I thought that only applied to Philadelphia. Ah I get it. New York: Boos; Philadelphia: Boos and Snowballs; Montreal: Riots.
No, not like Philadelphia at all. Us New Yorkers restrict ourselves to civilized booing. Barbaric Philly fans will often resort to actual violence. Only soccer hooligans are worse.
No, not like Philadelphia at all. Us New Yorkers restrict ourselves to civilized booing. Barbaric Philly fans will often resort to actual violence. Only soccer hooligans are worse.
hey when the phillies won and we only turned over like 5 cars and broke into about 4 or 5 stores we were considered under control :-p
Agreed. Also, the other Scott needs one for using apostrophes.
Yeah. I didn't feel like commenting on this because of all the stuff with the correcting of spelling and grammar blowing over, but improper use of apostrophes is an annoyance.
As per some earlier discussion: It doesn't matter whether sexual orientation is a product of biology or choice. Something does not need to be biologically determined to be legitimate. If I recall correctly, the U.S. Constitution already provides protection for things that are the product of choice - like, oh, you know, religion. If choice of faith can be respected, why can't choice of (legal-aged and consenting) sexual partner not also be protected?
Exactly what I saw. If it's biological, then it's discriminating against people for something they can't help. If it's by choice, then it's discriminating against people based on a choice they make. Granted, we can discriminate against people based on things that are choices, like if someone chooses to rob a bank. However, the choice to be gay, if it exists, is a choice that hurts nobody. Thus it would be discriminatory and anti-freedom to punish that choice in any way.
The "choice" to be gay does hurt people. In particular it hurts the spouse of the person who lived a lie rather than come clean and admit who and what they really are.
If someone is gay they need to just come out and say it or (at the very least) not live a life based on lies.
The "choice" to be gay does hurt people. In particular it hurts the spouse of the person who lived a lie rather than come clean and admit who and what they really are.
If someone is gay they need to just come out and say it or (at the very least) not live a life based on lies.
Only if they're married, and that's not inherent in the choice to be gay. The problem isn't the gayness...it's the betrayal/deception. No one is saying that that is acceptable. And sometimes people don't KNOW. You know what also hurts? Heterosexual adultery. That's not banned, so why ban gay marriage, even if your point WAS completely valid?
The "choice" to be gay does hurt people. In particular it hurts the spouse of the person who lived a lie rather than come clean and admit who and what they really are.
That's such a straw man as to be laughable. Bonus points for the begged question.
The "choice" to be gay does hurt people. In particular it hurts the spouse of the person who lived a lie rather than come clean and admit who and what they really are.
If someone is gay they need to just come out and say it or (at the very least) not live a life based on lies.
Only if they're married, and that's not inherent in the choice to be gay. The problem isn't the gayness...it's the betrayal/deception. No one is saying that that is acceptable. And sometimes people don't KNOW. You know what also hurts? Heterosexual adultery. That's not banned, so why ban gay marriage, even if your point WAS completely valid?
All forms of cheating in a relationship are harmful. Adultery is not banned but it carries a very hefty fine (divorce) if the wronged party chooses to pursue it.
Either way the problem is the betrayal/deception.
Once gay marriage is made 100% legal we will see the same problems (adultery/divorce/etc) in the married gay community as we see in the married heterosexual community.
Once gay marriage is made 100% legal we will see the same problems (adultery/divorce/etc) in the married gay community as we see in the married heterosexual community.
Once gay marriage is made 100% legal we will see the same problems (adultery/divorce/etc) in the married gay community as we see in the married heterosexual community.
This is a reason for you to keep homosexual marriage illegal?
Once gay marriage is made 100% legal we will see the same problems (adultery/divorce/etc) in the married gay community as we see in the married heterosexual community.
This is a reason for you to keep homosexual marriage illegal?
For me, this has always been a reason to support gay marriage. More marriage (of any sort) inevitably means more divorce. More divorce means more business.
Also, we're New Yorker's. We'll boo our own sport's teams.
I've noticed this. What gives?
As for Nuri's comment, I agree wholeheartedly. Don't betray someone you love. Is it really that hard to ask people not to do that one, simple thing? Apparently, it is.
Update: Why not make heterosexual marriage illegal? I mean, there are a few good points to marriage, but I think something like a civil union should be available for everybody, so we can shed some of the connotative emotional baggage of "marriage." I also think civil unions should be fairly easy and painless to create and dissolve, so that people would be more encouraged to use them (as in the case of households). For instance, long-term roommates could have a civil union, which would give them the benefits of being part of a household, but not have to deal with the connotative / religious aspects (not to mention illegality in the case of same-gender households) of marriage.
Maybe this already exists in some form. Lawyers, any thoughts on "co-habitation contracts"?
The "choice" to be gay does hurt people. In particular it hurts the spouse of the person who lived a lie rather than come clean and admit who and what they really are.
You know what might help that go away? If DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS WENT AWAY, and people didn't feel like they needed to fake it.
Yeah, crazy thought just treating homosexuals like normal people.
But they're gay. We can't have that. Homosexuality doesn't exist in nature, and the Lord Himself decreed it to be bad. Don't you read your Bible? If you let gays marry, the next thing you know, they'll be trying to convert good straight men to their side. Then we'll stop having babies and everything will descend into chaos! CHAOS!
As per some earlier discussion: It doesn't matter whether sexual orientation is a product of biology or choice. Something does not need to be biologically determined to be legitimate. If I recall correctly, the U.S. Constitution already provides protection for things that are the product of choice - like, oh, you know, religion. If choice of faith can be respected, why can't choice of (legal-aged and consenting) sexual partner not also be protected?
Exactly what I saw. If it's biological, then it's discriminating against people for something they can't help. If it's by choice, then it's discriminating against people based on a choice they make. Granted, we can discriminate against people based on things that are choices, like if someone chooses to rob a bank. However, the choice to be gay, if it exists, is a choice that hurts nobody. Thus it would be discriminatory and anti-freedom to punish that choice in any way.
The "choice" to be gay does hurt people. In particular it hurts the spouse of the person who lived a lie rather than come clean and admit who and what they really are.
If someone is gay they need to just come out and say it or (at the very least) not live a life based on lies.
Yeah, the "choice" to be gay certainly does hurt people. Who would voluntarily choose a lifestyle that invited so much hatred and intolerance, and such unequal treatment under the law? With people like Fred Phelps around, who would actually elect to be gay? Sort of makes the open homosexual look, I don't know, brave, like somebody who deserves respect and consideration as a fellow human being. What a revolutionary concept.
I have a minor problem with the "who would choose to be gay?" argument, not because it is invalid, but because the gay lifestyle (outside of dealing with bigots) could be very desirable to some. I am bisexual, mostly because I am attracted to character, not tissue and organs - so maybe I am looking at this from a skewed perspective, but wouldn't it rock to have a partner that was even more socially and biologically similar? You can fulfill each others needs because they are so similar to your own, you have a higher likelihood of having similar attitudes, interests, and tastes, and the traditional man vs. woman relationship issues are mostly moot (like the toilet seat position, number of shoes vs. number or gadgets, etc.) I really think that a relationship with your best friend is the only way to go, and too many romantic relationships are between people that would never be friends if their loins didn't spasm giddily when they were near each other, let alone BEST friends.
Being a conscious decision and being biological in origin are not the only options. Many people attribute homosexuality to how a child is reaised, and although recent research is continuing to discredit this viewpoint, it is still a popular one, and a commonly cited reason for preventing gay marriage (for fear of increased overall social acceptance), firing gay teachers, and not allowing gay couples to adopt children.
Once gay marriage is made 100% legal we will see the same problems (adultery/divorce/etc) in the married gay community as we see in the married heterosexual community.
And?
There is no and other than to point out that equality means you get the good and the bad.
In the next few days we'll see the final vote counts and see just how close this election was. With luck Obama will have a large enough margin of victory to be able to claim to have a mandate.
Comments
Oh, and the fact that Scott Johnson has the spelling/grammar banner is hi-larious.
If someone is gay they need to just come out and say it or (at the very least) not live a life based on lies.
Either way the problem is the betrayal/deception.
Once gay marriage is made 100% legal we will see the same problems (adultery/divorce/etc) in the married gay community as we see in the married heterosexual community.
As for Nuri's comment, I agree wholeheartedly. Don't betray someone you love. Is it really that hard to ask people not to do that one, simple thing? Apparently, it is.
Update: Why not make heterosexual marriage illegal? I mean, there are a few good points to marriage, but I think something like a civil union should be available for everybody, so we can shed some of the connotative emotional baggage of "marriage." I also think civil unions should be fairly easy and painless to create and dissolve, so that people would be more encouraged to use them (as in the case of households). For instance, long-term roommates could have a civil union, which would give them the benefits of being part of a household, but not have to deal with the connotative / religious aspects (not to mention illegality in the case of same-gender households) of marriage.
Maybe this already exists in some form. Lawyers, any thoughts on "co-habitation contracts"?
Barack Obama, President Elect.
In the next few days we'll see the final vote counts and see just how close this election was. With luck Obama will have a large enough margin of victory to be able to claim to have a mandate.