The perfect way to handle gay marriage

[StoneGold]

OK, now no one gets married. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/11/MN2V1172KL.DTL&feed=rss.news)

Kind of cutting off the nose to spite the face, but I guess I finally understand the claims of gay marriage somehow harming marriage in general.


Seriously though, ban marriage altogether, you don't have to worry about gay marriage.

[thespianphryne]

Comedy gold.


-Das

[Shellhead]

Seriously though, ban marriage altogether, you don't have to worry about gay marriage.

The only guys who seem to actually *want* to get married these days are gay. All the other guys are getting dragged reluctantly to the altar by their women.

[thehod]

The only guys who seem to actually *want* to get married these days are gay. All the other guys are getting dragged reluctantly to the altar by their women.

You don't get out much do you Shell?

[Shellhead]

You don't get out much do you Shell?

Actually it's two close guy friends of mine that don't get out much. They are both headed for the altar this summer and thus apparently kept on a very short leash by their bridezillas.

[Paul McEnery]

OK, now no one gets married. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/11/MN2V1172KL.DTL&feed=rss.news)

Kind of cutting off the nose to spite the face, but I guess I finally understand the claims of gay marriage somehow harming marriage in general.


Seriously though, ban marriage altogether, you don't have to worry about gay marriage.

I loved this bit of stupidity from the article:

Only a handful of people - including religious officials, state legislators, retired judges and magistrates - may marry couples under California law. County clerks also may marry couples, and they may deputize any member of the public to perform the ceremonies.

Although, of course, absolutely anyone can become ULC "religious officials", so that's an awfully big hand, ain't it. Especially when the clerks can deputize anyone at the drop of a hat.

[Charles RB]

No one's getting the ceremony but they're still allowed to have the license. Just means they need their own ceremony.

But I approve this "no one gets married" idea. You can't play nice with the other kids, Heterosexual Right-Wing America, the toy gets taken away and put back in the box until you behave.

[StoneGold]

No one's getting the ceremony but they're still allowed to have the license. Just means they need their own ceremony.


I know, but it's less funny that way.

[Ontir]

OK, now no one gets married. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/11/MN2V1172KL.DTL&feed=rss.news)

Kind of cutting off the nose to spite the face, but I guess I finally understand the claims of gay marriage somehow harming marriage in general.


Seriously though, ban marriage altogether, you don't have to worry about gay marriage.

Here's how I'd handle it, as anything less than full equality is unacceptable:

Marriage, which is inherently flawed as a legal contract (it goes on forever, without a determined amount of time), should be a religious ceremony. Any church may allow or refuse to perform it. They do this now, every day of the week, for a variety of reasons, and that's certainly their right to their rite.

Civil Partnership should be the legal side of it. In order for your religious marriage to be legal, you have to have your CP as well, but you don't have to go the church route to get a CP. That's kind of how it is in France now. Everyone, gay, straight, or lesbian can have a Civil Partnership, and in that legal state all have the exact same rights and responsibilities, regardless of the genders involved.

[Pól Rua]

Although, of course, absolutely anyone can become ULC "religious officials", so that's an awfully big hand, ain't it. Especially when the clerks can deputize anyone at the drop of a hat.

I'm a ULC religious official, a Discordian Pope, and a poo flinging munky.
I'm OVERqualified.

[PatrickG]

OK, now no one gets married. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/11/MN2V1172KL.DTL&feed=rss.news)

Kind of cutting off the nose to spite the face, but I guess I finally understand the claims of gay marriage somehow harming marriage in general.


Seriously though, ban marriage altogether, you don't have to worry about gay marriage.

They're still issuing licenses, right? The issue is that government appointees are not presiding over ceremonies.

I, like many people here, am ordained in the Universal Life Church.

If I lived there, man-oh-man, I'd be making a KILLING performing marriage ceremonies.

Hell, I'd do it for, say, $20 an hour. Surely a wedding is worth that? I'd just write up a tasteful yet secular speech, put on a nice suit and pick a pretty spot in the park and set up shop.

[Gilda Dent]

They're still issuing licenses, right? The issue is that government appointees are not presiding over ceremonies.

I, like many people here, am ordained in the Universal Life Church.

If I lived there, man-oh-man, I'd be making a KILLING performing marriage ceremonies.

Hell, I'd do it for, say, $20 an hour. Surely a wedding is worth that? I'd just write up a tasteful yet secular speech, put on a nice suit and pick a pretty spot in the park and set up shop.

Also, Bakersfield, which is where the Kern county courthouse is, is a city of about a quarter million people. There are about a half dozen wedding chapels where you can get married relatively cheaply, and those gay couples that do attend a church are probably members of a gay friendly church such as the UUA or MCC and can have their weddings there.

I'd imagine the situations aren't much different in the county seats of the other counties.

[Adam C]

Marriage, which is inherently flawed as a legal contract (it goes on forever, without a determined amount of time)...

That doesn't really explain why it is flawed as a legal contract though. (Nor how Civil Partnerships would differ in this regard.) It's duration is perpetual until the parties involved decide to dissolve it.

[Slam_Bradley]

This just seems like a non-story. Beyond the other alternatives that have been previously stated, government officials aren't required to do marriages. We have two magistrates in my county. One does marriages, the other does not. He doesn't want to take the time to do them. But somehow that doesn't make the news.

[Paradox]

It's the timing...and the extrapolation that an extra 10% increase in their workload would somehow put them under = not very thinly disguised bigotry.

[Ontir]

That doesn't really explain why it is flawed as a legal contract though. (Nor how Civil Partnerships would differ in this regard.) It's duration is perpetual until the parties involved decide to dissolve it.

Now admittedly, it's been awhile since I took a law class, but what I was told is that to be valid, a contract must specify a time. That's part of the reason a Life Sentence is for like 999 years. "Til death do us part..." isn't valid. In a Civil Partnership, some length of time would have to be put in there, so that it's a valid agreement. This is something that could be negotiated by the couple. Maybe you're old fashioned and want 999 years. Maybe you've been through it before, and consider yourself a realist and want a 7 year contract with an option to renew. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about, sorry I didn't include it earlier.

[MarvelKnight]

I did not know that there were a lot of gays in Kern and Butte.

[StoneGold]

I did not know that there were a lot of gays in Kern and Butte.

There weren't, till they started recruiting.

[Adam C]

Now admittedly, it's been awhile since I took a law class, but what I was told is that to be valid, a contract must specify a time. That's part of the reason a Life Sentence is for like 999 years. "Til death do us part..." isn't valid. In a Civil Partnership, some length of time would have to be put in there, so that it's a valid agreement. This is something that could be negotiated by the couple. Maybe you're old fashioned and want 999 years. Maybe you've been through it before, and consider yourself a realist and want a 7 year contract with an option to renew. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about, sorry I didn't include it earlier.

Ah that makes more sense. But "Til death do us part..." is an official part of Christian marriage ceremonies (I don't know about other religions like Judaism or Islam) that has been commonly associated with marriage. But is it actually used in Civil Marriage law? Referring to North Carolina marriage statutes (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0051) I find the process merely requires (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_51/GS_51-1.html) the free and serious consent of the two parties in presence of a religious official or magistrate.

Of course I know piss all about law, but I tried looking this one up. So far the definition given (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Contracts) at Cornell law school doesn't mention the necessity of specifying time. And that's assuming that civil marriage is actually legally defined as a contract. On that point I can only guess.

[Serik]

The state shouldn't give two shits about who's married and who isn't. If you want your church/family/Star Trek club to marry you to the man, woman, or goat of your choosing, have at it.

What really annoys me is that the state bestows financial benefits to married couples. This wouldn't be an issue if income taxes went away entirely and a nondiscriminatory flat tax was imposed, but that's for another rant.

[Ontir]

Ah that makes more sense. But "Til death do us part..." is an official part of Christian marriage ceremonies (I don't know about other religions like Judaism or Islam) that has been commonly associated with marriage. But is it actually used in Civil Marriage law? Referring to North Carolina marriage statutes (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0051) I find the process merely requires (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_51/GS_51-1.html) the free and serious consent of the two parties in presence of a religious official or magistrate.

Of course I know piss all about law, but I tried looking this one up. So far the definition given (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Contracts) at Cornell law school doesn't mention the necessity of specifying time. And that's assuming that civil marriage is actually legally defined as a contract. On that point I can only guess.

Right, which is why that line remains a part of religious marriage, as opposed to Civil Partnerships.

Actually, the government does, and should have an active interest in having married/partnered people. These unions are generally more stable, and do rather a lot for our society. We need them, and we need more people to be a part of them, which is why they need to let us gays be a part of it NOW!

[LewMoxinsghost]

Right, which is why that line remains a part of religious marriage, as opposed to Civil Partnerships.

Actually, the government does, and should have an active interest in having married/partnered people. These unions are generally more stable, and do rather a lot for our society. We need them, and we need more people to be a part of them, which is why they need to let us gays be a part of it NOW!

I'm very skeptical of the possibility that this would be a truly progressive move forward. I suppose it could be, but I would have to see the math. For example, there are technological improvements in mental health and the medical community in general that could enable it as a positive move. But I can't think of any historical examples where the bigger picture was made better by the empowered people officially endorsing this behavior for the public at large. In fact there are many well-documented incidences of it making things worse in terms of quality of living. How does the public at large benefit from such a move? By giving same sex couples legitimacy as married people, it sort of weakens the concept of marriage, even if it goes under the rhetorical guise of civil partnerships. I think this is why so many are still opposed to the idea.

[Paradox]

I'd like more info on how marriage in general is more stable (looks at 50% divorce rates) and the benefits society accrues at all from marriage, regardless of genders involved.

[Adam C]

But I can't think of any historical examples where the bigger picture was made better by the empowered people officially endorsing this behavior for the public at large. In fact there are many well-documented incidences of it making things worse in terms of quality of living. How does the public at large benefit from such a move?

What behaviour? Marriage? Sorry, but your terms of reference are a bit vague here.

By giving same sex couples legitimacy as married people, it sort of weakens the concept of marriage, even if it goes under the rhetorical guise of civil partnerships.

How does some same sex marriage weaken the concept of marriage?

I think this is why so many are still opposed to the idea.

Unfortunately, this is only true if we rule out persistent bigotry as a factor.

[Flâneur]

By giving same sex couples legitimacy as married people, it sort of weakens the concept of marriage, even if it goes under the rhetorical guise of civil partnerships. I think this is why so many are still opposed to the idea.

????

How is it less legitimate? Same sex couples are as capable of signing those contracts and maintaining them as opposite sex couples are. The state (and religions) have also altered the concept of marriage whenever it suited them - it's a flexible concept and there's no reason why it shouldn't include same sex couples, especially when next to no effort is required to allow it.

What are these examples of publicly accepted same sex unions harming society?

[Matt Algren]

I'm very skeptical of the possibility that this would be a truly progressive move forward. I suppose it could be, but I would have to see the math. For example, there are technological improvements in mental health and the medical community in general that could enable it as a positive move.Stopping here for a moment. Please explain the "technological improvements in mental health and the medical community". What are the purposes of these improvements, and what are the desired outcomes? Answer this question first. Thanks.

But I can't think of any historical examples where the bigger picture was made better by the empowered people officially endorsing this behavior for the public at large. In fact there are many well-documented incidences of it making things worse in terms of quality of living. How does the public at large benefit from such a move? By giving same sex couples legitimacy as married people, it sort of weakens the concept of marriage, even if it goes under the rhetorical guise of civil partnerships. I think this is why so many are still opposed to the idea.Define "this behavior". Provide at least five legitimate examples of "this behavior" leading to "making things worse in terms of general quality of living". Explain how "[this behavior] sort of weakens the concept of marriage".

Thank you in advance for your reply.

[Tom]

But I can't think of any historical examples where the bigger picture was made better by the empowered people officially endorsing this behavior for the public at large.

Then you're not looking hard enough. Loving v. Virginia. The dissolution of anti-miscegenation laws, allowing blacks and whites to legally marry each other.

[StoneGold]

How does some same sex marriage weaken the concept of marriage?



Because gay sex is icky.

[Matt Algren]

Bumping just in case LewMoxinsghost, who was online for quite a while today, hasn't seen the questions about his post.

[Spike-X]

I hope he answers. As a straight guy, I'm interested in hearing about how same-sex marriage is going to affect my life, or the lives of my children, in any damn way whatsoever.

[J. Robb]

I hope he answers. As a straight guy, I'm interested in hearing about how same-sex marriage is going to affect my life, or the lives of my children, in any damn way whatsoever.
It won't. It only effects those who previously did not have the right to marry.

It's all upside, no downside. Why it's taken so long for the western world to legalize it, I don't know. We're stupid.

[StoneGold]

I hope he answers. As a straight guy, I'm interested in hearing about how same-sex marriage is going to affect my life, or the lives of my children, in any damn way whatsoever.

Because gay sex is icky.

[Tommy]

I'm still curious about these civilizations that went in the crapper because of homosexuality.

If you want to play the correlation game, Rome started to fall apart as it became less tolerant of homosexuality.

[PatrickG]

I'm still curious about these civilizations that went in the crapper because of homosexuality.

If you want to play the correlation game, Rome started to fall apart as it became less tolerant of homosexuality.

Did Greece ever really fall, arguably? They became less important as homosexuality was more taboo but I'd inclined to think the most stable civilizations are the most laissez faire.

[Serik]

We'll be a nation of crumbing infrastructure, enormous public debt, and widespread incompetence...

BUT AT LEAST THEM THERE HOMOS WON'T BE MARRIED!!1111

[Spike-X]

Hrm...I guess Comic Boy Man from Mars has better things to do than answer our pesky questions.

[LewMoxinsghost]

Bumping just in case LewMoxinsghost, who was online for quite a while today, hasn't seen the questions about his post.

Hey, sincere thanks Matt. I was looking for this thread earlier and I feel like an idiot now that I know my concern was pretty much dealt with in the opening paragraph. I'm not here to provoke anyone... you grow up with certain verbal traditions and sometimes you don't realize they can be unintentionally offensive to people.

I think marriage can be thought of as a technology. Very few people master it, a lot of folks dabble with it, and everyone wants it who has ever really been in love. The problem is making that pie-in-the sky dreamy feeling of love work in the physical realm. In defense of verbal traditions though, religious or otherwise, many of them, though occasionally hurtful to those outside the sphere, are designed to support the union of two people in love. This technology is still primitive by what everyone knows is possible, the same way it still takes my Mac 10 gigs to churn out an animated graphic that is less than two megabytes.

[Alex L]

Hey, sincere thanks Matt. I was looking for this thread earlier and I feel like an idiot now that I know my concern was pretty much dealt with in the opening paragraph. I'm not here to provoke anyone... you grow up with certain verbal traditions and sometimes you don't realize they can be unintentionally offensive to people.

I think marriage can be thought of as a technology. Very few people master it, a lot of folks dabble with it, and everyone wants it who has ever really been in love. The problem is making that pie-in-the sky dreamy feeling of love work in the physical realm. In defense of verbal traditions though, religious or otherwise, many of them, though occasionally hurtful to those outside the sphere, are designed to support the union of two people in love. This technology is still primitive by what everyone knows is possible, the same way it still takes my Mac 10 gigs to churn out an animated graphic that is less than two megabytes.

I have to be honest -- I really don't get what it is you're trying to say.

I think I sort of get it -- marriage is like, say, a PC and while many of us see the graphical interface and understand how to point and click to use it, less of us can open the computer case and be able to assemble/disassemble and even fewer of us are able to stamp together our own circuit boards and really have mastered every aspect of computing.

...or at least I think that's what you're getting at? I also don't see how it fits into the discussion.

[LewMoxinsghost]

I have to be honest -- I really don't get what it is you're trying to say.

I think I sort of get it -- marriage is like, say, a PC and while many of us see the graphical interface and understand how to point and click to use it, less of us can open the computer case and be able to assemble/disassemble and even fewer of us are able to stamp together our own circuit boards and really have mastered every aspect of computing.

...or at least I think that's what you're getting at? I also don't see how it fits into the discussion.

Yep, you got sort of what I was getting at. Thanks. I was thinking more in terms of software and software upgrades, but hardware is maybe more fitting. It fits into the discussion in that it can work as a metaphor for what is going on in this situation without getting too crude.

It fits into the discussion because it is in defense of my original question, which was how this "patch" can be beneficial to the larger population? I wasn't trying to make any sort of bold judgement or statement. It is nice to see that people still remember the time when I thought I was being mocked, and who in particular does it outright now, months after I've already apologized and paid for the misunderstanding. The most appropriate response I felt was the one that pointed out the legal case covering this topic. But I still don't feel like my (apparently offensive) question has been answered.

Honestly, you guys expect me to break into bible verse or do a research paper or something? Please. I was just trying to ask a question and vent a little frustration at what is to me somewhat strange.

[LewMoxinsghost]

The state shouldn't give two shits about who's married and who isn't. If you want your church/family/Star Trek club to marry you to the man, woman, or goat of your choosing, have at it.

What really annoys me is that the state bestows financial benefits to married couples. This wouldn't be an issue if income taxes went away entirely and a nondiscriminatory flat tax was imposed, but that's for another rant.

You said it here... the subject of fiscal responsibility enters into many people's beliefs and practices of marriage. So, traditional couples get rightfully offended at the idea of girl/goat newlyweds in front of them at tax/welfare/disease control centers.

[Spike-X]

You said it here... the subject of fiscal responsibility enters into many people's beliefs and practices of marriage. So, traditional couples get rightfully offended at the idea of girl/goat newlyweds in front of them at tax/welfare/disease control centers.

WTF?!?!?!?!

[Spike-X]

Just trying to make the invisible post visible...

[Nick Soapdish]

Yep, you got sort of what I was getting at. Thanks. I was thinking more in terms of software and software upgrades, but hardware is maybe more fitting. It fits into the discussion in that it can work as a metaphor for what is going on in this situation without getting too crude.

It fits into the discussion because it is in defense of my original question, which was how this "patch" can be beneficial to the larger population? I wasn't trying to make any sort of bold judgement or statement. It is nice to see that people still remember the time when I thought I was being mocked, and who in particular does it outright now, months after I've already apologized and paid for the misunderstanding. The most appropriate response I felt was the one that pointed out the legal case covering this topic. But I still don't feel like my (apparently offensive) question has been answered.

Honestly, you guys expect me to break into bible verse or do a research paper or something? Please. I was just trying to ask a question and vent a little frustration at what is to me somewhat strange.

Discriminating against a segment of society is generally beneficial in the short term to the people doing the discriminating. So by denying others financial benefits to marriage .... hey, more for them!

In the longer run, it's not to their benefit because it allows for the possibility of exceptions which can get thrown back in their face. It would also be a big boon to the marriage industry and everything that feeds off of that. Sure, it's a very small segment of society, but with pent up demand.

I also subscribe to the saying that if you lessen some of us, you lessen all of us. Everybody pays for it morally. But of course, that's not something very concrete to latch onto.

But IMO, the real answer is that it doesn't and shouldn't matter to the rest of the population. There isn't any question that a gay relationship cannot get the same legal benefits as a straight relationship. So it's like WoW releasing a patch that makes a suboptimal class better. It doesn't affect any of the other classes other than making it tougher for them to pick on the players that choose that class.

[Matt Algren]

I think marriage can be thought of as a technology. Very few people master it, a lot of folks dabble with it, and everyone wants it who has ever really been in love. The problem is making that pie-in-the sky dreamy feeling of love work in the physical realm. In defense of verbal traditions though, religious or otherwise, many of them, though occasionally hurtful to those outside the sphere, are designed to support the union of two people in love. This technology is still primitive by what everyone knows is possible, the same way it still takes my Mac 10 gigs to churn out an animated graphic that is less than two megabytes.Try thinking of society as the technology instead. This hack repairs a fault in the system that denies certain segments of the population access to the full rights and benefits of being members of the society.

P.S. We're not talking about religious marriage, we're talking about civil marriage, an important distinction when the society has a history of separating church and state.

It fits into the discussion because it is in defense of my original question, which was how this "patch" can be beneficial to the larger population?
I'm not sure that question is relevant. Simply put, I don't care how it helps or hurts the general population. Withholding rights and benefits to a minority because it makes the majority happy isn't something we're supposed to be engaged in, whether the net result is positive or not.

Having said that, I don't see a negative ramification from the state removing this prejudice. I see several positives, including increased inclusion in the system, improved offering of basic human rights, and increased wedding ceremony and reception revenue.

You said it here... the subject of fiscal responsibility enters into many people's beliefs and practices of marriage. So, traditional couples get rightfully offended at the idea of girl/goat newlyweds in front of them at tax/welfare/disease control centers.
I realize that Serik mentioned the goat first, but his was a purposefully outrageous reference. You're talking about it as if it's a part of The Gay Agenda, which is of course absurd.




By the way, you never addressed the questions about your original post. Please do.

[Ontir]

I'm very skeptical of the possibility that this would be a truly progressive move forward. I suppose it could be, but I would have to see the math. For example, there are technological improvements in mental health and the medical community in general that could enable it as a positive move. But I can't think of any historical examples where the bigger picture was made better by the empowered people officially endorsing this behavior for the public at large. In fact there are many well-documented incidences of it making things worse in terms of quality of living. How does the public at large benefit from such a move? By giving same sex couples legitimacy as married people, it sort of weakens the concept of marriage, even if it goes under the rhetorical guise of civil partnerships. I think this is why so many are still opposed to the idea.

Ultimately I don't want to be "unionized" or "institutionalized," I want to be married, but if we have to play semantics until the reality isn't an issue anymore, I'll go for that.

[Gilda Dent]

It fits into the discussion because it is in defense of my original question, which was how this "patch" can be beneficial to the larger population?

It is beneficial to the population as a whole because it benefits a small, but significant portion of the population in an important way while having no appreciable cost to the rest of the population.

How does it benefit heterosexuals? It doesn't, not directly. But neither does it harm them, and it does have some indirect benefits, all the same indirect benefits that affect family and friends of couples getting married.

You said it here... the subject of fiscal responsibility enters into many people's beliefs and practices of marriage. So, traditional couples get rightfully offended at the idea of girl/goat newlyweds in front of them at tax/welfare/disease control centers.

Nice. You hurdled past polygamy and incest to go directly to bestiality.

Are traditional couple also right to be offended by homosexual couples not being subjected to harsh tax penalties that don't affect them? At homosexual couples reaping the same benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples have?

[Alex L]

Yep, you got sort of what I was getting at. Thanks. I was thinking more in terms of software and software upgrades, but hardware is maybe more fitting. It fits into the discussion in that it can work as a metaphor for what is going on in this situation without getting too crude.

It fits into the discussion because it is in defense of my original question, which was how this "patch" can be beneficial to the larger population? I wasn't trying to make any sort of bold judgement or statement. It is nice to see that people still remember the time when I thought I was being mocked, and who in particular does it outright now, months after I've already apologized and paid for the misunderstanding. The most appropriate response I felt was the one that pointed out the legal case covering this topic. But I still don't feel like my (apparently offensive) question has been answered.

Honestly, you guys expect me to break into bible verse or do a research paper or something? Please. I was just trying to ask a question and vent a little frustration at what is to me somewhat strange.

To continue with the "marriage = computers" analogy...

Gay marriage lets more people use computers. That is all.

Your computer will not be stripped for parts.

Your computer will not experience any slowdowns.

Giving other people access to computers will not harm your own computing.

So why would one be so opposed to letting others use a computer?

[Michael P]

To continue with the "marriage = computers" analogy...

Gay marriage lets more people use computers. That is all.

Your computer will not be stripped for parts.

Your computer will not experience any slowdowns.

Giving other people access to computers will not harm your own computing.

So why would one be so opposed to letting others use a computer?

You haven't talked to too many computer nerds, have you?

[Ontir]

I was just watching the KTLA Morning show, here in Los Angeles. George Takei and his partner Brad Altman were among the first to get their marriage license, and there are going to be many, many weddings in the hall in the park in West Hollywood.

There are a few protesters, but in general it's pretty congenial.

[StoneGold]

You haven't talked to too many computer nerds, have you?

The PC/Mac/Other debate alone destroys the analogy.

[Ontir]

Actually it's a sort of Windows/Unix kind of thing. The two can co-exist without warfare or bloodshed.

[StoneGold]

Actually it's a sort of Windows/Unix kind of thing. The two can co-exist without warfare or bloodshed.

Tell that to Spike-X.

[Ontir]

He can be the exception that proves the rule! :wink:

[Nitmo]

here I am to weigh in, but just for the record: I am a straight, married white male living in the USA and just watched a Gay Pride parade on Sunday. I work in the only major US city to elect an openly-gay mayor. (yes, he was in the parade)

I'm just going to take a step out and look at this from both sides of the issue.

The religious argument is obvious and I think that most people here are capable enough to understand why certain religious people object to gay marriage.

Financially: yes, it would boost the marriage industry by about 10%, and accoridng to the parade I watched, it would increase the glitter and leather industries severalfold.

but would it hurt taxes? If 10% of the population were suddenly paying less taxes, it could create budget shortfalls, meaning less social services provided. And since liberals (face it, allowing gay marriage is liberal) tend to not like that, they would turn to alternatives, like raising other taxes or decreasing tax benefits (like that of marriage)

and there is the argument that same-sex marriages do not produce children. I know it's complete BS to assume that you have to be married to have children. But there is a certain logic to the fact that straight marriage facilitates producing offspring (read: future taxpayers).

Then there is the human rights issue. Yes you should be able to legally commit to the one you love. Especially if your love needs domestic citizenship. Are we really afraid of gay foreigners that much?

but then, if anybody can get married to anybody, does that make marriage less special?


Pick my arguments apart all you want, I don't care, I probably won't see them. I doubt anything I say will change your mind, but I at least hope you understand the other side a little more.

[Matt Algren]

Pick my arguments apart all you want, I don't care, I probably won't see them.
Well, then.

Thanks for your input, I guess.

[Grazzt]

Well, then.

Thanks for your input, I guess.

He should have just posted "LALALALALA NOT LISTENING" with his fingers in his ears.

But since he offered to let us pick apart his arguments

The religious argument is obvious and I think that most people here are capable enough to understand why certain religious people object to gay marriage.

No, it's not obvious. Why should we worry about doing things that religious people will find offensive?

Financially: yes, it would boost the marriage industry by about 10%, and accoridng to the parade I watched, it would increase the glitter and leather industries severalfold.

but would it hurt taxes? If 10% of the population were suddenly paying less taxes, it could create budget shortfalls, meaning less social services provided. And since liberals (face it, allowing gay marriage is liberal) tend to not like that, they would turn to alternatives, like raising other taxes or decreasing tax benefits (like that of marriage)

That's a bullshit argument and you know it. First off, you're assuming every single gay person gets married. Next, you're buying the 10% figure, which is also inaccurate (I'm pretty sure actual census figures only place it at 2%). Then you're ignoring the gay people who married heterosexual partners to conform (or for some other reason, like to get a foreign friend a green card), so they're paying less taxes all ready. Add all that up and I you'd have barely a blip on taxes collected.

Then there is the human rights issue. Yes you should be able to legally commit to the one you love. Especially if your love needs domestic citizenship. Are we really afraid of gay foreigners that much?

but then, if anybody can get married to anybody, does that make marriage less special?

People can get married by Elvis impersonators. Marriage is what any individual couple makes of it, no more and no less. It has no special meaning beyond what it's given.

[StoneGold]

Yeah, but why should you get a tax break for being to stupid to wear a condom in the first place? Why do I have to subsidize your stupidity?

[jesse_custer]

No, it's not obvious. Why should we worry about doing things that religious people will find offensive?

I don't think he was saying you should worry about doing things that religious people will find offensive. He said it was obvious why they were against it, which it is.

[Gilda Dent]

here I am to weigh in, but just for the record: I am a straight, married white male living in the USA and just watched a Gay Pride parade on Sunday. I work in the only major US city to elect an openly-gay mayor. (yes, he was in the parade)[quote]

Good to meet you, Nitmo. I'm a gay, Asian female living in the USA. I've participated in a Pride march or two in my time. They're fun. Next time head on out and join. We welcome straight allies.

[QUOTE]The religious argument is obvious and I think that most people here are capable enough to understand why certain religious people object to gay marriage.

No, the religious argument isn't obvious. Why should any religion get to dictate secular public policy? I'm pretty sure that's, like, a violation of the establishment clause.

Financially: yes, it would boost the marriage industry by about 10%, and accoridng to the parade I watched, it would increase the glitter and leather industries severalfold.

Ohhh, burn.

but would it hurt taxes? If 10% of the population were suddenly paying less taxes, it could create budget shortfalls, meaning less social services provided. And since liberals (face it, allowing gay marriage is liberal) tend to not like that, they would turn to alternatives, like raising other taxes or decreasing tax benefits (like that of marriage)

Eh, the 10% thing is decades old and was never accurate. It's actually about 4% for men and about 2% for women. In addition, lesbians have been accounting for twice as many marriages as men, so the biggest group of gays--gay men--is also least likely to marry at a high rate.

The biggest tax impact is at the federal level, and no form of legal recognition occurs there, which means gay couples are penalized, in some cases to the tune of as much as 5% of their take-home income. The number of gay couples, however, is so small compared to straight couples that the difference in taxes collected is negligible at the top. In other words, it's hurting those being penalized a whole lot more than it benefits anyone.

and there is the argument that same-sex marriages do not produce children. I know it's complete BS to assume that you have to be married to have children. But there is a certain logic to the fact that straight marriage facilitates producing offspring (read: future taxpayers).

I'll explain this one to my daughter when she gets old enough.

Also, I find it interesting that you invalidate your own argument, then repeat it again.

Then there is the human rights issue. Yes you should be able to legally commit to the one you love. Especially if your love needs domestic citizenship. Are we really afraid of gay foreigners that much?

It is primarily a human rights issue.

but then, if anybody can get married to anybody, does that make marriage less special?

No.

Pick my arguments apart all you want, I don't care, I probably won't see them. I doubt anything I say will change your mind, but I at least hope you understand the other side a little more.

Thank you for your willingness to engage in a fruitful and productive dialog.

[Charles RB]

but then, if anybody can get married to anybody, does that make marriage less special?

I'd hope not, or logically the fact that millions upon millions of straight people across the world have gotten married will have already made it about as special as finding a sheep in Wales.

[Gilda Dent]

I was soooo tempted to make a really bad, somewhat offensive joke in response to that last post.

I am proud of having restrained myself.

[Michael P]

I'd hope not, or logically the fact that millions upon millions of straight people across the world have gotten married will have already made it about as special as finding a sheep in Wales.

Hey, no need to denigrate your parents' relationship like that.

I was soooo tempted to make a really bad, somewhat offensive joke in response to that last post.

I am proud of having restrained myself.

I, on the other hand, am proud of doing the exact opposite.

[Paul McEnery]

I am proud of having restrained myself.

Present for the wife when she gets home?

[Charles RB]

I was soooo tempted to make a really bad, somewhat offensive joke in response to that last post.


Do it.

You know you want to.

[Gilda Dent]

Never mind.

[Spike-X]

The religious argument is obvious and I think that most people here are capable enough to understand why certain religious people object to gay marriage.

Sure, I understand their arguments. And I disagree with them. I don't think a hysterical minority should be allowed to dictate public policy based on their religious beliefs. If you want to live according to your beliefs, and you harm no person by doing so, go crazy. But don't expect me to follow the same path.

I know it's complete BS to assume that you have to be married to have children.

It's also complete bullshit to assume you have to have (or want) children in order to be married.

But there is a certain logic to the fact that straight marriage facilitates producing offspring (read: future taxpayers).

As does gay marriage. Sure, they may be 'producing' them in different ways, but they're still raising kids in a loving family environment, and isn't that what supposedly matters?

but then, if anybody can get married to anybody, does that make marriage less special?

I'm sure Britney Spears thought her first, 55-hour marriage was very special. Until she sobered up, anyway. But hey, at least it was to a man.

Pick my arguments apart all you want, I don't care, I probably won't see them.

LALALALA!!! I'mnotlisteningI'mnotlisteningI'mnotlistening!!

Grow up.

I doubt anything I say will change your mind, but I at least hope you understand the other side a little more.

I understand the other side just fine. And I disagree with them just as much as I did yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that. I mean, it's not like you're making any new points that haven't already been shot down a hundred times before now.

[Typo Lad]

Here's how I'd handle it, as anything less than full equality is unacceptable:

Marriage, which is inherently flawed as a legal contract (it goes on forever, without a determined amount of time), should be a religious ceremony. Any church may allow or refuse to perform it. They do this now, every day of the week, for a variety of reasons, and that's certainly their right to their rite.

Civil Partnership should be the legal side of it. In order for your religious marriage to be legal, you have to have your CP as well, but you don't have to go the church route to get a CP. That's kind of how it is in France now. Everyone, gay, straight, or lesbian can have a Civil Partnership, and in that legal state all have the exact same rights and responsibilities, regardless of the genders involved.

I do agree with this, actually, as an across-the-board solution. Let's outlaw marriage!

Marriage is a loaded term with religious connotations. Let's ditch the baggage. Call them "Domestic Partnerships" or "Civil Unions" or whatever, and have them be a simple license. Then, you can take said license, show it to your religious official of choice, and get bound in holy matrimony.

No marriages at the court house, no having your License filled out at the ceremony... totally seperate things.

[Tom]

Speaking for myself, I've always said that I don't care what they call it so long as the rights are full and equal. However, if you start from the point that says that "marriage has religious connotations" then you've ceded half the battle to the other side. Prior to the gays wanting in, everyone understood that marriage was a civil arrangement that could have a religious element if the couple chose to. It's been like that not just for centuries, but millenia. Starting off with "marriage is sacred" is merely a way of saying "marriage is not for dirty gays."

[thehod]

I do agree with this, actually, as an across-the-board solution. Let's outlaw marriage!

Marriage is a loaded term with religious connotations. Let's ditch the baggage. Call them "Domestic Partnerships" or "Civil Unions" or whatever, and have them be a simple license. Then, you can take said license, show it to your religious official of choice, and get bound in holy matrimony.

No marriages at the court house, no having your License filled out at the ceremony... totally seperate things.

And lets face it, it doesn't matter what they are legally called, to everyone who matters the couple in question will be married and will have a wedding.

Hell, they could be legally called "The wonderful and magious union betwixt personage A and personage B, that is consecrated in pixie dust. Hail Satan." and people would still refer to it as a marriage.

[Typo Lad]

I'm not trying to say it's sacred - I meant it was loaded, y'know?

Guess I did a poor job of it.

[Tom]

I'm not trying to say it's sacred - I meant it was loaded, y'know?



Sure, it's loaded. But eliminating civil marriage in the face of a minority group asking for the right is akin to ripping out all the water fountains in the face of the civil rights movement.

"Why is the government in the business of providing free water to everyone? If whites can't handle it, best to just rip them all out. That way, everyone gets the same thing."

It's a "halving the baby" solution.

[Tom]

and there is the argument that same-sex marriages do not produce children. I know it's complete BS to assume that you have to be married to have children. But there is a certain logic to the fact that straight marriage facilitates producing offspring (read: future taxpayers).


Pardon me for getting personal, but as I recall, you were not married when you found out you were going to become a father, right?

[Typo Lad]

Sure, it's loaded. But eliminating civil marriage in the face of a minority group asking for the right is akin to ripping out all the water fountains in the face of the civil rights movement.

"Why is the government in the business of providing free water to everyone? If whites can't handle it, best to just rip them all out. That way, everyone gets the same thing."

It's a "halving the baby" solution.
I do see your point. I guess my "problem" is I'm trying to find a solution that would cause the least friction, which now I see smacks of pandering to the bigots.

Although I'm not talking about ripping out the water fountains. I'm talking about re-naming them.

[Tom]

I do see your point. I guess my "problem" is I'm trying to find a solution that would cause the least friction, which now I see smacks of pandering to the bigots.

Friction is a normal byproduct of democracy. Every democratic advancement was met with varying forms of friction.

[Spike-X]

Sure, it's loaded. But eliminating civil marriage in the face of a minority group asking for the right is akin to ripping out all the water fountains in the face of the civil rights movement.

"Why is the government in the business of providing free water to everyone? If whites can't handle it, best to just rip them all out. That way, everyone gets the same thing."

It's a "halving the baby" solution.
It reminds me more of a petulant four-year-old spitting on the birthday cake so that none of the other kids can have a piece.

[Matt Algren]

It reminds me more of a petulant four-year-old spitting on the birthday cake so that none of the other kids can have a piece.
I've seen it as more of a rhetorical device to try to get opponents to understand. "Look, if you want X, you have to accept Y, and Y isn't acceptable to you, so you have to deal with X," which now that I type it out is indeed Solomon's solution.

Full disclosure, and this won't make a lot of folks happy (including me) but: In 2004 when I was deep cover I voted for the Ohio Constitutonal Amendment.

[Spike-X]

Why did you do that, Matt?

Not having a go, just curious.

[Matt Algren]

Why did you do that, Matt?

Not having a go, just curious.
I felt like I had to to keep up the charade. I wanted to be able to say that I voted for it so that nobody would say "only FAGS voted against it". Which doesn't make any sense because, you know, I was lying anyway, so why couldn't I lie about this too?

Yeah, it was pretty fucked up.

[Spike-X]

Yeah, it was. Glad you're better now.

[Matt Algren]

Yeah, it was. Glad you're better now.
Not so sure about that, but baby steps, I suppose.

[Matt Algren]

Do I know how to kill a thread or do I know how to kill a thread. Bald-faced hypocrisy will do that, I suppose.

If it makes it any better, it's one of the things I'm most ashamed of, and I was shaking the rest of the day.




Yeah, I didn't think that would help.

[mattx110]

Do I know how to kill a thread or do I know how to kill a thread. Bald-faced hypocrisy will do that, I suppose.

If it makes it any better, it's one of the things I'm most ashamed of, and I was shaking the rest of the day.




Yeah, I didn't think that would help.
I think the right just found their way to end gay marriage. shame. The only response is more celebrities to do commercials.

[Tommy]

I think the right just found their way to end gay marriage. shame. The only response is more celebrities to do commercials.

But look at Paris Hilton and the vote or die campaign! She failed on both promises. She neither voted, nor did she die. Terrible isn't it?

[mattx110]

But look at Paris Hilton and the vote or die campaign! She failed on both promises. She neither voted, nor did she die. Terrible isn't it?
I was thinking more Neil Patrick Harris... Rupert Everett...

Athough probably, when all the celebrities get together to do campaigns Paris shows up "goes... like I wanna like help", and they all try to give her busywork so she doesn't have the chance to be associated with them in the press saying something especially brilliant like "we've got to use our names to support causes because not everyone has a name" or "gay marriage is like prada, it's hot, and for gays".

I'm done.

[Gilda Dent]

And lets face it, it doesn't matter what they are legally called, to everyone who matters the couple in question will be married and will have a wedding.

Hell, they could be legally called "The wonderful and magious union betwixt personage A and personage B, that is consecrated in pixie dust. Hail Satan." and people would still refer to it as a marriage.

It would be nice if this were so, but the reality is that that name does help a great deal with acceptance.

California already had Registered Domestic Partnerships that had been slowly upgraded over the past decade to where, in state law terms at least, RDU's were treated the same as marriages.

Yet look at the reaction to the idea of now calling these relationships, already equal in terms of state rights, marriages. Outrage from the opponents, celebration from proponents. Why? Because those who oppose gay marriage didn't consider a relationship with the same rights but a different name to be a marriage, and the reaction among gay marriage proponents seems to indicate many of them felt the same.

[J. Robb]

Do I know how to kill a thread or do I know how to kill a thread. Bald-faced hypocrisy will do that, I suppose.

If it makes it any better, it's one of the things I'm most ashamed of, and I was shaking the rest of the day.
I think your admission was brave and revealing. Sadly, I think a lot if the anti-gay rights movement is driven by people overcompensating to hide their "shame". I'm never surprised when I see someone like Ted Haggard in a "gay tryst" scandal, or (in the same vein) a racist like Strom Thurmond having a secret daughter with a black woman.

That said, I'm a straight guy living in a "straight-friendly" world, so I'm not going to pretend to understand the difficulties of living in such a situation, or judge others for how they choose to deal with it.

[thehod]

But look at Paris Hilton and the vote or die campaign! She failed on both promises. She neither voted, nor did she die. Terrible isn't it?

Yeah well, when can you trust Paris to do anything.

What did she say when she got out of jail..

"I have been thinking that I want to do different things when I am out of here. I have become much more spiritual. God has given me this new..... ooooohhh look, a shoe sale."

[socool8520]

The only guys who seem to actually *want* to get married these days are gay. All the other guys are getting dragged reluctantly to the altar by their women.

Not so much, I wanted to get married and I'm straight. And who cares about gay marriages anyways, let them marry whoever they want. There not hurting anyone.

[Spike-X]

let them marry whoever they want. There not hurting anyone.

You really would think it would be that simple, wouldn't you?

[socool8520]

You really would think it would be that simple, wouldn't you?

If people could past petty religious beliefs and their own simple-minded views, it would be.

[Ontir]

George Will was on Charlie Rose a week or so back, and he said that Karl Marx was never so wrong as when he declared that industrialization and the arrival of reason would free us from sectarianism and theological strife. That's the core of pretty much every conflict in the world today.

I think that when we got into the 70's, after a decade of such upheaval, on the tails of the jet-age, and the rocket-age, people just wanted to look back. Add to that the fundamental core of the country, with the year 2,000 approaching, and you get a large number of people who only want to look back. We're now making our way through the tail end of that, and once again, many people are starting to look forward. Once we begin to embrace the future on a large scale, we'll begin to see some real positive changes.

[socool8520]

George Will was on Charlie Rose a week or so back, and he said that Karl Marx was never so wrong as when he declared that industrialization and the arrival of reason would free us from sectarianism and theological strife. That's the core of pretty much every conflict in the world today.

I think that when we got into the 70's, after a decade of such upheaval, on the tails of the jet-age, and the rocket-age, people just wanted to look back. Add to that the fundamental core of the country, with the year 2,000 approaching, and you get a large number of people who only want to look back. We're now making our way through the tail end of that, and once again, many people are starting to look forward. Once we begin to embrace the future on a large scale, we'll begin to see some real positive changes.

The only way to see positive changes in this instance would be to throw religion right out the window and leave it in the dark ages where it belongs.

[Gilda Dent]

The only way to see positive changes in this instance would be to throw religion right out the window and leave it in the dark ages where it belongs.

No, it isn't.

We do need to separate religious doctrine completely from secular public policy, though, which is necessary to have true freedom of religion for everyone.

If people could only understand that this isn't a religious issue, things would become so much easier to understand and to deal with.

[socool8520]

No, it isn't.

We do need to separate religious doctrine completely from secular public policy, though, which is necessary to have true freedom of religion for everyone.

If people could only understand that this isn't a religious issue, things would become so much easier to understand and to deal with.

really because there seems to be an awful lot of religious officials spouting religious reasons why gay marriages shouldn't be allowed but please explain because although it is not the only issue, it is the biggest issue.

[Gilda Dent]

really because there seems to be an awful lot of religious officials spouting religious reasons why gay marriages shouldn't be allowed but please explain because although it is not the only issue, it is the biggest issue.

Those saying that are wrong. It isn't a religious issue. It's an issue of public policy regarding basic civil rights.

Religious marriage is an issue for religious organizations. Civil marriage isn't, no matter how much they try to claim it as theirs.

[socool8520]

Those saying that are wrong. It isn't a religious issue. It's an issue of public policy regarding basic civil rights.

Religious marriage is an issue for religious organizations. Civil marriage isn't, no matter how much they try to claim it as theirs.

that's the way it should be, but it is the religious aspect that is condemning the whole thing in the first place and could quite possibly ban it again. if religion was out of the picture, the numbers against gay marriage would be ridiculously less.

[mattx110]

that's the way it should be, but it is the religious aspect that is condemning the whole thing in the first place and could quite possibly ban it again. if religion was out of the picture, the numbers against gay marriage would be ridiculously less.
Then the answer is clear, isn't it?

Paul...

[Gilda Dent]

that's the way it should be, but it is the religious aspect that is condemning the whole thing in the first place and could quite possibly ban it again. if religion was out of the picture, the numbers against gay marriage would be ridiculously less.

There is no religious aspect to civil marriage. Many anti-gay people like to claim this, and they do so for the purpose of persuading those who don't think about it very much, but they are wrong.

Religious marriages are governed by religions.

Civil marriages are legal contracts licensed and recognized by the government.

We don't need to get rid of religion, we just need to keep religion and government separate. I say this as a person whose religion is very important to her, enough so to want to keep it absolutely separated from government entanglement.

[socool8520]

There is no religious aspect to civil marriage. Many anti-gay people like to claim this, and they do so for the purpose of persuading those who don't think about it very much, but they are wrong.

Religious marriages are governed by religions.

Civil marriages are legal contracts licensed and recognized by the government.

We don't need to get rid of religion, we just need to keep religion and government separate. I say this as a person whose religion is very important to her, enough so to want to keep it absolutely separated from government entanglement.

Yes but it does not help when many of your government officials are religious, or at least say they are, and they will let that sway their decisions, so it's pretty much impossible to separate the two.

[mattx110]

We don't need to get rid of religion.
Oh, bugger.

[socool8520]

Oh, bugger.

LOL too funny

[Gilda Dent]

Yes but it does not help when many of your government officials are religious, or at least say they are, and they will let that sway their decisions, so it's pretty much impossible to separate the two.

No, it isn't. Many people do exactly that. The founding fathers were able to see this well enough that they built this very concept into the document on which our government is based in two different places.

[socool8520]

No, it isn't. Many people do exactly that. The founding fathers were able to see this well enough that they built this very concept into the document on which our government is based in two different places.

You do know that some of them weren't really that religious right. And they were men of considerable integrity and partly unbiased, very much unlike politicians of today.

[Gilda Dent]

You do know that some of them weren't really that religious right. And they were men of considerable integrity and partly unbiased, very much unlike politicians of today.

They were mostly deists rather than monotheists, this is true, but not really relevant to my point. The concept of religion and government being separate entities is built into the US constitution, explicitly in the establishment clause and implicitly in the first amendment.

Many people, even today, are capable of making this distinction.

[socool8520]

They were mostly deists rather than monotheists, this is true, but not really relevant to my point. The concept of religion and government being separate entities is built into the US constitution, explicitly in the establishment clause and implicitly in the first amendment.

Many people, even today, are capable of making this distinction.

I think your a little bit more trusting of our higher-ups than I am. if so many people were capable of making this distinction, then why was this not approved a long time ago.

[Gilda Dent]

I think your a little bit more trusting of our higher-ups than I am. if so many people were capable of making this distinction, then why was this not approved a long time ago.

Because many don't make the distinction and many who do feel the need to pander to those who think the US is a "Christian nation."

This doesn't make either the citizens or government officials who think this way correct.

[socool8520]

Because many don't make the distinction and many who do feel the need to pander to those who think the US is a "Christian nation."

This doesn't make either the citizens or government officials who think this way correct.

I agree with you it's just that I don't believe that many people can make the distinction.

[Ontir]

Certainly not many in elected office.

[Michael P]

You do know that some of them weren't really that religious right. And they were men of considerable integrity and partly unbiased, very much unlike politicians of today.

Actually, once Jefferson and Adams really got going with the party politics, they were stunningly like the politicians of today.

[socool8520]

Actually, once Jefferson and Adams really got going with the party politics, they were stunningly like the politicians of today.

I still wouldn't put them in the same category as a lot of the douches in politics now.

[stealthwise]

I felt like I had to to keep up the charade. I wanted to be able to say that I voted for it so that nobody would say "only FAGS voted against it". Which doesn't make any sense because, you know, I was lying anyway, so why couldn't I lie about this too?

Yeah, it was pretty fucked up.

Deep cover? I'm confused. Should I just keep on walking?

[LewMoxinsghost]

Deep cover? I'm confused. Should I just keep on walking?

I... Yes.

[Paradox]

What's the phrase? "So far into the closet they might as well be in Narnia." :biggrin:

[socool8520]

What's the phrase? "So far into the closet they might as well be in Narnia." :biggrin:

What ??? I don't follow

[Paradox]

socool8520 doesn't get it:

What ??? I don't follow

Matt's "deep cover" was hiding the fact that he's gay. Also known as "in the closet". Narnia is way in the back of a closet/wardrobe. You there yet?

[socool8520]

Matt's "deep cover" was hiding the fact that he's gay. Also known as "in the closet". Narnia is way in the back of a closet/wardrobe. You there yet?

that's what i thought but i don't care about asking the stupid question to make sure. good one though

[Paradox]

It's not mine, btw. Been going around the 'net for a while. :smile:

[socool8520]

It's not mine, btw. Been going around the 'net for a while. :smile:

New to me. lol

[Paradox]

And knowing is half the battle!

http://sixmeatbuffet.com/images/nowyouknow.jpg

:biggrin:

[socool8520]

And knowing is half the battle!

http://sixmeatbuffet.com/images/nowyouknow.jpg

:biggrin:

That line is funny to me because there is military radio commercial Hear where someone says that, but in a redneck voice. lol

[stealthwise]

I thought Matt was a secret agent... :(

[Paradox]

**Johnny Rivers guitar**

Secret...AGENT Gay,
Secret...AGENT Gay,
He's hiding in the closet,
Denying he's that waaay...

:tongue:

[Ontir]

What's the phrase? "So far into the closet they might as well be in Narnia." :biggrin:

That's fantastic! I'd not heard it before! :biggrin:

[Ben Morgan]

It's not mine, btw. Been going around the 'net for a while. :smile:

Sshhh, you should've taken credit for it!

[Paradox]

Heh, right. That would just cause a half a dozen posters to call me on it. :tongue:

**paints target on forehead**