Page 108 of 110 FirstFirst ... 85898100101102103104105106107108109110 LastLast
Results 2,676 to 2,700 of 2730
  1. #2676
    Thailand Expat
    malmomike77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    9,117
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    Blacks/Jews/Latex women did not win greater equality
    I still don't think they do not after Candygate

  2. #2677
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,305
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...*cough*...it's all a matter of opinion...yours and mine in this case. It is my opinion that increasing social and legal pressure will crack oppressive traditions sooner rather than later. Blacks/Jews/Latinx/women did not win greater equality under the law by sitting patiently and hoping white supremacists would eventually come to their senses.
    Get that cough fixed.

    Any gains made by other groups does appear to be fragile, incomplete and the cause of continued debate. As I said earlier, any gains made will inevitably cause adverse reactions if certain views remain contested. You may not care if your personal views create raised voices from opposing parties. Perhaps you are more adversarial? I dislike confrontation of any kind. Airing my disagreement will only further opposing anger.
    We disagree on the best way of doing about things. You crack on.

    If anyone displays impatience that things are not going their way, I would describe that as petulance. What adjective would you choose?

    I do hold strong views on other subjects, but I choose alternative means of expressing those views.

  3. #2678
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    Get that cough fixed
    ...get your posts fixed...

    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    Any gains made by other groups does appear to be fragile, incomplete and the cause of continued debate
    ...no one has declared that equality under the law has yet been achieved...hence the need for continued struggle, upsetting as that may be to those comfortable in their white skins.

    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    As I said earlier, any gains made will inevitably cause adverse reactions if certain views remain contested
    ...*boo hoo*...

    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    I dislike confrontation of any kind
    ...your posts suggest otherwise...why is that, I wonder?...

    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    Airing my disagreement will only further opposing anger.
    ...how you "air your disagreement" is important: presenting rational arguments to counter irrational hate doesn't seem to be effective no matter how patient one is...

    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    You crack on.
    ...definitely...

    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    If anyone displays impatience that things are not going their way, I would describe that as petulance. What adjective would you choose?
    ...petulance, of course, is a noun: I would suggest frustration or exasperation leading to deep disappointment...and, obviously, action...

    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    I do hold strong views on other subjects, but I choose alternative means of expressing those views.
    ...how? Powerfully worded letters to the editor? Perhaps a pout in the face of injustice? Turning the other cheek has never really worked as an effective strategy for removing legal oppression...
    Majestically enthroned amid the vulgar herd

  4. #2679
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,305
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...get your posts fixed...

    ...no one has declared that equality under the law has yet been achieved...hence the need for continued struggle, upsetting as that may be to those comfortable in their white skins.

    ...*boo hoo*...

    ...your posts suggest otherwise...why is that, I wonder?...

    ...how you "air your disagreement" is important: presenting rational arguments to counter irrational hate doesn't seem to be effective no matter how patient one is...

    ...definitely...



    ...petulance, of course, is a noun: I would suggest frustration or exasperation leading to deep disappointment...and, obviously, action...

    ...how? Powerfully worded letters to the editor? Perhaps a pout in the face of injustice? Turning the other cheek has never really worked as an effective strategy for removing legal oppression...
    You clearly see confused and disjointed world in need of aggressive action by you, in order to coerce change. My opinion varies to yours in terms of the solution.

    Are white skinned folk only allowed opinions if they concur with yours? hahahah

  5. #2680
    Hangin' Around cyrille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    29,014
    tomcat is focusing on the topic.


    You, as usual, are being a catty, fat fairy.

  6. #2681
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    Are white skinned folk only allowed opinions if they concur with yours?
    ...not at all...as long as the opinions of die-hard evangelical thugs (and many other such hate groups) don't have the weight of oppressive law on their side as they do now in many cases...
    Last edited by tomcat; 04-12-2022 at 01:44 PM.

  7. #2682
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,305
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...not at all...as long as the opinions of die-hard evangelical thugs (and many other such hate groups) don't have the weight of oppressive law on their side as they do now in many cases...
    Sorry if you feel threatened by those who might agree with your principles, but fail to meet the primitive standards of achieving them.

    Well done on the thread drift from matrimony to evangelism! Humanity enjoyed millennia without either in the formal sense, but only took a few centuries to arrive at todays level.

    Your impatience, frustration and exasperation is noted. My concerns remain at the lower end of being slightly miffed by comparison. Something else for you to rail against impotently perhaps, but only if you have the time of course.

  8. #2683
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 06:24 AM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    33,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    slightly miffed
    Kind of vague Switch. Specifically, would you demonstrate for a right you were denied? If not what would you do?

  9. #2684
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    If not what would you do?
    ...he's already suggested patience, perhaps with a dollop of Buddhist calm and a neutral smile as he's yoked to the plow by those distressed by his claim to "equal rights"...


    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    Your impatience, frustration and exasperation is noted.
    ...further noted: nipple twists aren't needed in this discussion...
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    My concerns remain at the lower end of being slightly miffed by comparison
    ...that suggests your "concerns" border indifference to legal equality...took you a while to come out with it...

  10. #2685
    Thailand Expat
    malmomike77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    9,117
    TC do us a favour and accuse him of dishonesty, we haven't had a cat fight on here in yonks, well we've had a couple of queers in denial have a pop but they've yet to formally come out and one rarely posts now he's had his SC privileges clipped.
    Last edited by malmomike77; 04-12-2022 at 11:40 PM.

  11. #2686
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,305
    [QUOTE=Norton;4456902]Kind of vague Switch. Specifically, would you demonstrate for a right you were denied? If not what would you do?[/QUOTEMerriam Webster dictionary describes the meaning of miffed as:
    1. a fit of ill humor.
    2. a trivial quarrel.

    My use of the word, as in slightly miffed, was more inclined to the second definition.

    I did demonstrate at Uni in 2008. (controversial closure of 2 of 3 national environmental reporting and monitoring sites). As a mature student I was disappointed by my younger colleagues indifference. (Fear of fee paying parents).

  12. #2687
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,305
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...he's already suggested patience, perhaps with a dollop of Buddhist calm and a neutral smile as he's yoked to the plow by those distressed by his claim to "equal rights"...


    ...further noted: nipple twists aren't needed in this discussion...
    ...that suggests your "concerns" border indifference to legal equality...took you a while to come out with it...
    'Suggest' whatever you want, in the certain knowledge that your suggestion may be right, or wrong. At no time did I even suggest 'nipple twisting' buddhism or indifference.

    Feel free to make suggestions or other similarly flawed attempts to undermine my position. It will make no difference to the outcome. QED

  13. #2688
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    flawed attempts to undermine my position
    ...no position to undermine here: bland indifference noted...
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    It will make no difference to the outcome
    ...that, of course, remains to be seen...
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    At no time did I even suggest 'nipple twisting'
    ...cognoscenti refer to false characterizations as nipple twists, designed to heighten emotion without moving the discussion forward...see below:
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    Your impatience, frustration and exasperation

  14. #2689
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,305
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...no position to undermine here: bland indifference noted...
    ...that, of course, remains to be seen...

    ...cognoscenti refer to false characterizations as nipple twists, designed to heighten emotion without moving the discussion forward...see below:
    I see. You now deny that I am even allowed to hold any opinion contrary to yours. Very interesting standpoint and curious debating style.

    Indeed, it is the point on which we differ. Statement of the obvious. Another curious debating style ...

    You introduced nipple twists, not me. I still dont know why you would do that? How is your phraseology relevant? No need for further movement of the discussion for me. I believe that any change will happen as a matter of course. You prefer a more speedy resolution, and different approaches to demand such changes. I believe such changes are futile and therefore wasted.

    By going over the points you have already established, are you trying to persuade
    me tochange my position? Unlikely, but it obliges me to reiterate the points where we agree, and where we disagree. Another seemingly futile objective!
    Last edited by Switch; 05-12-2022 at 03:57 PM.

  15. #2690
    A Cockless Wonder
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 12:00 AM
    Posts
    14,323
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...cognoscenti refer to false characterizations as nipple twists, designed to heighten emotion without moving the discussion forward...see below:
    This is great TC

    We have long needed a word or phrase for this.

    Is this gay repartee as I could not find reference to it in general banter urban dictionaries. It does sound a tad gay.

    I have had my Happy Mondays melon twisted many a time but I was not previously aware that I was having my nipples twisted when subjected to this debating tactic

  16. #2691
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Looper View Post
    Is this gay repartee
    ...TC repartee...
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    No need for further movement of the discussion for me.
    ...agree: you should have stopped responding 3 posts ago...
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    are you trying to persuade me tochange my position?
    ...you don't appear to have a position to change...

  17. #2692
    Member
    BLD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:44 AM
    Location
    Perh/laos
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...nothing? Not higher taxes, corrupt politicians, a beer shortage, pushy evangelicals or anal warts?...personally, I'm done with patiently waiting for older folks to die off...gay marriage now!
    You and yer friends will just have to be patient like switch said it aint gonna happen overnight. As much as you want it to. Im sorry to hear about the pushy evangelicals , the beer shortage, the anal warts . But all those problems will be solved first. Starting with the beer shortages.

  18. #2693
    Member
    BLD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:44 AM
    Location
    Perh/laos
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    'Suggest' whatever you want, in the certain knowledge that your suggestion may be right, or wrong. At no time did I even suggest 'nipple twisting' buddhism or indifference.

    Feel free to make suggestions or other similarly flawed attempts to undermine my position. It will make no difference to the outcome. QED
    The voice of reason.

  19. #2694
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:39 PM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,305
    Quote Originally Posted by tomcat View Post
    ...TC repartee...
    ...agree: you should have stopped responding 3 posts ago...
    ...you don't appear to have a position to change...
    Apperances can be deceptive. This is why I didn't stop responding. You have a nasty habit of making false assumptions...... usually in your favour.

  20. #2695
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    You have a nasty habit of making false assumptions...... usually in your favour.
    ...usually?...

  21. #2696
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 06:24 AM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    33,652
    Supreme Court conservatives seem to side with website designer who doesn’t want to work with same-sex couples

    Several conservative members of the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic Monday to arguments from a graphic designer who seeks to start a website business to celebrate weddings but does not want to work with same-sex couples.

    The conservative justices viewed the case through the lens of free speech and suggested that an artist or someone creating a customized product could not be forced by the government to express a message that violates her religious beliefs.

    Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that a businessperson’s objection would not be based on the status of the same-sex couple, but instead, the message the businessperson did not want to send. The question isn’t the “who” Gorsuch said, but the “what.”

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett told a lawyer for the designer that her “strongest ground” is that the designer’s work is “custom.”

    Justice Clarence Thomas spoke about the history of public accommodation laws intersecting with the First Amendment. “This is not a restaurant, this is not a riverboat or a train,” he said.

    On one side of the dispute is the designer, Lorie Smith, whose business is called 303 Creative. She said she has not yet moved forward with an expansion into wedding websites because she is worried about violating a Colorado public accommodations law. She said the law compels her to express messages that are inconsistent with her beliefs. The state and supporters of LGBTQ rights responded that Smith is simply seeking a license to discriminate in the marketplace. They said the law covers a businessperson’s conduct, not their speech.

    Lorie Smith: Supreme Court conservatives seem to side with website designer who doesn'''t want to work with same-sex couples | CNN Politics
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

  22. #2697
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,820
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    Several *straight* conservative members of the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic Monday to arguments from a graphic designer who seeks to start a website business to celebrate *straight* weddings but does not want to work with same-sex couples.
    ...ftfy...

  23. #2698
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    11,809


    The House on Thursday passed a bill to safeguard marriage equality, sending the measure to President Biden’s desk and marking the first time Congress has provided federal protections for same-sex marriage.

    The legislation, titled the Respect for Marriage Act, passed in a 258-169-1 vote. Thirty-nine Republicans joined all Democrats in supporting the measure, and Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah) was the only lawmaker to vote present.

    The Senate approved the measure in a bipartisan 61-36 vote last week, notching a significant win for negotiators after months of talks that followed Justice Clarence Thomas floating the idea of overturning the Supreme Court decision protecting same-sex marriage.

    Twelve Senate Republicans joined all voting Democrats to pass the bill.

    Following the bill’s passage in the Senate, Biden said he would “promptly and proudly” sign it into law once it arrived on his desk. He is expected to have a signing ceremony with lawmakers.

    The measure enshrines federal protections for same-sex couples, requiring that the federal government and all states recognize marriages if the pair was wed in a state where the union was legal. It also cements protections for interracial couples, ordering states to recognize marriages regardless of “the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.”

    Additionally, the measure repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that recognizes marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and refers to the word spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.”

    The legislation approved by both chambers also includes an amendment outlining protections for religious liberties — an eleventh-hour addition that was central to securing enough Republican support for the bill’s passage in the Senate.

    The House had passed the Respect for Marriage Act in a bipartisan 267-157 vote in July, with 47 Republicans joining all Democrats.

    But Senate Republicans raised concerns about the lack of religious freedom protections in the measure, which led to bipartisan talks within the chamber to break the impasse and, last month, strike a deal on an amendment. The addition shields religious organizations from having to provide services supporting same-sex marriage, ensures that the federal government does not acknowledge polygamous marriage and includes conscience protections under the Constitution and federal law.

    The addition of the amendment required the House to take up the measure again on Thursday.

    The push for a bill protecting marriage equality on the federal level began in earnest over the summer after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, the almost 50-year-old abortion rights decision. In a concurring opinion to that ruling, Thomas called on the court to reconsider Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that enshrined same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.

    Thomas’s statement — and seeing a landmark case overturned — set off alarm bells among Democrats that LGBTQ rights were in danger.

    The Respect for Marriage Act would require that states recognize same-sex marriages if the court were to overturn Obergefell, which would return the issue to the states. It does not, however, go as far as to mandate that states perform those marriages, which is required in the Supreme Court ruling.

    Lawmakers referenced that concern during debate on the House floor Thursday.

    “Today we will vote for equality and against discrimination by finally overturning the exclusionary, homophobic Defense of Marriage Act and guaranteeing crucial protections for same-sex and interracial marriages,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), a co-chair of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, said.

    “By passing the Respect for Marriage Act we will ensure that all Americans continue to be afforded the same rights by the government, no matter what the Supreme Court may decide in the future,” he added.

    Some members spoke about how the measure would affect them personally.

    “Thanks to bipartisan work in the Senate, the Respect for Marriage Act comes back to the House with added language that should allay anyone’s fears or misunderstandings, yet still ensure we can legally recognize marriage as it is currently recognized in this country,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), another co-chair of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, said on the House floor. “It would be wrong to say my husband Phil and I have a marriage that is any different than anyone else’s marriage here in this body.”

    Not all Republicans, however, were won over with the religious liberty amendment.

    “I rise today in strong opposition to the so-called Respect for Marriage Act — honestly the bill should be called the ‘Disrespect for Marriage Act,’” Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) said on the House floor during debate. “This bill certainly disregards God’s definition of marriage, a definition that has served his creation well for more than 5,000 years of recorded history.”

    “And his definition is the only one that really matters,” he added.

    Good, who was first elected to the House in 2020, beat former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-Va.) in a GOP primary that year after Riggleman became the target of criticism for officiating a same-sex wedding.

    Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) called the addition a “flimsy” and “hollow” amendment.

    Other Republicans disagreed with the argument that LGBTQ rights were in danger.

    “Democrats have conjured up this nonexistent threat based on one line in Justice Thomas’s concurrence in Dobbs. And they are misunderstanding, or they are deliberately misrepresenting, what Justice Thomas wrote,” Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said during debate.

    “Justice Thomas made the same point that he’s made for years: that the collection of rights secured by the doctrine of substantive due process is better understood as being a function of the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause. That’s it,” he added.

    House and Senate passage of the bill came shortly after five people were killed in a shooting at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colo.
    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

  24. #2699
    Thailand Expat tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    16,820
    ...only a first step toward marriage equality...the struggle continues in the face of intense resistance from the usual suspects...

  25. #2700
    A Cockless Wonder
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 12:00 AM
    Posts
    14,323
    Quote Originally Posted by S Landreth View Post
    The legislation, titled the Respect for Marriage Act
    Provocative trolling with that title.

    Disappointing, coming from bipartisan legislators, who should be more mature


Page 108 of 110 FirstFirst ... 85898100101102103104105106107108109110 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •