all parties involved. I sincerely hope you are able to, even if you don't agree, understand that this is not an attack but an attempt to correct. These are not people out to make a mockery of your religion or pastimes, they are out to live a free and companion-filled life, with all the perks afforded the rest of society.

And I accept your explanation. However, I think, as a group, you all lack leadership and are attacking your grievances haphazardly.

Posted on the other thread.

Poster one
I do not think they would have a problem with the church keeping the term marriage if it meant the government afforded the same rights and tax advantages as a male/female couple.

Me
But the Government, that is Congress changed the tax law to expressly promote the institution of Marriage by giving them the tax advantages. Right or wrong, that is what happen. It seems the answer is to lobby Congress
to correct the blunder not change the meaning of Marriage so that the reason the tax advantage in the code, no longer isolates the intended targets.

Poster two
Judicial branch isn't designed to lobby congress.

me
Well yeah! Simply bitching to the court about the grievance using the 14th amendments equal protection is convoluted and disingenuous to say nothing about probably incorrect.

 

[Further]

And I accept your explanation. However, I think, as a group, you all lack leadership and are attacking your grievances haphazardly.

Posted on the other thread.

Poster one
I do not think they would have a problem with the church keeping the term marriage if it meant the government afforded the same rights and tax advantages as a male/female couple.

Me
But the Government, that is Congress changed the tax law to expressly promote the institution of Marriage by giving them the tax advantages. Right or wrong, that is what happen. It seems the answer is to lobby Congress
to correct the blunder not change the meaning of Marriage so that the reason the tax advantage in the code, no longer isolates the intended targets.

Poster two
Judicial branch isn't designed to lobby congress.

me
Well yeah! Simply bitching to the court about the grievance using the 14th amendments equal protection is convoluted and disingenuous to say nothing about probably incorrect.

What I'm trying to get at in our dialogue is not the right or wrong of the situation, I don't believe that I can convince you here, on a message board, at least not today. What I'm hoping is that you come away not feeling like the gays are attacking your cherished institutions haphazardly, but that they are trying to fix what they perceive as unjust application of rights throughout society. I'm talking about motivation, not who is right. Hence, it's not stealing a word, but fixing an injustice. Once again, I am not talking about who is right, you can replace fixing an injustice with fixing a perceived injustice. The motives are good and honorable.

 

[crandc]

When someone invites me to join the human race, presumably by "going straight", I am not the one attacking.

 

[MarAzul]

What I'm trying to get at in our dialogue is not the right or wrong of the situation, I don't believe that I can convince you here, on a message board, at least not today. What I'm hoping is that you come away not feeling like the gays are attacking your cherished institutions haphazardly, but that they are trying to fix what they perceive as unjust application of rights throughout society. I'm talking about motivation, not who is right. Hence, it's not stealing a word, but fixing an injustice. Once again, I am not talking about who is right, you can replace fixing an injustice with fixing a perceived injustice. The motives are good and honorable.

Well I am about done with this, no this will do.

The word Gay was usurped in short order, probably before your time here, but usurped is the right term. It didn't change over a long time period like so many words, no it happen bang! The word was out, Gay meant what it does today. You never see it used since in the old way, except in old movies.

I gave you my perception on this all coming about due to the tax code but if that isn't true then good luck with your mission, fighting for rights.

I now give you the advise to read the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Jefferson gave us all the prescription for freedom. Trying to persuade men to grant you rights is a fools mission. Sometime you can get justice for wrongs done but granting rights is simply above the pay grade of mortal men. Your rights are a gift from your creator. If you don't have the ones you think you should have, you ought to know exactly why damn near immediately. Presenting convoluted arguments like waving the 14th amendment before men no matter how high you go is.... You fill in the final word.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

SlyPokerDog just went from a hilariously incoherent grumpy old man to an asshole real quick

 

[mobes23]

Let's not forget that we've also been given words by our gay brethren. Thanks, Dan Savage, for giving us the word 'santorum'.

If you don't know the word, google it (at home, not at work).

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Well I am about done with this, no this will do.

The word Gay was usurped in short order, probably before your time here, but usurped is the right term. It didn't change over a long time period like so many words, no it happen bang! The word was out, Gay meant what it does today. You never see it used since in the old way, except in old movies.

Usurped? Really? To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority.

So the word Gay was taken from you by force or there should have been some sort of a legal dictionary hearing about an additional use of the word? I'm just not understanding your complaint Marzy.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

SlyPokerDog just went from a hilariously incoherent grumpy old man to an asshole real quick

Hoojacks, please focus on attacking the post and not the poster. If you don't like what someone is posting then say that but the personal insults need to stop.

(Unless you want to make them about me.)

Thanks.

 

[MarAzul]

Usurped? Really? To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority.

So the word Gay was taken from you by force or there should have been some sort of a legal dictionary hearing about an additional use of the word? I'm just not understanding your complaint Marzy.

Yes well you can use the term seized. The meaning was changed. I am not complaining about it, but I did observe it happen. Actually I am not complaining about anything but I do observe that people
seem to want to fall under the meaning of another word "Married" to reap the tax benefits afforded to that group and call it a right.

I sort of wonder if they know what they do? In our system Rights are given by the Creator and Congress controls tax law, not the courts.

 

[Denny Crane]

And I accept your explanation. However, I think, as a group, you all lack leadership and are attacking your grievances haphazardly.

Posted on the other thread.

Poster one
I do not think they would have a problem with the church keeping the term marriage if it meant the government afforded the same rights and tax advantages as a male/female couple.

Me
But the Government, that is Congress changed the tax law to expressly promote the institution of Marriage by giving them the tax advantages. Right or wrong, that is what happen. It seems the answer is to lobby Congress
to correct the blunder not change the meaning of Marriage so that the reason the tax advantage in the code, no longer isolates the intended targets.

Poster two
Judicial branch isn't designed to lobby congress.

me
Well yeah! Simply bitching to the court about the grievance using the 14th amendments equal protection is convoluted and disingenuous to say nothing about probably incorrect.

The 14th is correct. The states cannot discriminate against one group of people when others are granted the benefits in question.

In this case, the states do recognize the benefit of marriage, which includes many thousands of rules and regulations written into law and bylaws.

There can be no "separate but equal" anymore. See brown v board of education. So civil unions or some second set of even nearly identical rules and regulations doesn't pass muster.

No separate drinking fountains, schools, bathrooms, or marriage.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Yes well you can use the term seized. The meaning was changed. I am not complaining about it, but I did observe it happen. Actually I am not complaining about anything but I do observe that people
seem to want to fall under the meaning of another word "Married" to reap the tax benefits afforded to that group and call it a right.

I sort of wonder if they know what they do? In our system Rights are given by the Creator and Congress controls tax law, not the courts.

So gay people who are married shouldn't have the same tax benefits as straight people? That's your complaint or are you upset that gay people can be legally joined at it's being called marriage?

 

[maxiep]

Wouldn't it just be easier if government got out of the marriage business? Civil unions for everyone who is of the age of consent (gay, straight, polygamous, polyandrous, etc.). If you want the imprimatur of marriage, go to a religious institution.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

How about this, we'll get rid of the word marriage all together and usurp the term Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich. If a man and woman want to get married we'll call it a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich. If two men want to get married we'll call it a Peanut Butter and Peanut Butter Sandwich and if two women want to get married we'll call it a Jelly and Jelly sandwich. That way everyone can have a sandwich but we'll instantly know what kind of sandwich they have by what the call it.

 

[mobes23]

I don't get this thread at all...gays didn't take over the word, but (to their credit) they embraced it and took pride in it. The words 'gay' and '***got' used to be pretty derogatory -- they were labels given to pick on homosexuals. It's not like they woke up one day and said, 'gee, what word can we take over today?' and then picked the word 'gay'. Instead, they took a derogatory label, embraced it and turned it around to a word they have pride in. More successfully with 'gay' than '***got', but a good effort on both fronts.

If you want to get mad at anyone, get mad at the people that turned the word into a derogatory label, because they were the ones that created the new meaning. All gay people did was embrace it (and that was no small feat).

 

[porkchopexpress]

I don't get this thread at all...gays didn't take over the word, but (to their credit) they embraced it and took pride in it. The words 'gay' and '***got' used to be pretty derogatory -- they were labels given to pick on homosexuals. It's not like they woke up one day and said, 'gee, what word can we take over today?' and then picked the word 'gay'. Instead, they took a derogatory label, embraced it and turned it around to a word they have pride in. More successfully with 'gay' than '***got', but a good effort on both fronts.

If you want to get mad at anyone, get mad at the people that turned the word into a derogatory label, because they were the ones that created the new meaning. All gay people did was embrace it.

LIES! They held a secret members only meeting and conspired to steal the word.

 

[MarAzul]

The 14th is correct. The states cannot discriminate against one group of people when others are granted the benefits in question.

In this case, the states do recognize the benefit of marriage, which includes many thousands of rules and regulations written into law and bylaws.

There can be no "separate but equal" anymore. See brown v board of education. So civil unions or some second set of even nearly identical rules and regulations doesn't pass muster.

No separate drinking fountains, schools, bathrooms, or marriage.

I disagree Deny
Marriage was defined by the church and then by the states in this country. Regulated by the states and who could marry or not. The 14th amendment was not violated until after the 16th amendment was passed and then only after Congress defined income exceptions in the tax code. Even then, I doubt it is violated because Congress intended to give preference to married couples of men and women. No one is precluded for joining that group.

I am sure you are not suggesting that Congress' intention include men men, women women.

No I think the tax code is mucking up the life of many people today, not just gay's.

 

[MarAzul]

Wouldn't it just be easier if government got out of the marriage business? Civil unions for everyone who is of the age of consent (gay, straight, polygamous, polyandrous, etc.). If you want the imprimatur of marriage, go to a religious institution.

Bingo!

 

[3RA1N1AC]

If I like sticking cucumbers up my ass; does that mean I'm gay?

no

neither is getting fucked in the ass with a dildo by your girlfriend, unless the dildo is penis shaped

i recommend a dildo shaped like a womans fist, fingernails included, just so theres no confusion

beating off is gay though, you are giving a handjob to a dude

 

[MarAzul]

How about this, we'll get rid of the word marriage all together and usurp the term Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich. If a man and woman want to get married we'll call it a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich. If two men want to get married we'll call it a Peanut Butter and Peanut Butter Sandwich and if two women want to get married we'll call it a Jelly and Jelly sandwich. That way everyone can have a sandwich but we'll instantly know what kind of sandwich they have by what the call it.

Maybe change the tax code so the Govment doesn't distinguish your associations of any kind. The word is not in the Constitution, only the tax code.

 

[crandc]

MarAzul, don't know who you are, appeared out of nowhere to write ungrammatical, illogical, historically and linguistically incorrect blatherings about gays. Over and over.

It's pretty boring and I'd rather put my energy into Pride Week activities. Not to mention the job I'm actually being paid to do. My last word not my word but is from the kick ass awesome Greta Christina:

Other people’s love lives are none of your business. Other people’s sex lives are none of your business. You have your collective head entirely up your collective ass. The fact that you think other people’s loves lives and sex lives are any of your business, the fact that you think they hurt you in any way, is just pathetic and sad. It has nothing to do with you. And it’s a sign of just how twisted and small your lives are that you want to squelch other people’s lives and loves in order to preserve your own rigid, backwards ideas about gender. It’s a sign of just how twisted and small your lives are that you want to force your ideas of a petty, vengeful god obsessed with the details of people’s sex lives onto everyone around you. So try minding your own beeswax for a change. History is going to look back and see you for the short-sighted, cold-hearted, narrow-minded bigots that you are. This country is moving forward — this world is moving forward — and you are being left in the sad, sad dust. To choke.

And queer people — go party! Have an awesome Pride Day!”

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Maybe change the tax code so the Govment doesn't distinguish your associations of any kind. The word is not in the Constitution, only the tax code.

So your complaint is that an additional 10% of the population will now enjoy a tax benefit that currently 50% of the population takes advantage of?