tvashtarkatena Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 I'm glad that happy people can get married in Vermont too now. It would suck if only depressed people could. They're happy now, but wait until they've been married a few years. Let gays get married. Misery loves company. ;-) THis was the jist of a great New Yorker cartoon, wherein a husband says to his wife from behind a newspaper "Gay marriage? Haven't they suffered enough?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 8, 2009 Author Share Posted April 8, 2009 I had very liberal--"live and let live"--beliefs when I was much younger and in college. That was then. The worldview of a conscientious person should change over time given the fluid nature of life circumstances. Am I right? I don't know. So you believe that the deeper eternal truths become evident in society over time, that government is the vehicle of change, and that an ideal society is approaching where human rights hold the highest value Uber Alles? Somehow I feel that these changes are substitute gratifications while the system is essentially flawed, that these changes serve as a pressure release valve, that a secular religion of existentialism rooted in materialism is exalted as the cult of the future. So back to the question. I will not commit to a yes or no answer. You're all in a twitter because someone other than myself has discovered that you just basically suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 DID U TWITTER THAT COMMENT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 @porter: Get me a sandwich, bitch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Is that all you got? Pussy. I'd be really surprised if you said you had offspring because by the looks of it these posts will be your only lasting legacy. But hey, don't take it so hard, it's only spray or is that jist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 touche! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 More like douche'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Well, hopefully your 'legacy' won't be as confused as their father... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 I don’t harbor any ill feelings towards anyone here. My life’s bigger than that. Truth be told, I am taking a hiatus from climbing (I hope…I haven’t sold my gear yet). It’s more of a mindset for me regardless of how good a climber is or what kind of climber you are. That mindset includes having fun, staying active, engaging with friends….and this site is a great venue for that. FWIW, I do respect that Tvash does go climbing frequently and appears to be a generally ‘good’ person. I also respect that people are willing to stand by their beliefs and to protect their friends. Me….maybe I’m trying to do the impossible by seeking to reconcile opposing viewpoints or to see things from someone else’s perspective to find the faults in mine. Just seems that there’s a potential higher unity or another way through all these messes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 The ads that show up on this page are funny. Gay online chat rooms and shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 One need not harbor any ill feelings towards a douchebag. After all, it just is what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 does anyone remember what colonel kurtz would have said about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 It's judgement that defeats us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 does anyone remember what colonel kurtz would have said about this? nuke 'em Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Which douchebag are we talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 10, 2009 Author Share Posted April 10, 2009 In a room full of identical douchebags, such a question is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 does anyone remember what colonel kurtz would have said about this? nuke 'em "you have a right to kill me - you do have that right - but you have no right to judge me" and later, in regards to the perfect warriors: "You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 It's judgement that defeats us. nice, btw! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 The right for gay people to enter into a legal contractual agreement and to enjoy the rights and privileges already afforded to other members of this society is a civil rights issue. What you may not realize is that gay couples HAVE that right in Washington. By law. I agree with many of the arguments made here about why gays should be able to marry but the fact is that T'vash's friend can visit his partner in the hospital and they in fact CAN have all the same rights that a heterosexual couple would have -- by law in the State of Washington. They have to register as a domestic partnership, but the same is true of heterosexual couples who have to get a marriage license and have the judge or pastor send the form back to the State after their marriage. Even before Washington's Domestic Partnership law, gay couple's could have had the same rights of visitation and consent and etc. -- or nearly so -- with a simple pre-planned healthcare power of attorney. Most states do not have as powerful of a domestic partnership law as Washington but here, at least, the legal functional difference between "marriage" and "domestic partnership" is mostly in name only. The emotional and publicly accepted differences, however, remain huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minx Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 hmmm...i've been meaning to plan a vacation. vermont sounds lovley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 mt mansfield, the state highpoint, this time of year is in fact quite, quite lovely, especially if you ski! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted April 10, 2009 Author Share Posted April 10, 2009 The right for gay people to enter into a legal contractual agreement and to enjoy the rights and privileges already afforded to other members of this society is a civil rights issue. What you may not realize is that gay couples HAVE that right in Washington. By law. I agree with many of the arguments made here about why gays should be able to marry but the fact is that T'vash's friend can visit his partner in the hospital and they in fact CAN have all the same rights that a heterosexual couple would have -- by law in the State of Washington. They have to register as a domestic partnership, but the same is true of heterosexual couples who have to get a marriage license and have the judge or pastor send the form back to the State after their marriage. Even before Washington's Domestic Partnership law, gay couple's could have had the same rights of visitation and consent and etc. -- or nearly so -- with a simple pre-planned healthcare power of attorney. Most states do not have as powerful of a domestic partnership law as Washington but here, at least, the legal functional difference between "marriage" and "domestic partnership" is mostly in name only. The emotional and publicly accepted differences, however, remain huge. Thanks for the recap of what I previously stated regarding the law in Washington.... The problem with most state 'civil union' laws is that they do NOT include the full basket of rights afforded to married couples. The minute a couple moves to another state that recognizes a different subset of marital rights, or none at all, they face a clusterfuck of galactic proportions regarding visitation, property, insurance, child rearing, and other rights. This is clearly a basic, constitutional issue that should be resolved at the national level. Affording full marriage rights, either by statute or constitutional amendment, to gay couples is clearly the simplest and most just way to do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.