Comments

120
Did you miss the "if you brought physical violence anywhere my doorstep" caveat?

If disobedience simply means lying down and doing nothing, great. Your jobs will be filled, your wages will be garnished, your businesses will not be legally recognized (though any income that you could be proven to have received would be taxed).

That is to say, I answered your question. Speculating as to what would happen if disobedience went further, I imagined a scenario in which the culture war becomes a real war ... a war I was happy, in that scenario, to fight, to defend my wife, my household, and the dignity of my fellow citizens.

Thought that was pretty clear, but as we've established, you barely speak English.

Oh, and my butt feels fine (I've been told in a lot of quadrants that it looks downright dazzling, given my age), and my wife and past girlfriends have never openly complained of any inadequacy. Thanks for your concern! Now shut up and change my oil.
121
Judging from your doughy visage on your "profile", I doubt you could rip out the pit from an avocado dear heart...

122
Enough people on here know who I am, what I do, and what I actually look like that I can all but hear the chorus of chuckles at your attempted insult. If that's all you got ... be well.
123
#120

I'm sorry... you know that I barely SPEAK English? And isn't that racist? Do you berate brown people or black people for barely speaking English?

"... I imagined a scenario in which the culture war becomes a real war ... a war I was happy, in that scenario, to fight, to defend my wife, my household, and the dignity of my fellow citizens."

Wow.
Just. Fucking. Wow.
Do you realize that what you just wrote could have literally been lifted off Stormfront!
Savage Militia Uber Alles!! Wooo Hoo!!!

"and my wife and past girlfriends have never openly complained of any inadequacy"
And you are telling me this because...? Insecure much?

You are pure fucking gold Mr. Clerical-MartialArt-Retail-Performance-Artist :)

124
I'd say this is getting comical, but it would give you the mistaken impression that you're funny in the way you intend to be, not in the way you're just walking into.

Racist? No. You fail at speaking English in the way that only native (American-)English speakers can fail at speaking English.

I don't see why expressing a willingness to defend my home in the face of would-be marauders should be considered Stormfront-esque, but whatever. Guessing at marauders was simply my attempt to suss out what sort of "disobedience" you were predicting, since the forms I could think of short of violence were pretty easy to censure in the ways I enumerated.

I was telling you about my wife and girlfriend's because you seemed concerned about my inadequacy. I should have thought that was obvious. But there's no shame in being insecure, really; only sociopaths and psychopaths lack a certain amount of rational self-doubt.

Don't really do the retail/clerical anymore; I'm a full-time personal trainer, martial-arts instructor, acrobat, and, yes, actor, performance artist, and playwright. It's an old profile, and an old pic. Not that it should matter. But you seem interested in making this all about me. Mind you, I'm interesting. But I'm not the topic here, and I've officially become bored with this exchange.

Have fun.
125
#124

"Racist? No. You fail at speaking English in the way that only native (American-)English speakers can fail at speaking English."

You know this HOW?!!! :)

You can't, white boy. Which makes you a RACIST.

Random items:

I mentioned "inadequacy" and your mind went to SEXUAL inadequacy? Yikes. Awkward...

"Mind you, I'm interesting" - I'm relevant! I'm cool! No really!!!

Do you want to start charging me rent at least?

PS. I AM impressed by the fact that you are a Full Time Personal Trainer. Seriously, respect!
126
Now, in my ongoing looking into the differences between the masculine and feminine principles- would it be fair to say, given the stouches that have erupted on this thread- over pretty much not much- that? Well- males are very quick to shirt front each other?
127
Unless @oirish is a woman? Doesn't sound like one to me.
Of course having good Lawyers on one's Team makes for good outcomes
@oirish. Yeah. Next question?
128
And people don't comply with the law? Then the police get involved. And jail time is maybe on the cards. After the National Guard is called out, if this non comply mob numbers are many.
129
@116:

Short answers are sufficient for those who possess the capacity to infer nuance, derive meaning, and draw conclusions based on exhibited understanding of the subject at hand; long, complicated answers are generally required when responding to those who demonstrate little or no grounding in the subject. You don't have to go into long explanations of brain structure to a neurosurgeon - but, explaining it to a layman is going to take much more time, energy, effort and verbiage, get it?

Here's an idea: why don't you start your little insurrection, see who joins you, and we'll go from there, m'kay?
130
OirishOiyesAreSmilin mistakes vehemence for veracity and confuses loudness with rightness. He is a barking dog and is properly addressed with the rolled-up newspaper of ridicule. I shall respond to certain sections of his Gish Gallop.

@101, 106: The threat is to file complaints of illegal discrimination. If found to be based in fact, such complaints could lead to monetary penalties/damages being enforced against the offender. In short, if you unlawfully refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation, you may lose money or be fired from your job.

@110, 116: When people refuse to comply with the law, greater consequences are leveled against them for their noncompliance. They may be arrested, forcibly if necessary. Assets may be seized from them to pay their fines.

@123, 125: At this point you are making wild accusations (of racism? of violence?) to distract from the fact that you have no further argument. You declared that some mythical group of people who really don't like The Gays will openly defy the laws of this country because they hate The Gays so much. And you demanded, to paraphrase, "what are you going to do about it?" And when people responded that the might of our legal system would be brought against said hypothetical rebels, you insisted that such legal matters would be disregarded as well, as if angry homophobes, by simply ignoring our system of laws with sufficient certainty, could make it all go away.
Hum and stick your fingers in your ears all you like, but we live in a civilized society, where we all have laws that must be followed. Civil disobedience is a mighty force in support of a cause that is just. When blacks marching peacefully in support of their right to be treated equally were savagely beaten by police and militia, it struck the hearts of Americans and impelled them to have the law changed. When young men burned their draft cards and refused to fight in a war they saw as misguided and unjust, it helped turn public opinion against it.
Nobody will weep for your lot's lost right to treat queers as second-class citizens. You will engage in mass disobedience. You will face your punishment, in keeping with the principles of nonviolent resistance. And you will be forgotten, because bigotry is no longer popular and the American people will not rush to your aid.
131
Oh good God. Fine I'll tell you what Subhumanblues and OirishOiyesAreSmilin I'm willing to pony up a dollar to start an online fund me campaign to get you two motel room.

The two of you can work out your gay fantasy to your hearts content and leave the rest of us out it.

Clearly you both haven't had any human physical contact in a very very very long time. Let alone sexual contact.

132
@131:

I'll kick in a bottle of Fireball and some Astroglide; that should be enough to help smooth things along!
133
@132: Just don't mix up the two!
134
@133:

Not MY circus, not MY monkeys...
135
Um..., Oirish, SeattleBlues? Pretty sure they're the same person. Also pretty sure they're generic logins for hate groups. Helps explain the wide-ranging attitudes and tones.
136
Nicely put upside down venomlash @130. Are you the same person as venomlash right side up?
All in all.. Very entertaining thread. Except when it wasn't.
137
FWIW, LavaGirl, you handled that better--@127 & @128--than I did. I clearly let myself get trolled. No great loss toe, since it is only through willingness to look foolish that I earn the skills and attributes that best serve me, and I think anyone reading would say I still had it on content, but I appreciate your lighter touch.

I exhaisted my inner rogue scholar on Seattleblues, leaving only my inner (or even my outer) pugilist for the other rotted meat.
138
@131-134

Projection.
139
@109

More words. A whole lot of fancy ones too! Too bad there's still no content.

Liberals (you and your ilk) believe as I characterized. You're toddlers asking the grownups to craft public policy to your infantile level. It's largely not from malice, I'll grant. Mostly it's well meaning utter stupidity. Or the arrested development that makes your worldview possible at all. But that doesn't make it less stupid.

Mostly what you write is the very bile and vitriol you accuse me of writing. Hide it in your walls of navel gazing text, but hate and bigotry are still your main stock in trade. (FWIW- try getting out your Bartletts. Guy called Shakespeate gave you good advice. "Brevity is the soul of wit.")

Oh and pal? If I ignore your enormous bowl of word salad due to the low ratio of content to volume it doesn't indicate agreement with your 'thinking.'
140
Perhaps task one should be an effort to rename it to Lesshead and then move on to the matter at hand. I mean the place is called MOREHEAD. Don't tell me there aren't already jokes that have existed for forever about that place.
141
And SB, you're a dick. And also wrong in so many ways. I've read through this entire comment thread and indeed you have been summarily dressed down at every turn.
142
#128
And LavaGirl gives the answer I was expecting and looking for.
So, which Poh-Leece would that be?
143
#129, #137

Let's just recap here. I bring up disobedience and non-compliance. Isn't that what left coast Bolshies love to do when they come up across a law they don't agree with? I mention no threats of violence, or even willingness to use defensive force

And Mr Clerical Retail Martial Artist Performance Artist Writer goes STRAIGHT to Larynx ripping and actually puts forward his fantastic visions of fighting in a civil war.

And you my dear, go straight to "Insurrection".

It's SO fucking easy to see what lurks beneath the carefully cultivated veneer of peaceful SJW-ness with you lot. Once in a while the mask slips and reveals you as you actually are: THUGS and RACISTS.

Thank you!

Well played. :)

144
#130
TL/DR.
145
@139: Answer the very simple questions. Here, I'll repost them so you don't have to scroll through thelyamhound's unbearably long post again, so as to save your weary eyes and fragile language processing centers. They're also in big letters now, just to make sure you can read them.
--What consequences are being avoided by same-sex couples entering into marital contracts? Please be specific.

--What "good" life choices (sub-question: according to whose definition of good?) are penalized, and/or what negative affects of "bad" life choices are socialized, by the entrance of same-sex couples into marital contracts? Please be specific.

--What does Greece have to do with same-sex marriage? Please be specific.

--What is the specific relationship, in your mind, between same-sex marriage and growing the hell up? Please ... well, I already built "specific" into the last sentence, so, like, you know.
Your silence on a topic is not interpreted here as your agreement with anyone here, but rather as your concession, as your tacit admission that you have no counterargument. You may accuse others of bigotry, but the fact is that YOU are the one arbitrarily accusing others of barbarism and immorality, and WE are the ones demanding that you bring a little reasoning to support your assertions.
You seem capable only of getting mad and calling people names. "What is't but to be nothing else but mad? But let that go."

@142: Since anti-discrimination laws listing sexual orientation as a protected category are typically at the state level, and legal marriage is handled by the states, I'd say it's the state police that would enforce the law against you guys.
What were you expecting? Did you think that if you ignored the law enough, there would magically not be any police officers there to enforce it against you?

@136: Oh yeah, that's me.
146
#131
This is your contribution?
I've noticed that you always pile near the end of a thread with homophobic comments.
Is gay sex something that bothers you? What happened in your life that made you a homophobe?
147
@136 Yes Lavagirl Venomlash and upside down Venomlash are the same person. I guess it depends on his mood. It does seem to me that he's more acerbic when upside down. But that's just my impression I've got nothing to back it up.
148
#139
"It's largely not from malice, I'll grant. Mostly it's well meaning utter stupidity. "

No, you're wrong on that.
149
@143: threatening mass insurrection and resistance against the force of law = not violent
threatening violence in defense of one's house and family = violent and racist
Good to know, thanks for the tip!

And hey, if my post is too teal a deer for you, how the hell are you going to read a summons? Could it be that your reason for "rip[ping] up letters" isn't so much that you don't recognize the Law as it is that it's too hard for you to read? You've certainly demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension in here.

But let's make it simple. Suppose you and the hordes you believe (apparently in earnest) will follow your example refuse to comply with non-discrimination law. You will be issued a summons to appear in court. When you refuse to appear, you will be taken into custody for your refusal; this is well-established in the legal/judicial system. What are you guys going to do then? Refuse to comply with the uniformed peace officers handcuffing you and taking you to a holding cell for your bench warrant hearing?
150
@146 LOL LOL LOL chortle chortle.
151
@138, 139:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!
152
@139 - Still no rebuttal to the points? Well and good. Not a signal of agreement, but certainly a tacit admission that you lack either the capacity for civil, reasoned argument or, more likely I fear, any interest in same.

Oh, and I've acted in more Shakespeare in the last couple decades than you've ever read, and have reached three conclusions (among others, but these are the two that are relevant here): Shakespeare didn't believe everything he put in his characters' mouths; even when he did, hr wasn't always right; and wit is a fine seasoning for rhetoric, but no substitute for precise, honest, and thorough discourse when the topic at hand is of any import.
153
@143, see @145. My words, I admit, were ill-chosen, selected precisely for extreme effect (which is only useful if I know that my opponent is both an honest broker and capable of recognizing either iron or hyperbole; I doubt your honesty more than your capacity, but have enough basis here to question both), but it seems obvious to everyone but you (and possibly Seattleblues) what it is I meant (and didn't mean).
154
Orish @143. Well played? So, what really is the problem here for you and SB?
Is the fact that the U.S. now allows gays to be married really such a problem? And if it is, why is it?
It's done. It's real. And why does this really upset guys like you so much?
Not your story, not your business at all. I just don't get how vehement people get about the whole area of homosexuality. Nobody is making either of you be homosexual. So, why should you be upset about other people's choices.
Please don't try the Sanctity of Marriage bullshit. Cause it won't wash. Domestic voilence, incest then easy divorce- Marriage between a man and a woman is only as precious as those in it make the effort to make it. It is not some inherent quality of the institution.
So, what? You get all weird when you think of two men touching each other's bodies? One man loving another man . One woman loving another woman.
You get aroused by the thought, maybe? Then to deal with that arousal, you lash out. What really is the problem...
155
Ah man I knew the female cat would eventually jump in and kill the mouse well mice in this case.

Still I was starting to getting into the "hmmm how many comments can this go on for" mode.

So all good.
156
Meow...
157
Seattleblues is back? It's like Trump season!
158
@152:

I half suspect trolls like SB and OOAS are just a couple of Keck's minions, hired to post obtuse, inflammatory comments simply to boost page views and thus increase advertising revenue. That at least would explain their complete disinterest in engaging in anything remotely resembling coherent discussion.

Either that, or they're latent masochists who get off on perceiving themselves as righteous culture warriors battling against the inevitable, sweeping tide of moral dissolution; a battle they know they're destined to lose, but hey, everybody loves an underdog, right? Evidently there's nothing quite so ego-salving as nurturing an attitude of pathological victimhood when you've got nothing else going for you.

I only hope they fall into the former category, because then at least they're getting paid for their abject self-abasement. Otherwise, they're just sad, pathetic little creatures of darkness flailing against the light. One could almost pity them - almost.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.