That doesn't seem any more douchey than serving wedding cake for passing gay marriage would be.
Either way it's serving celebration wedding dessert for setting marriage right.
Not exactly sensitive to tge other side, but this seems like a bit of an over reaction.
nooo
its like, haha you cant have this
Is everyone actually this myopic?
It's a group of people that feel Tgey have done good service in defense of marriage. Celebrating with marriage dessert is perfectly sensible in that situation.
It's insensitive, but certainly no more insensitive than banning same sex marriage in the first place.
There's passing a bill.
And there's rubbing the other side's face in it through imagery and symbolism.
The latter is more insensitive. By a lot.
Wait... making fun of women's suffrage would be more insensitive than repealing it?
I'm sorry guys, actively curtailing another's rights is vastly more insensitive than symbolic dessert eating.
That isn't what you said earlier, at all.
No, my first post was not as clear as it could have been.
And it's still wrong either way.
You can't separate the cake from the context. The context is: "We just banned same-sex marriage. Let's celebrate by taking a trivial tradition from that activity we just denied people and publicly partake in said activity" as a way of rubbing it in their faces.
I can't even fathom how your mind works if you can't comprehend why this is exponentially worse than if they just banned same-sex marriage and shut the fuck up about it, with no celebration.
It's the prevailing attitude that the celebration indicates, it's the celebration of trampling on another groups' rights, and it's the nature of the celebration all rolled into one big miasma of human filth.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Rear Admiral ChocoI wanna be an owl, Jerry!Owl York CityRegistered Userregular
It's more like banning gay marriage is way worse but eating the cake afterwards is like a 1.5x combo multiplier that makes it mega shitty
It's more like banning gay marriage is way worse but eating the cake afterwards is like a 1.5x combo multiplier that makes it mega shitty
Yeah, pretty much.
With no context, which is worse? Eating cake, or banning same-sex marriage?
With context, which is worse? Banning same-sex marriage, or banning same sex marriage and then publicly reveling in it and rubbing it in the other sides' faces?
Obviously, there is nothing inherently wrong with eating cake. But in context, which is the only way to conceptualize such an action, it's pretty fucking disgusting and makes everything exponentially worse.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Douchiness aside, was anyone actually surprised by the result?
Homophobes are always going to have an advantage in referendums because fear and bigotry are a ridiculously powerful motivators and because they get a lot of money from bigoted churches. It's a southern state where (probably) most people are opposed to gay marriage to begin with. And I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if Democrats stayed home because there's no presidential primary, although I have no idea how much of an impact it would've had.
Eventually, we're going to have gay marriage everywhere, one way or another. But North Carolina isn't going to get it in the near future, and those constitutional amendments are unfortunately rather popular. Even California and Oregon have them.
That doesn't seem any more douchey than serving wedding cake for passing gay marriage would be.
Either way it's serving celebration wedding dessert for setting marriage right.
Not exactly sensitive to tge other side, but this seems like a bit of an over reaction.
nooo
its like, haha you cant have this
Is everyone actually this myopic?
It's a group of people that feel Tgey have done good service in defense of marriage. Celebrating with marriage dessert is perfectly sensible in that situation.
It's insensitive, but certainly no more insensitive than banning same sex marriage in the first place.
There's passing a bill.
And there's rubbing the other side's face in it through imagery and symbolism.
The latter is more insensitive. By a lot.
Wait... making fun of women's suffrage would be more insensitive than repealing it?
I'm sorry guys, actively curtailing another's rights is vastly more insensitive than symbolic dessert eating.
That isn't what you said earlier, at all.
No, my first post was not as clear as it could have been.
And it's still wrong either way.
You can't separate the cake from the context. The context is: "We just banned same-sex marriage. Let's celebrate by taking a trivial tradition from that activity we just denied people and publicly partake in said activity" as a way of rubbing it in their faces.
I can't even fathom how your mind works if you can't comprehend why this is exponentially worse than if they just banned same-sex marriage and shut the fuck up about it, with no celebration.
It's the prevailing attitude that the celebration indicates, it's the celebration of trampling on another groups' rights, and it's the nature of the celebration all rolled into one big miasma of human filth.
... If you can't step outside your own worldview well enough to realize that isn't what they're celebrating then I don't know what to say really. I just don't have the energy to explain looking at the world through another's eyes at the moment.
"More fish for Kunta!"
--LeVar Burton
0
South hostI obey without questionRegistered Userregular
I want to know why someone hasn't challenged anti-gay marriage amendments on 1st amendment grounds. The only justification for them is "God says gays are bad", thus enacting laws based on that is a violation of separation of church and state. "Marriage" is nothing but a contract between two people over property and financial holdings, even defining it as "it's so they can make babies" doesn't work since infertile couples are allowed to get married. It just seems like it would be cut and dried. It would have to go to the supreme court, of course.
I want to know why someone hasn't challenged anti-gay marriage amendments on 1st amendment grounds. The only justification for them is "God says gays are bad", thus enacting laws based on that is a violation of separation of church and state. "Marriage" is nothing but a contract between two people over property and financial holdings, even defining it as "it's so they can make babies" doesn't work since infertile couples are allowed to get married. It just seems like it would be cut and dried. It would have to go to the supreme court, of course.
No, they have other justifications. They're bullshit justifications, of course, but not religion oriented.
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
That doesn't seem any more douchey than serving wedding cake for passing gay marriage would be.
Either way it's serving celebration wedding dessert for setting marriage right.
Not exactly sensitive to tge other side, but this seems like a bit of an over reaction.
nooo
its like, haha you cant have this
Is everyone actually this myopic?
It's a group of people that feel Tgey have done good service in defense of marriage. Celebrating with marriage dessert is perfectly sensible in that situation.
It's insensitive, but certainly no more insensitive than banning same sex marriage in the first place.
There's passing a bill.
And there's rubbing the other side's face in it through imagery and symbolism.
The latter is more insensitive. By a lot.
Wait... making fun of women's suffrage would be more insensitive than repealing it?
I'm sorry guys, actively curtailing another's rights is vastly more insensitive than symbolic dessert eating.
That isn't what you said earlier, at all.
No, my first post was not as clear as it could have been.
And it's still wrong either way.
You can't separate the cake from the context. The context is: "We just banned same-sex marriage. Let's celebrate by taking a trivial tradition from that activity we just denied people and publicly partake in said activity" as a way of rubbing it in their faces.
I can't even fathom how your mind works if you can't comprehend why this is exponentially worse than if they just banned same-sex marriage and shut the fuck up about it, with no celebration.
It's the prevailing attitude that the celebration indicates, it's the celebration of trampling on another groups' rights, and it's the nature of the celebration all rolled into one big miasma of human filth.
... If you can't step outside your own worldview well enough to realize that isn't what they're celebrating then I don't know what to say really. I just don't have the energy to explain looking at the world through another's eyes at the moment.
How do you know any better why they are celebrating than we do? Please show your work
That doesn't seem any more douchey than serving wedding cake for passing gay marriage would be.
Either way it's serving celebration wedding dessert for setting marriage right.
Not exactly sensitive to tge other side, but this seems like a bit of an over reaction.
nooo
its like, haha you cant have this
Is everyone actually this myopic?
It's a group of people that feel Tgey have done good service in defense of marriage. Celebrating with marriage dessert is perfectly sensible in that situation.
It's insensitive, but certainly no more insensitive than banning same sex marriage in the first place.
There's passing a bill.
And there's rubbing the other side's face in it through imagery and symbolism.
The latter is more insensitive. By a lot.
Wait... making fun of women's suffrage would be more insensitive than repealing it?
I'm sorry guys, actively curtailing another's rights is vastly more insensitive than symbolic dessert eating.
That isn't what you said earlier, at all.
No, my first post was not as clear as it could have been.
And it's still wrong either way.
You can't separate the cake from the context. The context is: "We just banned same-sex marriage. Let's celebrate by taking a trivial tradition from that activity we just denied people and publicly partake in said activity" as a way of rubbing it in their faces.
I can't even fathom how your mind works if you can't comprehend why this is exponentially worse than if they just banned same-sex marriage and shut the fuck up about it, with no celebration.
It's the prevailing attitude that the celebration indicates, it's the celebration of trampling on another groups' rights, and it's the nature of the celebration all rolled into one big miasma of human filth.
... If you can't step outside your own worldview well enough to realize that isn't what they're celebrating then I don't know what to say really. I just don't have the energy to explain looking at the world through another's eyes at the moment.
And now you're back to the original argument again?
I want to know why someone hasn't challenged anti-gay marriage amendments on 1st amendment grounds. The only justification for them is "God says gays are bad", thus enacting laws based on that is a violation of separation of church and state. "Marriage" is nothing but a contract between two people over property and financial holdings, even defining it as "it's so they can make babies" doesn't work since infertile couples are allowed to get married. It just seems like it would be cut and dried. It would have to go to the supreme court, of course.
No, they have other justifications. They're bullshit justifications, of course, but not religion oriented.
They don't really, though. "It's immoral" isn't a justification, legal or otherwise. Not one that would hold up in court anyway. At its base marriage is nothing but a legal contract. "Religious" marriage doesn't exist, legally, you can have a priest say "I now pronounce you man and wife" until they're blue in the face but without the State's approval it's meaningless.
That doesn't seem any more douchey than serving wedding cake for passing gay marriage would be.
Either way it's serving celebration wedding dessert for setting marriage right.
Not exactly sensitive to tge other side, but this seems like a bit of an over reaction.
nooo
its like, haha you cant have this
Is everyone actually this myopic?
It's a group of people that feel Tgey have done good service in defense of marriage. Celebrating with marriage dessert is perfectly sensible in that situation.
It's insensitive, but certainly no more insensitive than banning same sex marriage in the first place.
There's passing a bill.
And there's rubbing the other side's face in it through imagery and symbolism.
The latter is more insensitive. By a lot.
Wait... making fun of women's suffrage would be more insensitive than repealing it?
I'm sorry guys, actively curtailing another's rights is vastly more insensitive than symbolic dessert eating.
That isn't what you said earlier, at all.
No, my first post was not as clear as it could have been.
And it's still wrong either way.
You can't separate the cake from the context. The context is: "We just banned same-sex marriage. Let's celebrate by taking a trivial tradition from that activity we just denied people and publicly partake in said activity" as a way of rubbing it in their faces.
I can't even fathom how your mind works if you can't comprehend why this is exponentially worse than if they just banned same-sex marriage and shut the fuck up about it, with no celebration.
It's the prevailing attitude that the celebration indicates, it's the celebration of trampling on another groups' rights, and it's the nature of the celebration all rolled into one big miasma of human filth.
... If you can't step outside your own worldview well enough to realize that isn't what they're celebrating then I don't know what to say really. I just don't have the energy to explain looking at the world through another's eyes at the moment.
The difference is that they're celebrating denying someone else their rights, not obtaining rights for themselves.
I understand that they feel like they somehow defended their own rights, but it was only in the sense that they defended their own right to be exclusive and superior. In this instance I just can't feel as though their act of celebration can be extracted from the thing that they're celebrating: if we were to eat wedding cake after defending gay marriage we would be going "wedding cake for everyone!" but when they eat wedding cake after banning gay marriage it is basically "HEY GAYS I BET YOU WISH YOU HAD THIS CAKE".
Posts
Tycho's newspost about the extreme dorritos no longer has working images
It is basically the most upsetting thing in the world, and I've considered maybe contacting him directly to get this fixed
And it's still wrong either way.
You can't separate the cake from the context. The context is: "We just banned same-sex marriage. Let's celebrate by taking a trivial tradition from that activity we just denied people and publicly partake in said activity" as a way of rubbing it in their faces.
I can't even fathom how your mind works if you can't comprehend why this is exponentially worse than if they just banned same-sex marriage and shut the fuck up about it, with no celebration.
It's the prevailing attitude that the celebration indicates, it's the celebration of trampling on another groups' rights, and it's the nature of the celebration all rolled into one big miasma of human filth.
Iunno dude have you ever had gay cake? It's pretty amazing.
Also, isn't it non-traditional to eat a wedding cake not at a wedding? I mean, we can't break TRADITION NOW, CAN WE YOU ASSHOLES?
By the way...
Those few counties of reason and hope in the middle of the map? that's MY North Carolina. Shame they didn't have more sway.
Fucking rest of the state.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Yeah, pretty much.
With no context, which is worse? Eating cake, or banning same-sex marriage?
With context, which is worse? Banning same-sex marriage, or banning same sex marriage and then publicly reveling in it and rubbing it in the other sides' faces?
Obviously, there is nothing inherently wrong with eating cake. But in context, which is the only way to conceptualize such an action, it's pretty fucking disgusting and makes everything exponentially worse.
its cute
but it stings
Don't worry, it's the south, they already are.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/understood-properly-the-death-star-is-not-worth-it/2012/05/08/gIQAgzUDBU_blog.html?wprss=rss_ezra-klein
God damn
what complete shitheels. I'm just amazed by the amount of time and effort people are willing to put in just to take good things apart brick by brick.
Uh, can I steal this?
Homophobes are always going to have an advantage in referendums because fear and bigotry are a ridiculously powerful motivators and because they get a lot of money from bigoted churches. It's a southern state where (probably) most people are opposed to gay marriage to begin with. And I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if Democrats stayed home because there's no presidential primary, although I have no idea how much of an impact it would've had.
Eventually, we're going to have gay marriage everywhere, one way or another. But North Carolina isn't going to get it in the near future, and those constitutional amendments are unfortunately rather popular. Even California and Oregon have them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH1PJTY9AVA
Democracy simply doesn't work
Do you live in one of the reasonable areas, or are you in one of the bad ones?
my friends did this a couple weeks ago, only substituting penis words occasionally
the back of a taco-flavored Dorito bag made me nearly choke to death laughing when they got to the part about "a blast of Mexican in your mouth"
Now I live in Jersey, 20 minutes from Manhattan.
Upgrade.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Heh. Asheville, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham and Boone.
Anyway, bed time.
Yes
... If you can't step outside your own worldview well enough to realize that isn't what they're celebrating then I don't know what to say really. I just don't have the energy to explain looking at the world through another's eyes at the moment.
--LeVar Burton
Lucky. I'm stuck in Iredell county for the foreseeable future.
Sure, I'll come take you out somewhere nice if you like. I go to Tokyo for work all the time - it's about an hour from my house by train.
Be aware I'm old and my liver is tired, so I like nice places with good food and drink.
No, they have other justifications. They're bullshit justifications, of course, but not religion oriented.
How do you know any better why they are celebrating than we do? Please show your work
And now you're back to the original argument again?
They don't really, though. "It's immoral" isn't a justification, legal or otherwise. Not one that would hold up in court anyway. At its base marriage is nothing but a legal contract. "Religious" marriage doesn't exist, legally, you can have a priest say "I now pronounce you man and wife" until they're blue in the face but without the State's approval it's meaningless.
The difference is that they're celebrating denying someone else their rights, not obtaining rights for themselves.
I understand that they feel like they somehow defended their own rights, but it was only in the sense that they defended their own right to be exclusive and superior. In this instance I just can't feel as though their act of celebration can be extracted from the thing that they're celebrating: if we were to eat wedding cake after defending gay marriage we would be going "wedding cake for everyone!" but when they eat wedding cake after banning gay marriage it is basically "HEY GAYS I BET YOU WISH YOU HAD THIS CAKE".
S'alright, it's an emotional issue, and for good reason.
--LeVar Burton
okay
No u