Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Debate and Discourse: AWESOME POST in "The American Presidency: First polls close in 40 minutes

NerissaNerissa Registered User regular
edited November 2008 in [2008-2012] Awesome Posts?
Nerissa has reported a post.

Reason:
For those not aware, California Prop. 8 defines marriage as "one man, one woman"
Forum: Debate and Discourse
Post: The American Presidency: First polls close in 40 minutes
Posted by: geckahn


Original Content:
From Sullivan - via a reader:
I voted here in San Francisco's Noe Valley neighborhood about two hours ago. It took about an hour to get through the line, and while standing there I was chatting with the 75-year-old retired cop in front of me, and the young 30-something gay couple in front of him, who had their two little girls in tow.

Everyone was in good spirits as the conversation moved from the Obama-McCain contest to the farce that is Sarah Palin, and then on to non-political matters, like the road work being done on the next block. The conversation between the cop and the couple started to get animated toward the end of our hour in line as the three men began to discuss the current football season, wagering bets for this weekend's games and making predictions for the Super Bowl.

And then, as we entered the firehouse that doubled as our polling place, as the couple and their daughters stepped out of line and up to the table to receive their ballots, I observed the cop in front of me. He opened his sample ballot, took out his pen, scribbled out his "yes" vote on Proposition 8, and filled in the ballot line for "no."

I don't think he knew that I observed him. And since it was such a private moment I held back my tears of joy and my overwhelming desire to pat him on the back and say "thank you, sir." Instead, I left the polling place muttering to myself those two words you have repeated over and over during this election cycle, Andrew:

KNOW.

HOPE.

Nerissa on
Personally, I like D&D because I find OCD much more interesting than ADD.

Posts

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2008
    That's a sweet story.

    But this isn't really a forum for awesome things that happened somewhere in the world, right? This is, like, a forum for reporting the awesomeness of PA people, yes?

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu ___________PIGEON _________San Diego, CA Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Someone decides to not hate gay people for a day! That's like, REALLY AWESOME!

  • ScrubletScrublet Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    By and large I think the best things that show up here are PA awesomeness. But awhile back someone posted a story of their homecoming from the Middle East and being welcomed like a hero, and posts like that and this are awesome too I think.

    subedii wrote: »
    I hear PC gaming is huge off the coast of Somalia right now.
  • Goose!Goose! Its a rebranding thing Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Arkansas is banning gay couples from adopting children.

    What the hell is wrong with the world?

    Well, its a ban on unmarried couples. But CNN lists it as "gay couples"

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Goose! wrote: »
    Arkansas is banning gay couples from adopting children.

    What the hell is wrong with the world?

    Well, its a ban on unmarried couples. But CNN lists it as "gay couples"
    Homosexuals can't get married in Arkansas.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    That's a sweet story.

    But this isn't really a forum for awesome things that happened somewhere in the world, right? This is, like, a forum for reporting the awesomeness of PA people, yes?

    Gay hater.

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Someone decides to not hate gay people for a day! That's like, REALLY AWESOME!

    I know many people that don't hate gay people but would still have an issue with gay marriage. Why? Because its called marriage. To a lot of people marriage is sacred religious experience and is defined in the bible as being between a man and a woman.

    The problem is all 50 states define Civil union of two people as marriages and well as the church doing the same. So really you are getting married twice every time you get married in a church or by pastor/priest/minister/ect.. If the legal form was a Civil Union and the religious one a marriage then this wouldn't be an issue. Then again marriage also has a bunch of taxes breaks and such to help and promote families which increase our population. This is currently seen as a good thing as we need 3x as many as we have for the war against china. Gay unions would not increase population (specially gay men) and would only shift children from one spot on a chart to another.

    I fall into the later spot, but luckily for them I fully support Lesbian Unions so I guess those guys get my vote.

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Topweasel wrote: »
    I know many people that don't hate gay people but would still have an issue with gay marriage. Why? Because its called marriage. To a lot of people marriage is sacred religious experience and is defined in the bible as being between a man and a woman.

    The problem is all 50 states define Civil union of two people as marriages and well as the church doing the same. So really you are getting married twice every time you get married in a church or by pastor/priest/minister/ect.. If the legal form was a Civil Union and the religious one a marriage then this wouldn't be an issue. Then again marriage also has a bunch of taxes breaks and such to help and promote families which increase our population. This is currently seen as a good thing as we need 3x as many as we have for the war against china. Gay unions would not increase population (specially gay men) and would only shift children from one spot on a chart to another.

    I fall into the later spot, but luckily for them I fully support Lesbian Unions so I guess those guys get my vote.
    You are going to win a war against your biggest trade partner by having more people than them?

    You, sir, are out of your mind.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Aldo wrote: »
    You are going to win a war against your biggest trade partner by having more people than them?

    You, sir, are out of your mind.

    I am not saying we should go to war with them, though I think one is inevitable. I am just saying that at their current population and the fact that they for the last decade have had about 8 boys for every girl. The could give each one of them a knife and ship them over in the millions and overtake with ease. We have to catch up. Specially the smart people, they need to reproduce like rabbits.

  • DarmakDarmak Godking of the Snerkywizards Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Topweasel wrote: »
    This is currently seen as a good thing as we need 3x as many as we have for the war against china.

    So unexpected and random, I laughed my ass off.

    PIZTDhW.jpg
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    You are going to win a war against your biggest trade partner by having more people than them?

    You, sir, are out of your mind.

    I am not saying we should go to war with them, though I think one is inevitable. I am just saying that at their current population and the fact that they for the last decade have had about 8 boys for every girl. The could give each one of them a knife and ship them over in the millions and overtake with ease. We have to catch up. Specially the smart people, they need to reproduce like rabbits.

    I have been told I shouldn't be mean every time someone says something I think is outrageously idiotic, so I guess I'll have to remain vaguely polite now.

    China's population is well over one billion, their main goal is to develop into a country on the same level as the US. They recognize that a war will not grant them anything they don't already have. A war between the US and China is only possible in fiction and the mind of a madman.

    *If* China would ever decide to launch a full scale attack on the US they would not do so by shipping their completely army towards the coasts of California. They would use their nuclear weapons or other long-range artillery. The last war that was won by sheer numbers must have been World War I and even then one could argue that technology and geopolitics played a larger role than the amount of young men.

    Lastly: the fact that you only consider men worthy/able of fighting is outdated. After millennia of civilization we have finally gotten to the point where we can accept that women are just as capable of blowing up hospitals as men.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Yes but if they're fighting, who's cooking the delicious pies and knitting me a sweater? WHO!?

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Aldo wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    You are going to win a war against your biggest trade partner by having more people than them?

    You, sir, are out of your mind.

    I am not saying we should go to war with them, though I think one is inevitable. I am just saying that at their current population and the fact that they for the last decade have had about 8 boys for every girl. The could give each one of them a knife and ship them over in the millions and overtake with ease. We have to catch up. Specially the smart people, they need to reproduce like rabbits.

    I have been told I shouldn't be mean every time someone says something I think is outrageously idiotic, so I guess I'll have to remain vaguely polite now.

    China's population is well over one billion, their main goal is to develop into a country on the same level as the US. They recognize that a war will not grant them anything they don't already have. A war between the US and China is only possible in fiction and the mind of a madman.

    *If* China would ever decide to launch a full scale attack on the US they would not do so by shipping their completely army towards the coasts of California. They would use their nuclear weapons or other long-range artillery. The last war that was won by sheer numbers must have been World War I and even then one could argue that technology and geopolitics played a larger role than the amount of young men.

    Lastly: the fact that you only consider men worthy/able of fighting is outdated. After millennia of civilization we have finally gotten to the point where we can accept that women are just as capable of blowing up hospitals as men.

    When did I say that only men should be fighting. I brought up the 8 men to women, because there will be lots of testosterone coming from China as the balance of men to women shifts towards men (if anything there needs to be more women to men). To even this out they will need to go to war at some point, and as a dictatorship its easy for them to chose who goes or not. A war for china is probably the best thing for them, it kicks development into high gear, increases their control, and will act as a way of population control. You only bomb countries that can't bomb you back. Not only that but if China attacks for land then bombing is the worse idea ever, besides we might not act idealistic right now but if we were under attack and people are invading, everyone would pick up their guns. They could send 150 million troops (conscription) without blinking, we can't right now we need more babies.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Jesus H-Motherfucking Christ.

  • NiklasNiklas Registered User
    edited November 2008
    This is actually starting to get awesome...

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Every time I try to read that paragraph I get to about, "8 men to women" and just kind of gloss over and drool on my desk.

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    Every time I try to read that paragraph I get to about, "8 men to women" and just kind of gloss over and drool on my desk.

    Sorry I am not the most skilled writer.

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Topweasel wrote: »
    When did I say that only men should be fighting. I brought up the 8 men to women, because there will be lots of testosterone coming from China as the balance of men to women shifts towards men (if anything there needs to be more women to men). To even this out they will need to go to war at some point, and as a dictatorship its easy for them to chose who goes or not. A war for china is probably the best thing for them, it kicks development into high gear, increases their control, and will act as a way of population control. You only bomb countries that can't bomb you back. Not only that but if China attacks for land then bombing is the worse idea ever, besides we might not act idealistic right now but if we were under attack and people are invading, everyone would pick up their guns. They could send 150 million troops (conscription) without blinking, we can't right now we need more babies.
    No...just. No. I dare you to find me some sort of evidence that a large male demographic in a country increases the likelihood of a war with one or more other countries.

    War does not lead to development. Otherwise Africa would have been the most developed country in the world by now.

    China is not Satanistan. They are not...I repeat myself: NOT...going to send millions of people to their doom as "population control". That is an outrageous claim.

    I understand you are terrified of China and would like to fuck as many women as you want so your army of sons can march forward on the fields of San Diego to their victory against the yellow surplus of humanity. But let me tell you this...you are out of your fucking mind.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Aldo wrote: »
    No...just. No. I dare you to find me some sort of evidence that a large male demographic in a country increases the likelihood of a war with one or more other countries.

    War does not lead to development. Otherwise Africa would have been the most developed country in the world by now.

    China is not Satanistan. They are not...I repeat myself: NOT...going to send millions of people to their doom as "population control". That is an outrageous claim.

    I understand you are terrified of China and would like to fuck as many women as you want so your army of sons can march forward on the fields of San Diego to their victory against the yellow surplus of humanity. But let me tell you this...you are out of your fucking mind.

    4 things.

    First All I am saying is that a mostly male demographic is bad. The last 20 years of population control is really mess up China in the long run.

    War does lead to development in the long run, if done correctly. China has the know how develop and produce weapons, supplies, and other materials needed for warfare. With Africa no development happens because they don't make their weapons and nobody is able to get any stability to actually build up any kind of structure. Take people that where slapping each other with their hands. Someone give side one a rock, so someone else gives the other a spear, then the first gets pistol, then the second gets an assault rifle, so the second one purchases an RPG. Nothing is gained because outside the actual fighting neither side is really doing anything for itself.

    You can look back and say it should have been predicted that Russia would have killed as many of its soldiers in WII as they did. But that wouldn't correct no-one knew when they built that conscript army that Russian's were going to be killing just as many Russians as the enemy did.

    While I like your ideas I dislike your condescending tone. I am not promoting a war with China, I am not saying that China should attack. As a country with the biggest habitable land in the world, we are not exactly putting it to good use and I won't be surprised that a country that goes against all of our ideals and is struggling with their population might look towards our land and see that a war is a win-win for them. If they lose the loses of life loosen the current population issues and if they win, they take over a well developed country with massive amounts of open usable land.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited November 2008
    This thread is becomingly decreasingly awesome. Is there some place I can report it for suck?

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    This thread is becomingly decreasingly awesome. Is there some place I can report it for suck?
    Moderator forum?

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • edited November 2008
    i dont even remember what the OP is about but topweasel is amazing, please never stop posting guy

    i hope i live to see millions of chinese people wielding knives attack the shores of california

  • BelruelBelruel naw Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    huuurgh so... stupid... can't read... after first couple of posts...

    duder, the whole gay couples are worth less because they can't make babies is the stupidest thing. by that 'logic' couples where one of the spouses is sterile are worth less, as would be couples where the woman is post menopausal.

    okay that's all.

    this post really is awesome though, and eljeffe, if this post shouldn't be here because it happened elsewhere then neither would a lot of other posts, such as the embarrassing moments awesome posts, which are quite often some of the best things in here

    3DS friendcode: 2380-4618-2503
  • SzechuanosaurusSzechuanosaurus Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2008
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Specially the smart people, they need to reproduce like rabbits.

    I take it you're going to take a vow of celibacy and never get married for the security of America then?

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Specially the smart people, they need to reproduce like rabbits.

    I take it you're going to take a vow of celibacy and never get married for the security of America then?

    Don't know about celibacy, but the world can't handle more of me.

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Belruel wrote: »
    huuurgh so... stupid... can't read... after first couple of posts...

    duder, the whole gay couples are worth less because they can't make babies is the stupidest thing. by that 'logic' couples where one of the spouses is sterile are worth less, as would be couples where the woman is post menopausal.

    I didn't say people had to have kids if they got married. I just said that the tax reliefs you get when you marry are meant to make having kids easier. This is more an not an incentive but as a way for the state to be more supportive of baby making. True while if one sterile or menopausal this doesn't work well, but the breaks aren't specified for only people who have kids (there are additional ones for that). Why promote a Union between people that, without looking into someones medical records (privacy laws), can never procreate.

    I don't beleive that supporting Gay marriage means the end of humanity, but their is a difference between not caring that they are a couple, and actually supporting their relationship that can't contribute to society.

  • SzechuanosaurusSzechuanosaurus Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2008
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Belruel wrote: »
    huuurgh so... stupid... can't read... after first couple of posts...

    duder, the whole gay couples are worth less because they can't make babies is the stupidest thing. by that 'logic' couples where one of the spouses is sterile are worth less, as would be couples where the woman is post menopausal.

    I didn't say people had to have kids if they got married. I just said that the tax reliefs you get when you marry are meant to make having kids easier. This is more an not an incentive but as a way for the state to be more supportive of baby making. True while if one sterile or menopausal this doesn't work well, but the breaks aren't specified for only people who have kids (there are additional ones for that). Why promote a Union between people that, without looking into someones medical records (privacy laws), can never procreate.

    I don't beleive that supporting Gay marriage means the end of humanity, but their is a difference between not caring that they are a couple, and actually supporting their relationship that can't contribute to society.

    I can't even believe this is being discussed in completely the wrong forum, but reproduction isn't the only contribution someone can make to society. In fact, reproduction is only one aspect of the societal benefits of marriage. For example, married people tend to be healthier and less prone to symptoms of stress than single people, so they take less sick-leave, are more productive in the workplace and better at their job which overall is arguably a greater contribution to society than simply breeding - it improves the economy, it improves public services, education, etc. - because all these things rely on a healthy, focused workforce first and foremost. There's all sorts of other benefits as well. For example, married couples make for a more stable environment for bringing up children; traditionally, mixed-sex couples who are unable to have children themselves will adopt; same sex marriages would potentially provide a huge increase in the number of suitable homes for orphans.

    Objectively, the more married people in a country, the better off that country is irrespective of their reproductive behaviours.

  • RitchmeisterRitchmeister Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Specially the smart people, they need to reproduce like rabbits.

    I take it you're going to take a vow of celibacy and never get married for the security of America then?

    Don't know about celibacy, but the world can't handle more of me.


    Oh I think we all agree with you on that one.

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Belruel wrote: »
    huuurgh so... stupid... can't read... after first couple of posts...

    duder, the whole gay couples are worth less because they can't make babies is the stupidest thing. by that 'logic' couples where one of the spouses is sterile are worth less, as would be couples where the woman is post menopausal.

    I didn't say people had to have kids if they got married. I just said that the tax reliefs you get when you marry are meant to make having kids easier. This is more an not an incentive but as a way for the state to be more supportive of baby making. True while if one sterile or menopausal this doesn't work well, but the breaks aren't specified for only people who have kids (there are additional ones for that). Why promote a Union between people that, without looking into someones medical records (privacy laws), can never procreate.

    I don't beleive that supporting Gay marriage means the end of humanity, but their is a difference between not caring that they are a couple, and actually supporting their relationship that can't contribute to society.

    I can't even believe this is being discussed in completely the wrong forum, but reproduction isn't the only contribution someone can make to society. In fact, reproduction is only one aspect of the societal benefits of marriage. For example, married people tend to be healthier and less prone to symptoms of stress than single people, so they take less sick-leave, are more productive in the workplace and better at their job which overall is arguably a greater contribution to society than simply breeding - it improves the economy, it improves public services, education, etc. - because all these things rely on a healthy, focused workforce first and foremost. There's all sorts of other benefits as well. For example, married couples make for a more stable environment for bringing up children; traditionally, mixed-sex couples who are unable to have children themselves will adopt; same sex marriages would potentially provide a huge increase in the number of suitable homes for orphans.

    Objectively, the more married people in a country, the better off that country is irrespective of their reproductive behaviours.

    While companies might care about stress level and and sick leave and such all the government cares about $$$. More babies = More Tax payers. Wheres as adopted babies are already counted as future tax payers.

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Didn't Jeffe already hint at strangling us all? I think we should just drop this. Topweasel: if you care you can make a thread in D&D about "why governments wants you to have 12 children" I'm sure it won't go over well.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Aldo wrote: »
    Didn't Jeffe already hint at strangling us all? I think we should just drop this. Topweasel: if you care you can make a thread in D&D about "why governments wants you to have 12 children" I'm sure it won't go over well.

    Nah I am not trying to come off as some guy in a tin foil hat. You engaged me in this discussion. Any hows My main point I was trying to make earlier it doesn't take a bigot, or even a religious person, to not want to see Homosexual's marry.

  • AydrAydr Registered User
    edited November 2008
    Topweasel wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    Didn't Jeffe already hint at strangling us all? I think we should just drop this. Topweasel: if you care you can make a thread in D&D about "why governments wants you to have 12 children" I'm sure it won't go over well.

    Nah I am not trying to come off as some guy in a tin foil hat. You engaged me in this discussion. Any hows My main point I was trying to make earlier it doesn't take a bigot, or even a religious person, to not want to see Homosexual's marry.

    Yeah, an idiot will work well enough for that.

    I think that I'm going to give this thread a good rating to let more people see Topweasel's interesting and creative ideas here.

    DeMoN wrote: »
    I DIED IN THE ARMS OF A TOASTER WITH BREASTS
  • RamiusRamius Joined: July 19, 2000 Administrator, ClubPA admin
    edited November 2008
    This thread went from being a questionable "report for awesome" to being a complete abuse of the awesome posts forum.

    I know you guys all like to come to the forums to, like, discuss stuff. But this here subforum is not meant for discussions.

This discussion has been closed.