Silly Mrs. Clinton

[MadelynIris]

Back to the subject at hand:

Dear Abby,
My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning, and, when I confront him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows that he cheats on me. It is so humiliating. Also, since he lost his job six years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, cruise around and bullshit with his buddies while I have to work to pay the bills. Since our daughter went away to college he doesn't even pretend to like me and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?
Signed: Clueless


Dear Clueless,
Grow up and dump him. Good grief, woman. You don't need him anymore! You're a United States Senator from New York running for President of the United States. Act like one!!!!

Silly Mrs. Clinton!

 

[BVS]

Be careful, 2861 may call that hate speech.

 

[yolland]

Considering its trajectory, I have to disagree with the insinuation that this thread ever really had a 'subject'...

I do find it ironic that so many people seem to find it easy enough to perceive Hillary Clinton (agreements or disagreements with her actual platform aside) as a dutiful 'good wife' who forgives her husband's iniquities for the relationship's sake, when such an attitude almost certainly wouldn't be extended to a male candidate whose wife had such a (public) history. Then again, I don't think these kinds of relationship crises and how the two people involved choose to handle them are really anyone else's business, and in any case, it's an unworthy basis for judging her political acumen.

 

[diamond]

Well Madelyniris just cleaned everybody's clock-quite handsomely I might add.

dbs

 

[BVS]

How so?

Did you read the same thread I did?

 

[martha]

I do find it ironic that so many people seem to find it easy enough to perceive Hillary Clinton (agreements or disagreements with her actual platform aside) as a dutiful 'good wife' who forgives her husband's iniquities for the relationship's sake, when such an attitude almost certainly wouldn't be extended to a male candidate whose wife had such a (public) history. Then again, I don't think these kinds of relationship crises and how the two people involved choose to handle them are really anyone else's business, and in any case, it's an unworthy basis for judging her political acumen.

But it's all they got.

 

[melon]

Back to the subject at hand:

Silly Mrs. Clinton!

Nothing like Christian conservatives blathering on about the "sanctity of marriage" and then wanting a couple to get divorced when even they don't want to!

 

[phillyfan26]

Well Madelyniris just cleaned everybody's clock-quite handsomely I might add.

dbs

I give credit to MadelynIris for not being blindly biased, unlike many opposing gay marriage.

Congratulations on another hit-and-run post that brings nothing to the topic.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

What exactly does her marital relationship have to do with her run for President?

Rudy Giuliani's kids apparently hate him too Where's the dear Abby letter for that?

Many people choose to stay with spouses after affairs and infidelities of many different types, whose business is that but theirs?

 

[Varitek]

Jesus. Does no one read the fucking countless threads on this anymore? Or do they forget what they posted?

It's a different one or two posters in every thread - very rarely do the logic-less anti-marriage posters return (at least to FYM) once they have experienced this 20-on-1 facts-on-assertions phenomenon that "keep right" guy (can't remember the numbers in his username) ran from.

But it also makes for a boring thread - the same 8 posters (sometimes myself included) reiterating the same logical points while somebody spouts one of the four items on the list you made and then ultimately gives up or, in the case of one recent poster, gets himself banned. They are usually relatively new posters, at least to FYM, and as someone pointed out earlier, often young enough that they can't legally marry themselves (perhaps hence that angle of argument?). Obviously they can't be ignored - it's too hard for many of us to stay silent when faced with that kind of hate, especially when it is not composed as a solid argument. But it makes for a really boring thread over and over and over again.

edit: I forgot! It's also a conversation that nearly always occurs in a thread that started out with a different topic (though I agree with Yolland's assessment about this thread).

 

[martha]

But it makes for a really boring thread over and over and over again.

Indeed. Can you imagine the poor sods who have to have that arguement in real life everytime they come across someone like that? :shudder:

 

[Varitek]

You seem to be suggesting the 'romantic' and 'religious' aspects are one and the same. But civil marriage presumes a longterm romantic relationship just as clearly as religious marriage does. Why does broadening that definition to include gay couples (a type of romantic relationship) call for dismantling the whole premise altogether? I think this is why you're attracting suspicion--it's hard not to see it as a way to avoid legitimizing gay relationships as 'real' romantic relationships worthy of founding a household deserving of government benefits upon. Because that, of course, is what all the controversy out there ultimately boils down to. It's not about whether adults with dependent relatives or friends deserve certain special legal benefits to assist them in that effort.


Sounds like Alberta (which also recognizes same-sex marriage, so this isn't an 'alternative' to that) had quite a different set of interests in mind in implementing this act.

I was going to write a response like this, but Yolland's is perfect.

 

[Varitek]

Indeed. Can you imagine the poor sods who have to have that arguement in real life everytime they come across someone like that? :shudder:

That's why I happily live in the only state where gays can get married (and my mothers were among the first to do so), and why I happily attend a very liberal college, and so forth. We've got diversity on a number of counts but biggoted opinions are not one.

 

[redhotswami]

That's why I happily live in the only state where gays can get married (and my mothers were among the first to do so), and why I happily attend a very liberal college, and so forth. We've got diversity on a number of counts but biggoted opinions are not one.

i really liked when you came in here and started that thread. you kick ass

 

[martha]

That's why I happily live in the only state where gays can get married (and my mothers were among the first to do so), and why I happily attend a very liberal college, and so forth. We've got diversity on a number of counts but biggoted opinions are not one.

See. This is why I say the kids will save us.

 

[Varitek]

i really liked when you came in here and started that thread. you kick ass

thanks!

 

[MadelynIris]

It's a different one or two posters in every thread - very rarely do the logic-less anti-marriage posters return (at least to FYM) once they have experienced this 20-on-1 facts-on-assertions phenomenon that "keep right" guy (can't remember the numbers in his username) ran from.

But it also makes for a boring thread - the same 8 posters (sometimes myself included) reiterating the same logical points while somebody spouts one of the four items on the list you made and then ultimately gives up or, in the case of one recent poster, gets himself banned. They are usually relatively new posters, at least to FYM, and as someone pointed out earlier, often young enough that they can't legally marry themselves (perhaps hence that angle of argument?). Obviously they can't be ignored - it's too hard for many of us to stay silent when faced with that kind of hate, especially when it is not composed as a solid argument. But it makes for a really boring thread over and over and over again.

edit: I forgot! It's also a conversation that nearly always occurs in a thread that started out with a different topic (though I agree with Yolland's assessment about this thread).

Varitek,

*clears throat* -- are you referring to me as following this 'method'?

 

[MadelynIris]

Nothing like Christian conservatives blathering on about the "sanctity of marriage" and then wanting a couple to get divorced when even they don't want to!

Melon,

Yes, it is a privilege to address you by your proper, original interference name again. The winky at the end would imply that this was a 'joke', as it literally was copied and pasted from an unfortunately forwarded email.

 

[redhotswami]

winky

Thanks MadelynIris. I think this thread needed more winky. I don't know why but that word has put me in a fit of giggles tonight.

 

[MadelynIris]

What the world needs now, is more winky.

 

[martha]

And no quoting of yolland?

 

[MadelynIris]

Yolland rocks.

 

[Irvine511]

the medications are making my head swim and glad i avoided this thread.

MI: your semantics are really transparent. i know, you're trying to lead us on some (il)logical path that will some how get us to see that all hell will break lose if i get married because then everyone will get to do what they want and when we all get to do what we want then no one gets what we really want because sacred totems or whatever will be broken and once they're gone we'll see why we needed them in the first place.

crap. come off it. please come to see that what makes my romatic relationship tick is no different than what make your romantic relatoinship tick, and the fact that we both have penises is utterly incidental to the love that binds us.

you can dance around this all you want, pretend your'e being really progressive (!!!) and people like BluerWhite will ignore the fact that the Democrats have all basically said that they simply won't support marriage equality for political reasons -- which is cowardly, but Obama brought up, recently, how MLK never focused on Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws in the early 1960s and stressed pragmatism, which is something i can listen to now rather than either Republicans who say they hate me, won't even acknowlege my presence, or people like you who are so patronizing and think that such dazzling anti-logic logic will suddenly get us all to realize just how special opposite genitalia actually is -- and at the end of the day all you are saying is that you are a better, more worthy, more important person than i am predicated on the basis of sexual orientation.

it's really that simple. there's no two ways around it. from a political standpoint, i can understand strategery when it comes to marriage equality. on a personal level, opposition to marriage equality is evidence of one's own bigotry and ignorance and refusal to view gay relationships as worthy as straight ones.

if you want to say that, just come out and say it. please, do us the favor of that. none of this brother/brother stuff. just be honest.





oh, and as for whatever else this thread was about, i am startled to say it, but i've totally warmed to "Mrs. Clinton." i have great fears about her, but at this point, she's clearly the frontrunner, she'll destroy the Republicans, and despite all my issues with her she is the one thing Bush is not: COMPETENT.

you might love her or hate her, but she knows that government exists for things other than to get Brownie a job.

 

[hardyharhar]

Welcome back, Irvine.

 

[Irvine511]

thanks.

now that i've typed it, i wish my semi-official "first post back" wasn't so angry sounding, but perhaps that just means i'm on the mend.

no worries, MI, sorry if i was a bit harsh sounding.

 

[MadelynIris]

Irvine,

Hmmm... what you fail to see here, is that I am ok with you getting married. Knock yourself out.

But, I say expand it beyond sexuality. How does that hurt you or anyone?

 

[BVS]

But, I say expand it beyond sexuality.

Here's the thing, you haven't shown any use for this.

If brothers want tax cuts and health insurance there are ways to do this without marriage.

If friends want this just let them get married, they'll have a sexless marriage. Most marriages do become sexless sooner or later.

The fact is that you just haven't shown anyone who wants this or why there is a need for this.

 

[MadelynIris]

BVS,

Here is a quote from a governmental page in Canada. Although, it gives no specific examples, it explains that they have arisen over the years and the intent of this law is to recognize them:

11.) Why were current Alberta laws changed?

Over the years, courts and lawmakers have recognized the need for laws to address the financial and property issues of people in committed relationships outside of marriage.

Because committed unmarried relationships create financial dependencies and responsibilities, the government must:

ensure our laws clearly outline the responsibilities people willingly take on when they enter into a financially and emotionally interdependent relationship; and,
provide access to the courts or other legal mechanisms to settle disputes when these relationships come to an end.

 

[MadelynIris]

Apparently Mexico City passed similar law:

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/11/09/6

Mexico's government has a long history of feuding with the church, but the Mexico City law's sponsors insist it does not undermine heterosexual marriage. They call the pending unions legal contracts between two individuals in a homosexual, heterosexual or even platonic relationship, Reuters reported.

 

[BVS]

They both just sound like a way to apease the bigots.

Separate but equal, or in this case separate and less equal.