Gay Marriage

Quote: beachbumbabs

It would be equal treatment if it were available to every couple.

Every couple of what, exactly. Do you have any idea
of what you're saying here.

Quote: beachbumbabs

So I will step out at this point.

Of course you will, it's the easy way out.

Edited later. I wish I could write what I'm
really feeling. This is the reason I no longer
post on WoV. I'm biting my tongue to the
point of it bleeding..

Quote: Evenbob

Every couple of what, exactly. Do you have any idea
of what you're saying here.



Of course you will, it's the easy way out.

Edited later. I wish I could write what I'm
really feeling. This is the reason I no longer
post on WoV. I'm biting my tongue to the
point of it bleeding..

Bob, these threads are choosing the second option on the marital poll, wearing them out, and not choosing the first, discussing rationally. I'm not going to lie, I'm disappointed to learn the actual intelligence levels of some in this thread and I'm blocking it too.

Quote: beachbumbabs

The US Constitution did, in fact, initially discriminate against Women, Blacks, and Indians; much but not all of that has been fixed through amendments and other means.

Indians were no part of the USA, they were their own tribes and considered themselves sovereign. This is why the US Constitution says "Indians not taxed" in various places.

As to where it discriminates against women and blacks in its pre-amended form, I await your reply. As to what "not all has been fixed" I REALLY, REALLY await your reply. Please cite items in the Constitution that as you imply still discriminate against women and blacks.

Quote:

I had extended some credibility to you through Face's saying you had argued logically and based on facts on this topic. Perhaps I was wrong to do so; between your condescending remarks like "sigh" and "here we go again", and your making up "facts" based not on observable science and recorded history but on your unsubstantiated beliefs, it's tough to want to continue the conversation. So I will step out at this point.

The sigh and here we go again are just that, me expressing that homophiles are bringing up the same 2-3 points over and over and said points are easily refuted. As to your comment on "observable science" well I am using that. The other side is somehow saying there are "gay animals" and I have replied that since animals do not have sex except to reproduce that this is simply impossible. That is observable science. I have showed that aversion to homosexuality pops up in societies worldwide that have never communicated with each other. That is observable science and history.

Until we get some good science saying there is some kind of "gay gene" I am not going to accept the "born this way" thing and continue to believe it is behavior and choice. Currently the science seems to be, "well why else would they do this." That is not enough for me, just like measuring some tree rings is not good enough to generate a measurable temperature series.

What they are selling, I am still, still not buying.

Quote: beachbumbabs to AZDuffman:

I had extended some credibility to you through Face's saying you had argued logically and based on facts on this topic. Perhaps I was wrong to do so; between your condescending remarks like "sigh" and "here we go again", and your making up "facts" based not on observable science and recorded history but on your unsubstantiated beliefs, it's tough to want to continue the conversation.

Are you kidding me?? AZ is the last guy here who deserves a comment like that. Thank god this isn't WoV because I'd hate to see him get nuked for "sigh"!

Quote: Evenbob

Edited later. I wish I could write what I'm
really feeling. This is the reason I no longer
post on WoV. I'm biting my tongue to the
point of it bleeding..

+100

Quote: Face

In the interest of clarity, please don't confuse this as a partisan thing...the one thing I'm sure it's not is this being some sort of political bias. I'm reasonably confident you couldn't find another member who would say I judge based on party lines. In fact, it's the people who disagree with me who I seek out and enjoy the most. I even referred to it in this very thread in an address to AZD

I believe you. I will just say this. There are a large number of conservative posters here who believe that there is a clear bias against them. They feel it is no different from the situations regarding: Brendan Eich's treatment by Mozilla, Phil Robertson's treatment by A&E, the Benham brothers' treatment by HGTV, Condoleezza Rice's treatment by Rutgers, Republicans' treatment by the mainstream media.....ad nauseam.

But here's the thing. Conservatives by nature do not whine. Liberals do. I can't say this with certainty, but I'd bet money that guys like AZDuffman, EvenBob, RonC, rob45, LarryS et al. have not gone crying to the mods about every little transgression that they see by liberals. It's just not in their nature, nor mine. Take me, for instance. I've been called a "lowlife liar", "bigot", "troll", etc. by various liberals on this forum, yet NONE of the regular mods ever suspended them for saying those things. But did I go around whining and filling up the mods' inboxes with complaints? No.

(The only time I ever did complain was in the "Discussion" thread, and it was about a veiled insult where someone said to me "This guy is much like you" and included a link, which led to the website of a gay guy. I was deeply offended. And the ironic thing is that I believe it was actually you who defended that veiled insult, so that's why I'm surprised when it's insinuated that I'm the grandfather of the veiled insult when, in fact, I was the first victim.)

Anyway, if you don't believe me about the prevailing conservative sentiment around here, you can ask them yourself.

But you're right, this is a completely separate issue, so let me move on...

Quote: Face

It is not uncommon to find members who butt heads, however, your list is long indeed.

But that just goes back to what I said a second ago. Liberals love to whine, conservatives don't. If each conservative member went back through the record, sifted through all past posts by liberals, and sent you a PM about every rule violation they can find, then your inbox would be overflowing. So the fact that a conservative member has received a lot of complaints doesn't mean much in and of itself.

Quote: Face

For instance, "Rick's dog". I look at it, and I can't help but see it as anything other than an purposeful and planned attack on rxwine...

...And on the topic of your WoV sig, I am convinced there is no question. I don't see how there could be.

So was his comment & link to the gay guy and saying "This guy is much like you" (which you had defended) a "purposeful and planned attack" on me? Was it the original veiled insult on WoV???? Hmm...

Quote: Face

Your explanation aside, the very subject doesn't make sense as to why you'd bring it up and make it a sig. A random story about your friend Rick's dog? I don't have the vocabulary to explain it, other than it just doesn't jive. It doesn't fit. So I have to ask "what is this really?" And then the cleverly worded "Ah, Rick's whine". Am I really chasing ghosts, here?

This is why I had brought up those banned books. Let me point out that Green Eggs & Ham was once banned in China because the dictators there felt it contained "veiled insults". The USSR banned Animal Farm because of "veiled insults". Is this the direction the forum is headed??

If I'm going to be prohibited from using words like "tangent" and telling stories about a friend's dog, then perhaps I should compile an exhaustive list of terms that liberals should be prohibited from using when posting to me. For example, I don't want them to use the word "troll".....or make any references to the composer Beethoven (or Mozart or Bach, since they're just as famous and would serve as a proxy for me).....or have any discussions whatsoever about folic acid. (Why folic acid? Because it is also known as Vitamin B9.)

See how ridiculous this is getting?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is: At what point will you finally say to these guys: "BLOCK BEETHOVEN & GET OVER IT"???

If you see "veiled insults" in my posts, then what do you see when you look at his posts? Here we have a guy who thinks I'm a troll.....who flat out said that he's PROUD of calling me a "troll".....who compared me to a gay guy.....and who regularly pursues me and addresses me with unsolicited posts.

Honestly, what do you call that??? Let's use an analogy here. Say you get in a fistfight with someone. Afterwards, even though bad blood still lingers, that person decides to regularly approach you and say, "Hey buddy, how are ya doing?" and put his arm around you with a smartass grin on his face like you two are best buds. Technically, he has said nothing wrong, but would it annoy you?? Would it be considered a form of...............trolling, I dare say????

Seriously, why would a person (who is PROUD to call me a "troll") choose to keep addressing me publicly instead of just blocking me if he's so offended?? Think about it for a moment. As for my sig, I've only written 2 posts on WoV in the past month and a half, so the only people who are going to be offended by it are people who are deliberately checking my profile each day searching for ways to get offended.

Again, when will somebody opt for the simple solution and say: "BLOCK BEETHOVEN & GET OVER IT"?

Quote: Face

Asking Twirdman what an asexual is is a completely legitimate question. Pestering him for weeks across several different threads after he asked you to stop is not. Claiming someone is shifting an argument is a legitimate claim. Following someone across several different threads and calling them Shifty is not.

You keep bringing this up, but this happened like, what, 6 months ago? This is old news.

Quote: Face

Saying "Cess, dude, you're shifting the argument away from my point" is a valid statement. But wording it "I see your friends have taught you how to shift lol", to me, is nothing more than a taunt and references your previous taunts.

Let me refresh your memory. This was how the exchange began:

Beethoven: (see OP)
TheCesspit: Once he can get the commitment and legal consent of the computer to the marriage, may be he should be allowed.
Beethoven: Since libs love changing definitions of words, then let's change the definition of "consent" so he can.
TheCesspit: *facepalm*

http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/698/0/#post12088

I really, really, really, really, really want to know.....do you consider that a "taunt"? Personally, I have no problem with him saying *facepalm*, but by YOUR OWN DEFINITION, is that not a taunt??? And if he throws the initial "taunt" grenade, how can he possibly b*tch about it after it then blows up in his face???

I'm just surprised that you have focused solely on the (alleged) subsequent "taunt" while giving him a complete pass.

Quote: Face

I can only hope that the drama I've caused by the address results in an understanding from everyone that leaves us free and clear of drama for months to come.

Me too. And I will repeat once more that I was simply minding my own business in this thread and doing nothing wrong. I have never gone out looking to pick fights with anyone on DT, and in fact, I have purposely avoided initiating any type of contact with certain people here. But if THEY write to ME, then in no way am I going to let some thin-skinned, pot-stirring liberals dictate to me what words I can/can't use and what stories I can/can't tell. They're no different than the dictators who banned Green Eggs & Ham because of "veiled insults"!

But—and this is a goodwill gesture out of personal respect for you—I have deleted my sig on WoV. That way, there are no "perceived" insults for members to b*tch about. And I will continue to refrain from sending any unsolicited messages to the complainers here. BUT if they continue to send me unsolicited messages with unsolicited barbs and then complain about it when it gets thrown back in their faces, then my olive branch will be withdrawn immediately.

OTOH, if they don't do any of that, then this problem should be solved for good.

Quote: AZDuffman

But they do not want equal rights. They want special rights.

Is the right not to be arrested a "special right"? Is the right not to be harrassed by the police a "special right"? These 10 arrests were not of men going at it in public. These were arrests of men flirting with each other with the intent to have sex in the privacy of their own home. These arrests did not occur in 1963. These arrests were in 2013.

Quote: AZDuffman

And I am still not buying that animals practice homosexuality when animals do not have sex for recreation.

You're joking, right? You need to educate yourself. Read up on the bonobos. Those monkeys make Hugh Hefner look like a prude. Larry Flynt would blush around the bonobos. Orgies, cunnilingus, fellatio, lesbianism, gay sex, mutual masturbation. Those monkey know how to party! They're the only non-human species that has intercourse face-to-face. And how often do they engage in recreational sex? Every 2 hours. It's a constant free for all orgy. And for the most part it has nothing to do with mating for reproduction.

I'm not suggesting that just because monkeys do it, it's "okay." (Humans are too jealous & possessive for the bonobos' anything-goes party lifestyle.) But let's not be ignorant and loudly proclaim that humans are the only ones that screw around for pleasure & not reproduction.

Quote: Beethoven

I believe you. I will just say this. There are a large number of conservative posters here who believe that there is a clear bias against them. They feel it is no different from the situations regarding: Brendan Eich's treatment by Mozilla, Condoleezza Rice's treatment by Rutgers, Phil Robertson's treatment by A&E, the Benham brothers' treatment by HGTV, Republicans' treatment by the mainstream media.....ad nauseam.

I have heard this argument before, even before you yourself were a regular member. I won't say if it's true or false, because I don't know. I don't talk to Mike in depth often, and I can't ever remember him partaking in political stuff. I can only say when it comes to me personally, there isn't. At least that is my belief. I'll argue for guns and for smaller gov because that's what I believe, same as I argue for gay (special) rights and legalization of most drugs. Red, blue, that ain't my bag. I think they're both FUBAR =p

But as we leave the politics behind us in this argument, I will say this. I certainly notice, as well as engage in, a sort of "squeaky wheel gets the grease" type of behavior. There are people who never get rattled no matter what. There are others who take offense over things I find completely innocuous. The latter is a very tough thing to have to deal with, however, it's something I have to deal with. Yes, it creates a double standard. Yes, it is unfair. Something said to me in jest might serve to only increase our camaraderie. The very same thing said in the very same context to another has actually resulted in serious discipline. I hate it, but that's the result we get when you group people together from vastly different beliefs, values, cultures, and countries. To be clear, I am not saying that is the case here, but I acknowledge that it absolutely exists. Yes, Beethoven, on this you are absolutely right. But it is something I cannot personally help.

Quote: Beethoven

So was his comment & link to the gay guy and saying "This guy is much like you" (which you had defended) a "purposeful and planned attack" on me? Was it the original veiled insult on WoV???? Hmm...

This is another perfect example of everything I've been trying to explain here. I remember this incident very clearly, as it's one which gave me much thought. I will admit, I did have that "is this a dig?" thought when I read it. I saw that possibility. But at the time, the issues between you and he had not reached the fervor it has become. I saw the potential for him to sort of get in a dig with an excuse, the "no, it really meant this" thing that I felt you did with your sig about Rick's dog. I completely saw it. But I also saw that there was a perfectly logical and proper way to take it. Based on the details of that debate, I made my case for the non-inflammatory route, and if I remember right, you agreed, immediately dropped it, and even called me Face Lee Bailey as a sort of compliment to my debating skill lol. Looking back, perhaps he fooled us both and got in a jab at you. Only he knows. But I hope you can see the reasons for me taking the route I did, and sort of understand everything regarding what I'm saying about why and how I do the things I do concerning moderating. As you just pointed out and as everyone can see, this has been an ongoing, escalating issue between he and you. As you pointed out and as everyone can see, I've stepped in as lightly and non disruptive as I could manage all along the way. And as has been shown and as everyone can see, my decisions in how to address it along the way have failed. It did not work, and now we're here.

Quote: Beethoven

But—and this is out of personal respect for you—I have deleted my sig on WoV. That way, there are no "perceived" insults to b*tch about. And I will continue to refrain from sending any unsolicited messages to the complainers here. BUT if they continue to send me unsolicited messages with unsolicited barbs and then complain about it when it gets thrown back in their faces, then my goodwill gesture will be withdrawn immediately.

OTOH, if they don't do any of that, then this problem should be solved forever.

I appreciate the gesture, and I understand your stance on giving what you get. I does make me worry though. As a look into my own head, while I do sort of believe in eye for an eye, I am mostly against it. I do follow Gandhi's approach that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Hockey, as weird as that may be, also affects me personally, in that an offended does bear some responsibility in soaking it and remaining proper, and retaliations are often what gets dinged. But possibly more than that all, it's just my own judgements, which are made of what little life experience I have. That being said, I was looking for something here, and I have to say I haven't yet found it. Part of me is disappointed about it, but I think it's almost time to stop looking and just leave it to hope.

As I said, I've had to do something like this before, not only here but in my personal life as I've held several different positions in management and am a father and played the father role to several others. And every time, I worry. Because this issue involves several different people, but I'm only addressing YOU. That, right off the bat, gives an air of unfairness, of singling out. And every time, I worry that that perceived air of unfairness is going to cloud the issue, make things worse, and further cause strife between me and who I'm addressing.

Maybe I'm just lucky, but every single time I've done that here, bar none, it was received better than I could have ever hoped. Even when I totally loathed having to do it because I loved who I was addressing and felt the address was completely and unarguably unfair, that recipient has understood. I've had people apologize, sometimes both to me and a public one to the offended. I've had people explain that they see how what they've done could be taken offensively. Even my most recent one, which, again, was sort of a broad stroke gentle whisper, that person immediately PM'd me with a sorry, an explanation of their history and why they reacted why they did, and then hopped right into the thread an made good with the one they offended. Again, maybe I've just been lucky.

What has me dismayed is there's been none of that here. I get why you're upset, I get why you feel it's unfair. But that lack of acknowledgement leaves me worried for the future. Yes, rxwine's previous sig of "How to spot a troll" was more of the same I'm lamenting here with you. Yes, I feel that most of the people who finish off an argument post to you with "lol facepalm" are doing so in an attempt to taunt, same as the forum did with mrjjj back in the day. And yes, your claims that I've either been unfair or have made mistakes in moderating in the past are indeed correct.

But here in this thread, I'm only talking to you. rxwine taunted you in a sig. TheCessPit taunted you in a reply. Face blew too many calls to count. But what about what Beethoven has done? As we approach the 10,000 word mark, I haven't seen a single thing that's led me to believe you accept any responsibility in any of this. It's that lack of accountability that worries me for the future, and has me questioning whether all of this has been worth it.

I don't expect you to bow to my authority and repent your transgressions or anything stupid and dramatic like that. You've shown yourself to be hard nosed, tough, and stubborn. That's you, and I'm not about to even try to change that. I'm not here to change people and make everyone sterile and cookie cutter. So you take this how you want, and do with it what you may.

But that only leaves me to sit here and hope. I don't see what else I can do. I've seen a forced cessation of communication enacted here before, and I found it to be a failure. I can't in good conscience follow what I find to be folly. If YOU BOTH wish for exactly that, then YOU BOTH may agree to that, but I'll not initiate it nor force it upon you. Perhaps this will be another decision I regret. We'll see. But because of everything that has transpired here in this thread, I and I think everyone should be completely aware of the issue I find here, and how I expect everyone to act in regards to each other going forward.

Quote: Beethoven

Let me point out that Green Eggs & Ham was once banned in China because the dictators there felt it contained "veiled insults". The USSR banned Animal Farm because of "veiled insults".

This is a fascinating point, and I just wanted to briefly comment on this, even though it's totally off-topic and has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Between 1947 and 1956, the United States government listed the Jimmy Stewart classic "It's A Wonderful Life" as subversive and anti-American. Thankfully, the 1st Amendment kept the FBI from outright banning it (unlike China's war on green eggs) but it's still a reminder of just how out of touch with reality any government can occasionally be. After all, the film's themes are very pro-America: it celebrates small-town values, devotion to family, and places a small-business owner at its center. As Fox News would say, just another example of the government's war on Christmas...

Quote: Face

I certainly notice, as well as engage in, a sort of "squeaky wheel gets the grease" type of behavior. There are people who never get rattled no matter what. There are others who take offense over things I find completely innocuous. The latter is a very tough thing to have to deal with, however, it's something I have to deal with. Yes, it creates a double standard. Yes, it is unfair. Something said to me in jest might serve to only increase our camaraderie. The very same thing said in the very same context to another has actually resulted in serious discipline. I hate it, but that's the result we get when you group people together from vastly different beliefs, values, cultures, and countries. To be clear, I am not saying that is the case here, but I acknowledge that it absolutely exists. Yes, Beethoven, on this you are absolutely right. But it is something I cannot personally help.

That's fair enough. Unfortunately, it just encourages right-leaning posters to bombard the mods with PM's about liberal infractions, which means more work for you guys.

I appreciate your answer and your candor though.

Quote: Face

Based on the details of that debate, I made my case for the non-inflammatory route, and if I remember right, you agreed, immediately dropped it, and even called me Face Lee Bailey as a sort of compliment to my debating skill lol.

I had agreed that it wasn't a rule violation, not that it wasn't a veiled insult. It obviously was (to me, of course). But, objectively speaking, that veiled insult would even be acceptable under the strict rules currently in effect on WoV. In all honesty, I unequivocally admit that he can't get suspended over that particular gibe. Nor should he. A suspension would require that we look into his mind and try to read his thoughts, which none of us can do. Therefore, it should stand. That's why I dropped that matter in less than a nanosecond.

So to review, in a nutshell, I was basically told at the time to accept the "This guy is much like you" comment and to "get over it" (which I did). What I'm still trying to figure out is why that solution (which WORKED) still isn't an option around here?

But I still stand by the Face Lee Bailey comment. ;)

Quote: Face

I haven't seen a single thing that's led me to believe you accept any responsibility in any of this.

Huh? I don't know how you can say that. That's simply not true at all. I've written to you at least twice in the past about not calling anyone "Shifty" or "Mr. Tangent" anymore. That's not an acknowledgement???? Also, just a few messages ago, AZDuffman was accused of trollish behavior, and I said in response, "AZ is the last guy here who deserves a comment like that," (implying that I am NOT the last). I have also made statements about my posts to, I believe, RaleighCraps? Or was it SOOPOO? I don't know...I can't remember off the top of my head, and I don't really care to sift through 5,000 WoV posts of mine to find the exculpatory evidence. But the evidence is out there. If you really don't believe me, I guess can plunge into my 5,000 msgs and post links if you'd like. (I just want anyone who is reading to know that the above quote is not an accurate characterization of me at all.)

In addition, I've also stated that I won't address the guy in any unsolicited posts, I won't refer to him or allude to him at all in the future, and I've even gone so far as to delete an innocuous line in my profile just to get rid of any "perceived" insults. I don't know what more else I'm supposed to do! You make it sound like I'm some renegade who's doing nothing at all to solve the problem. *sigh*

Just thinking aloud here...I still don't get why every potential solution is on the table EXCEPT: "Block Beethoven & get over it!" This approach clearly worked when it concerned his "This guy is much like you" barb, so I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why that option (which, again, worked like a charm) no longer exists around here??? It's the simplest solution of all! Oh well, I'm not an admin here, so that decision isn't mine to make.

Well, we've now written several mini-novels back and forth for the viewing pleasure of [name withheld], but at least we're getting practice with our writing skills. lol

Quote: reno

This is a fascinating point, and I just wanted to briefly comment on this, even though it's totally off-topic and has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Between 1947 and 1956, the United States government listed the Jimmy Stewart classic "It's A Wonderful Life" as subversive and anti-American.

Hey, thanks for the link! I remember reading about this in the past, but I never actually saw FBI files about it. *thumbs up*