go Cali!

Welcome to Alaska, leave your stereotypes at the door and read the "breast" comic around!

go Cali!

Postby CJBurgandy on Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:04 pm

Got a heads up from our lovable Honor:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/gay.m ... index.html
CLICK HERE FOR HOT SEXY NUDES

"When Papa Smurf drank here, he was standoffish, Turk said. He favored vodka and didn't share his liquor." ~ Anchorage Daily News
User avatar
CJBurgandy
Eat at Crazy CJs! Home of the mad burger
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Too Old for this Shit

Postby Grabmygoblin on Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:14 pm

am I the only one who is getting sick of reading these terms in headlines? it starts to get confusing after a while.
*reads headline, first glance* Marriage ban ruled unconsitutional! :D ...?
*glances second time* Gay marriage ruled unconsitutional! :evil:
*glances third time* Gay marriage ban ruled unconsitutional! :P

*sigh* if they would just start
a) refering to it as "marriage", not "gay marriage"
and
b) ALLOW it
my headaches would decrease so much.
Image
User avatar
Grabmygoblin
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 4066
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:18 pm

Postby CJBurgandy on Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:22 pm

here here goblin
CLICK HERE FOR HOT SEXY NUDES

"When Papa Smurf drank here, he was standoffish, Turk said. He favored vodka and didn't share his liquor." ~ Anchorage Daily News
User avatar
CJBurgandy
Eat at Crazy CJs! Home of the mad burger
 
Posts: 6548
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Too Old for this Shit

Postby MNsane on Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:54 am

grabmygoblin wrote:am I the only one who is getting sick of reading these terms in headlines? it starts to get confusing after a while.
*reads headline, first glance* Marriage ban ruled unconsitutional! :D ...?
*glances second time* Gay marriage ruled unconsitutional! :evil:
*glances third time* Gay marriage ban ruled unconsitutional! :P

*sigh* if they would just start
a) refering to it as "marriage", not "gay marriage"
and
b) ALLOW it
my headaches would decrease so much.


ah, but you see, doing it the way you suggested grabmygoblin, would make sense, and when have you EVER seen ANYTHING done by the media or government that makes sense
Member of I.W.W
I.U. 660
MNsane
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 7:18 pm
Location: Tomah,Wi

Postby Codebear on Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:15 am

thats only one side of the media.

those are the leetches and the bloodthursty asssholes that make me hate my degree.

Im a radio dj and that makes me happy. Ihate the "news" side of media cause they dont do what they are supposed to. Um.... I believe that's stay objective. Oh wait you can't do that it's not humanly possible to do that.

So I say write to your ideals and then we as consumers of the media can make our own decision on which is right or wrong. Then we can let the government know what we think.

I truly believe that you all dont want to know what i have to say about poperasy. those bastards.
"Lady look at me i dont know where i am half the time."
Codebear
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:58 pm
Location: two really cold states

Postby MNsane on Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:25 am

codebear wrote:thats only one side of the media.

those are the leetches and the bloodthursty asssholes that make me hate my degree.

Im a radio dj and that makes me happy. Ihate the "news" side of media cause they dont do what they are supposed to. Um.... I believe that's stay objective. Oh wait you can't do that it's not humanly possible to do that.

So I say write to your ideals and then we as consumers of the media can make our own decision on which is right or wrong. Then we can let the government know what we think.

I truly believe that you all dont want to know what i have to say about poperasy. those bastards.


my apologies codebear, i did not mean to cast aspersions upon, nor launch an attack on honest television,radio or newspaper people
Member of I.W.W
I.U. 660
MNsane
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 7:18 pm
Location: Tomah,Wi

Postby Sleepsheep on Tue Mar 15, 2005 6:23 pm

The scary bit is how many states are trying to ammend their consitutions. It'll likely come to a state wide vote here in hell. I'm afraid that too many people, that would happly spit in W's eye, would either let it go without voting on it, or would vote in favor. Makes me sick. I'll vote but I don't believe the monkeys in charge will let it deter them.

[by the by: Hi folks it's nice to meet you]
User avatar
Sleepsheep
Newbie
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:02 am
Location: I'm going over there -->

Postby Codebear on Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:14 pm

MNsane wrote:
codebear wrote:thats only one side of the media.

those are the leetches and the bloodthursty asssholes that make me hate my degree.

Im a radio dj and that makes me happy. Ihate the "news" side of media cause they dont do what they are supposed to. Um.... I believe that's stay objective. Oh wait you can't do that it's not humanly possible to do that.

So I say write to your ideals and then we as consumers of the media can make our own decision on which is right or wrong. Then we can let the government know what we think.

I truly believe that you all dont want to know what i have to say about poperasy. those bastards.


my apologies codebear, i did not mean to cast aspersions upon, nor launch an attack on honest television,radio or newspaper people


sorry I didnt feel like you were attacking me thats just somthing i have a big p[roblem with in the media. tell you the truth i hate the media. i just like my job as a dj and its fun for me so i try not to fit in that whole "media" label. so im sorry for you thinking i was attacking you. sorry bud.
"Lady look at me i dont know where i am half the time."
Codebear
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:58 pm
Location: two really cold states

Postby Irish Witch on Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:25 am

I have always felt it was the job of the media to walk the fine line of not being stepped on by the politicians while not having stones thrown by the public while still trying to state the bleeding obvious to those who aren't smart enough to see it!
User avatar
Irish Witch
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:23 pm
Location: Curilean City

Postby MNsane on Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:29 am

codebear wrote:
MNsane wrote:
codebear wrote:thats only one side of the media.

those are the leetches and the bloodthursty asssholes that make me hate my degree.

Im a radio dj and that makes me happy. Ihate the "news" side of media cause they dont do what they are supposed to. Um.... I believe that's stay objective. Oh wait you can't do that it's not humanly possible to do that.

So I say write to your ideals and then we as consumers of the media can make our own decision on which is right or wrong. Then we can let the government know what we think.

I truly believe that you all dont want to know what i have to say about poperasy. those bastards.


my apologies codebear, i did not mean to cast aspersions upon, nor launch an attack on honest television,radio or newspaper people


sorry I didnt feel like you were attacking me thats just somthing i have a big p[roblem with in the media. tell you the truth i hate the media. i just like my job as a dj and its fun for me so i try not to fit in that whole "media" label. so im sorry for you thinking i was attacking you. sorry bud.


*tosses codebear a cold Leinie's (Leinenkugel's) "BIG BUTT" dopplebock*
Member of I.W.W
I.U. 660
MNsane
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 7:18 pm
Location: Tomah,Wi

Postby Codebear on Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:04 am

MNsane wrote:
codebear wrote:
MNsane wrote:
codebear wrote:thats only one side of the media.

those are the leetches and the bloodthursty asssholes that make me hate my degree.

Im a radio dj and that makes me happy. Ihate the "news" side of media cause they dont do what they are supposed to. Um.... I believe that's stay objective. Oh wait you can't do that it's not humanly possible to do that.

So I say write to your ideals and then we as consumers of the media can make our own decision on which is right or wrong. Then we can let the government know what we think.

I truly believe that you all dont want to know what i have to say about poperasy. those bastards.


my apologies codebear, i did not mean to cast aspersions upon, nor launch an attack on honest television,radio or newspaper people


sorry I didnt feel like you were attacking me thats just somthing i have a big p[roblem with in the media. tell you the truth i hate the media. i just like my job as a dj and its fun for me so i try not to fit in that whole "media" label. so im sorry for you thinking i was attacking you. sorry bud.


*tosses codebear a cold Leinie's (Leinenkugel's) "BIG BUTT" dopplebock*


woo hoo bigbutt.. nice havent had one in a while.
"Lady look at me i dont know where i am half the time."
Codebear
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:58 pm
Location: two really cold states

Postby Honor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:57 pm

sleepsheep wrote:[by the by: Hi folks it's nice to meet you]


Hi there, SleepSheep... Nice to meet you as well. :-)
"We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered...."

Image
Blogging and ranting at: The Devil's Advocate... See also...

The semi-developed country... http://www.honormacdonald.com


Warning: Xenophile.
User avatar
Honor
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 3775
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Not in the Closet

Postby Prettydragoon on Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:32 am

HONOR! WB Honor! I hope this isn't just a drive-by posting from you!
This webcomic, seen here is hosted on the free web host Comic Genesis which pretty much proves its not popular.
Oh noes! Read all about the tormented artist I am!
User avatar
Prettydragoon
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1981
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:35 am
Location: Finland, Finland, Finland

Postby Tangent on Mon May 30, 2005 5:59 am

Personally, I think they should do two things.

First, declare that there is a difference between "Civil Unions" and "Marriages" and allow people of any gender to have Civil Unions. Second, require everyone who wants the tax breaks that were formerly allowed for with Marriage to have a Civil Union.

Or in other words, let the religious fanatics have their cake but not let them eat it legally. ;)

I mean, they talk of the sanctity of marriage and all that bs... that it's religious and all that... but there's this big thing about the seperation of Church and State. So let's do just that. Marriage is no longer a State thing but a Church thing. If you want to be "married" in the eyes of the State, you need a Civil Union (which two guys or two girls or a guy and a girl, whatever floats your boat, can have).

If you think of it, this is already in the works. You need a marriage certificate to be married in the eyes of the State. It doesn't matter if you go to a church and are married in the eyes of God, the government doesn't give a damn until you have that signed piece of paper. So let's go all the way with this.

But I'm awake after 6 hours of sleep having had nightmares of being a cop (I'm not) and being chased by a murderous partner who was armed (and naturally enough I wasn't) so I suppose I'm not exactly coherant.
Robert A. Howard

Tangents
Image

Save Clan of the Cats! This fantastic web-comic needs your help to stay alive! Even "just" reading the comic helps. Go to the web-site to learn more. :)
User avatar
Tangent
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Massachusetts, United States

Postby SpasticSage on Mon May 30, 2005 12:02 pm

I think that's an interesting idea....

But you'd have a lot of currently married people who would have the impression that you're taking something away from them (or taking something away from their current union), regardless of how easy it is to get it back. Hence, I think this measure would be quite unpopular, even with non-conservatives.

This leads into the possibility of, for example, doing your plan going forward (civil unions for all after X date; register with churches for marriage), while "grandfathering in" old legal marriages for tax purposes. Hence, new marriages are recognized by church and state, as long as registered in both circles, and old marriages don't have to do anything new for tax purposes (old people don't get as personally offended).

But, as you said, this is very close to what we have now. Essentially, a civil union in the proposed system is the same thing as a legal marriage in the old system, with a different name (A same-sex marriage, by any other name, still offends the conservatives).

It would be easy to implement, sure. Reprint marriage certificates to be Civil union certificates. Conservatives still won't go for it:
(1) Most would rather have their religious marriages legally recognized, and
(2) Most would still be against civil unions being available to same sex partners, because they are so close to marriages. Would the name change really make them stop objecting to it?
User avatar
SpasticSage
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: Teetering on the knife's edge between wisdom and lunacy.

Postby Tangent on Mon May 30, 2005 2:19 pm

According to the majority of the people with corncobs up their derrieres about this topic, they feel that same-sex unions should be civil unions, and let marriages remain sacrosanct with the Church. Of course, I don't think they quite care about tax or insurance purposes. It's more of a "let's give those poor 'deluded' people what they want under a different name" or somesuch.

Me, I'm all for being old testament up their... derrieres. But I'm that way about such things as abortion (which I feel is completely a woman's choice and I have no right to state women should or should not have one - but if they're going to ban it, ban it all the way, except for health reasons. Because if they are saying it's a sin and all that, I'll quote back "do not visit the sins of the father upon the son" to them. And since that would mean rape or incest births are allowed... they back off more often than not) or several other topics where idiots feel they have a right to dictate how other people live.

BTW, I also would require married couples to have their union re-submitted under the Civil Union laws, just to totally piss off these shmucks who want to ban marriage for people just because they're the same gender. But I suspect the politicians would much rather keep their jobs and grandfather in existing marriages. ;)

The fun thing is, if the Supreme Court tossed down such a Civil Union law as Unconstitutional, that likewise would throw out the very concept of marriage in the eyes of the Constitution. Or at least I don't remember there being anything about people being married existing within the Constitution (well, except the 5th Amendment I think, at least one of those did have something about spouses not being forced to testify against their SO).

Personally, and I'm showing my heathen roots here, I believe Civil Union licenses should be threefold: a 1 year engagement/handfasting license, that if after the year is finished and they still want to be together, would go to a 20-25 year family-contract for raising children or a family. And if after that contract is up and they still want to be together, it extends another 30 or 40 years (or until death even) for Lifetime Partners.

But that would put the divorce lawyers out of business. After all, why pay for a messy divorce if you can just wait out the first year and go your separate ways? Or if after you've raised your kids and want to dump the bum you married, you can without need of legal counsel.
Robert A. Howard

Tangents
Image

Save Clan of the Cats! This fantastic web-comic needs your help to stay alive! Even "just" reading the comic helps. Go to the web-site to learn more. :)
User avatar
Tangent
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Massachusetts, United States

Postby SpasticSage on Mon May 30, 2005 8:06 pm

Tangent wrote:BTW, I also would require married couples to have their union re-submitted under the Civil Union laws, just to totally piss off these shmucks who want to ban marriage for people just because they're the same gender. But I suspect the politicians would much rather keep their jobs and grandfather in existing marriages. ;)


I think we agree as to the results and the feasibility of such a measure, even if we disagree as to whether it's a good idea. I must admit, though, as a single person, it would be interesting to see the shitstorm if this did happen. :D

Tangent wrote:The fun thing is, if the Supreme Court tossed down such a Civil Union law as Unconstitutional, that likewise would throw out the very concept of marriage in the eyes of the Constitution. Or at least I don't remember there being anything about people being married existing within the Constitution (well, except the 5th Amendment I think, at least one of those did have something about spouses not being forced to testify against their SO).


I think that's a fair assessment. Then the question is, can states and the federal government make laws about things not mentioned in the constitution?

Tangent wrote:Personally, and I'm showing my heathen roots here, I believe Civil Union licenses should be threefold: a 1 year engagement/handfasting license, that if after the year is finished and they still want to be together, would go to a 20-25 year family-contract for raising children or a family. And if after that contract is up and they still want to be together, it extends another 30 or 40 years (or until death even) for Lifetime Partners.


While I think that it's a good idea to have at least that long an engagement, you haven't convinced me that it should be legally mandated. We are talking, after all, about what people should and should not be allowed to do with their own persons/relationships.

Tangent wrote:Me, I'm all for being old testament up their... derrieres. But I'm that way about such things as abortion (which I feel is completely a woman's choice and I have no right to state women should or should not have one - but if they're going to ban it, ban it all the way, except for health reasons. Because if they are saying it's a sin and all that, I'll quote back "do not visit the sins of the father upon the son" to them. And since that would mean rape or incest births are allowed... they back off more often than not) or several other topics where idiots feel they have a right to dictate how other people live.


Kind of off topic, but liberals become pro-lifers when they believe that a fetus "counts" (for lack of a better word) as a human enough that they think it isn't just a decision about the mother's own body. Granted, "countage" would be difficult at best to prove or disprove (and not something I want to go into so much in this thread). I will say it is politically easier for a politician to back down in cases of rape and incest.
User avatar
SpasticSage
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: Teetering on the knife's edge between wisdom and lunacy.

Postby Tangent on Tue May 31, 2005 7:09 am

Heh. My handle is Tangent after all! :D Of course I'm going to go off on one. ;)

As for the whole "handfasting" thing, what I'm talking about would be similar to the Wiccan (among other pagan faiths) concept of a handfasting, in which for a year and a day the couple would be actually married. I would include it for medical insurance and the like (though probably not tax purposes as it's only a year and would probably muck up the IRS something fierce).

Basically it's similar to an engagement except that the couple can act as if they're married (ie, sex, living together, etc.) and if, within the end of that year, they realize they're unsuitable for each other, they can leave without any problems (excepting of course child support if in a man/woman handfasting the man gets the woman pregnant).

(And off on another tangent, I heard of one case where a man was married to a woman, she cheated on him, got pregnant with another man's baby, and he divorced her. She sued successfully for child support from him even though he's not biologically the child's father. Which just leads me to believing quite a few judges out there should be shot out cannon...)
Robert A. Howard

Tangents
Image

Save Clan of the Cats! This fantastic web-comic needs your help to stay alive! Even "just" reading the comic helps. Go to the web-site to learn more. :)
User avatar
Tangent
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Massachusetts, United States

Postby SpasticSage on Tue May 31, 2005 5:44 pm

Perhaps it is a good idea to do things this way, but you still haven't convinced me that it should be legally mandated.

Especially so, since it's based on a different religious belief than what the current legal marriage is based on. Isn't this (basing legal commitments on religious beliefs) what's getting us in trouble in the first place?

How is this different from a current day legal marriage, aside from excluding taxes (for bureaucratc trouble), and aside from the set expiration date?
User avatar
SpasticSage
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: Teetering on the knife's edge between wisdom and lunacy.

Postby Sleepsheep on Tue May 31, 2005 6:31 pm

I like the idea of a "Cinderlla" marrage. You are walking down the street and see a hip young couple walking your way. You turn as they pass and see a big "L" on thier backs. :D Or they can't have sex after midnight... or maybe it should be only after midnight.... :oops: Maybe that part should be left out. Learners permit marrage might not be a good idea.
You have violated Robots Rules of Order, and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
User avatar
Sleepsheep
Newbie
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:02 am
Location: I'm going over there -->

Next

 

Return to Burgundy Comics, Inc.



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest