Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (1 Viewer)

[Konotay]

Having just now read through the last several pages, I would like to apologize for sullying this epic thread with talk of the gays and the Bill of Rights and so on. Hopefully we can return to our regularly scheduled programming. Konotay, timschochet's pretty much got it nailed. Bet or fold. You tried to give him the Daniel Negreanu "hey, I'm a nice guy, let's talk for a while and I'll try to get some information from you before I eventually decide what I want to do" type routine. It failed. Pickles was too smart for that. It's painfully obvious to everyone that don't want to make the bet. Admit that everyone's right, or prove us wrong.

There was never a real bet on the table. Pickles knew the answer before he made the offer. If I followed up on the bet he would never Annie up. So I had nothing to gain and everything to lose. I made him an offer where he could gain monetarily if he was who he said he was through a legal transaction. It was an honest attempt to pony up.The real issue is that he and his various aliases have been harassing me for over two years. Most of his post were personal, did not add to the discussion at hand and were aimed and creating a strong emotional response by me. I decided to fight back after years of abuse. But if you want a clean board, please discourage such behavior. But I will gradely stop responding to him but I need other peoples help keeping the board clean.

 

[Disco Stu]

There was never a real bet on the table. Pickles knew the answer before he made the offer. If I followed up on the bet he would never Annie up. So I had nothing to gain and everything to lose. I made him an offer where he could gain monetarily if he was who he said he was through a legal transaction. It was an honest attempt to pony up.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Annie up

oofYou're throwing away easy money here K-tay. You caught Pickles lying, why not take $10k from him while you're at it?

 

[Drifter]

But I really really really want to win a $10k bet. It would be the most epic of shticks.

No that is not the case. If you had the goods you wouldn't be this reticent to have a civil discussion about your area of expertise. This is just a game of high stakes chicken. You want to set the bar so high that it prohibits real investigation.I did find a way to do the transaction legally. I found a private eye who works with a casino who could be the fiduciary and the investigator. It isn't cheap.But you know the answer before I take the bet. You will not take the bet if you know you will lose. So again this is really no bet at all and you have nothing to lose. This fictitious bet is nothing but a ploy to hide behind which in of itself is the answer. If you had the goods you would not need to play games.

INCONCEIVABLE!11!!

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

There was never a real bet on the table. Pickles knew the answer before he made the offer. If I followed up on the bet he would never Annie up. So I had nothing to gain and everything to lose. I made him an offer where he could gain monetarily if he was who he said he was through a legal transaction. It was an honest attempt to pony up.

<_<You could not be more wrong. You could try but you would not be successful.He is who he says he is.BTW: It's amazing how many of you people show up as people I might know on LinkedIn even though we aren't connected.

 

[Possum]

Because they're not my terms. This bet is only meant to humiliate you, which I will do if you agree to it. I don't care about your research interests.

Nobody has to be humiliated. That is a dumb game.

If you have the goods put up or shut up. We don't have to play chicken with larges sums of money to prove our point. Kind of childish way to throw away money. Better, we could have an honest exchange of money for goods and services.

Or we could just discuss Chemical Engineering. Nothing wrong with that.

Game on?

So you say you're certain he's not a Chemical Engineering professor, but you don't have the stones to do more than ineffectively call him a liar on an Internet message board?

 

[YSR]

One time in chat, someone sent me a link to a blurb on Mr. Pickles' research. I understood approximately 47 words of it, most of which were prepositions and articles.

 

[CBusAlex]

I have a feeling SO LETS TALK CHEMICAL ENGINEERING! could be some good schtick...

Get up, get up, get up, get upLet's be friends tonightWake up, wake up, wake up, wake upIf you can perform rightWhen I get this feelingI talk chemical engineeringChemical engineeringBaby, it's good for me

 

[Possum]

There was never a real bet on the table. Pickles knew the answer before he made the offer. If I followed up on the bet he would never Annie up. So I had nothing to gain and everything to lose. I made him an offer where he could gain monetarily if he was who he said he was through a legal transaction. It was an honest attempt to pony up.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Since I'm going staff soon, I probably can't get mixed up in these pissing contests anymore.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Since I'm going staff soon, I probably can't get mixed up in these pissing contests anymore.

Probably not, GB.P.S.>This makes me giggle more than it probably should>"interfacial phenomena"

 

[Running with scissors]

never Annie up. It was an honest attempt to pony up.Most of his post were personalBut I will gradely stop responding to him but I need other peoples help keeping the board clean.

Awesome.It's the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Possum]

You will not take the bet if you know you will lose. If you had the goods you would not need to play games.

Global Thermonuclear War?

 

[Running with scissors]

One time in chat, someone sent me a link to a blurb on Mr. Pickles' research. I understood approximately 47 words of it, most of which were prepositions and articles.

I'll take a PM.I've always wanted to TALK CHEMICAL ENGINEERING!

 

[Burton]

I've been reading some of the statements from this judge's decision and they are really absurd and offensive. For instance:

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

So the judge is basically saying that the teachings of the Bible, which is the moral foundation for most people living in this country, should be ignored when it comes to determining the law. What's next? Should we just remove "In God We Trust" from our coinage? It is extraordinary that a judge would attack religious beliefs in this fashion.

Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Says who? This one judge? Are we really going to pretend that there is no difference in genders? Can a man carry a child to term all by himself now?

The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.

Utterly ridiculous. In the face of pure common sense.

Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.

This is supposedly a "finding of fact"? Does anyone believe this crap?

It seems clear to me that in order to make his case, the judge has completely thrown away our standard understanding of not only marriage, but the differences between genders, the role of family. Can you see now why decisions such as this one are helping to destroy our traditional values? But then, that is what the secularists want.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why don't gays deserve civil rights?

They're not a minority "group." There are gays that are white, Black, Mexican, etc. They're not discriminated against by not being allowed to marry each other. I'm not allowed to marry a guy either, so you can't call it discrimination.

Your missing the point Burton. The point is that it is no longer about changing hearts and minds one way or the other. Rather than go through the legislative process they have chosen the judicial process to win. Ironically it was probable that same sex marriage would have eventually won at the ballot box or through some legislative victory.

The point is, rather than win by the will of people, or the consent of the governed, they have chosen a path which looks like a judicial fiat and against the will of the governed.

I gotta ask ...

By "they," do you mean all the homosexuals and people who support gay rights everywhere, whom you think got together for a big meeting and decided to bring this legal challenge?

Or do you mean the actual aggrieved parties should have waited until the issue was eventually resolved in their favor at the ballot box or legislatively, because, hey, it's not like that would likely take many years and they're gonna get old and die or anything. Gays are immortal, right?

 

[ScottyFargo]

I am beginning to think this is just one big long con

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

But then, that is what the secularists want.

Seriously, don't they know this is a theocracy?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I've been reading some of the statements from this judge's decision and they are really absurd and offensive. For instance:

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

So the judge is basically saying that the teachings of the Bible, which is the moral foundation for most people living in this country, should be ignored when it comes to determining the law. What's next? Should we just remove "In God We Trust" from our coinage? It is extraordinary that a judge would attack religious beliefs in this fashion.

Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Says who? This one judge? Are we really going to pretend that there is no difference in genders? Can a man carry a child to term all by himself now?

The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.

Utterly ridiculous. In the face of pure common sense.

Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.

This is supposedly a "finding of fact"? Does anyone believe this crap?

It seems clear to me that in order to make his case, the judge has completely thrown away our standard understanding of not only marriage, but the differences between genders, the role of family. Can you see now why decisions such as this one are helping to destroy our traditional values? But then, that is what the secularists want.

Poor fishing.

 

[Running with scissors]

I've been reading some of the statements from this judge's decision and they are really absurd and offensive. For instance:

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

So the judge is basically saying that the teachings of the Bible, which is the moral foundation for most people living in this country, should be ignored when it comes to determining the law. What's next? Should we just remove "In God We Trust" from our coinage? It is extraordinary that a judge would attack religious beliefs in this fashion.

Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Says who? This one judge? Are we really going to pretend that there is no difference in genders? Can a man carry a child to term all by himself now?

The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.

Utterly ridiculous. In the face of pure common sense.

Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.

This is supposedly a "finding of fact"? Does anyone believe this crap?

It seems clear to me that in order to make his case, the judge has completely thrown away our standard understanding of not only marriage, but the differences between genders, the role of family. Can you see now why decisions such as this one are helping to destroy our traditional values? But then, that is what the secularists want.

I call Poe.

As a matter of fact, $10,000 that this is a Pickles alias.

 

[Running with scissors]

As an aside, I hope the $10,000 bet lives a long life in this site's memes.

 

[Burton]

I've been reading some of the statements from this judge's decision and they are really absurd and offensive. For instance:

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

So the judge is basically saying that the teachings of the Bible, which is the moral foundation for most people living in this country, should be ignored when it comes to determining the law. What's next? Should we just remove "In God We Trust" from our coinage? It is extraordinary that a judge would attack religious beliefs in this fashion.

Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Says who? This one judge? Are we really going to pretend that there is no difference in genders? Can a man carry a child to term all by himself now?

The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.

Utterly ridiculous. In the face of pure common sense.

Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.

This is supposedly a "finding of fact"? Does anyone believe this crap?

It seems clear to me that in order to make his case, the judge has completely thrown away our standard understanding of not only marriage, but the differences between genders, the role of family. Can you see now why decisions such as this one are helping to destroy our traditional values? But then, that is what the secularists want.

Poor fishing.

Actually, I'm pretty serious. All of those quotes are taken directly from the judge's decision and they should all be offensive to most religious people. Even if you agree with the outcome of the decision, you should still be appalled at the fact that this one judge should make moral judgments against the will of the majority and call them "findings of fact."

 

[jplvr]

"Annie up"?

 

[badmojo1006]

I've been reading some of the statements from this judge's decision and they are really absurd and offensive. For instance:

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

So the judge is basically saying that the teachings of the Bible, which is the moral foundation for most people living in this country, should be ignored when it comes to determining the law. What's next? Should we just remove "In God We Trust" from our coinage? It is extraordinary that a judge would attack religious beliefs in this fashion.

Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Says who? This one judge? Are we really going to pretend that there is no difference in genders? Can a man carry a child to term all by himself now?

The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment.

Utterly ridiculous. In the face of pure common sense.

Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.

This is supposedly a "finding of fact"? Does anyone believe this crap?

It seems clear to me that in order to make his case, the judge has completely thrown away our standard understanding of not only marriage, but the differences between genders, the role of family. Can you see now why decisions such as this one are helping to destroy our traditional values? But then, that is what the secularists want.

Go away. This is a lame alias and you are not funny

 

[zander_s]

I've been reading some of the statements from this judge's decision and they are really absurd and offensive. For instance:

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

So the judge is basically saying that the teachings of the Bible, which is the moral foundation for most people living in this country, should be ignored when it comes to determining the law. What's next? Should we just remove "In God We Trust" from our coinage? It is extraordinary that a judge would attack religious beliefs in this fashion.

Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Says who? This one judge? Are we really going to pretend that there is no difference in genders? Can a man carry a child to term all by himself now?

The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment.

Utterly ridiculous. In the face of pure common sense.

Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.

This is supposedly a "finding of fact"? Does anyone believe this crap?

It seems clear to me that in order to make his case, the judge has completely thrown away our standard understanding of not only marriage, but the differences between genders, the role of family. Can you see now why decisions such as this one are helping to destroy our traditional values? But then, that is what the secularists want.

Poor fishing.

Actually, I'm pretty serious. All of those quotes are taken directly from the judge's decision and they should all be offensive to most religious people. Even if you agree with the outcome of the decision, you should still be appalled at the fact that this one judge should make moral judgments against the will of the majority and call them "findings of fact."

Separation of church and state?? Legal decisions don't have to agree with the moral majority or the religious.

 

[jomar]

So the judge is basically saying that the teachings of the Bible, which is the moral foundation for most people living in this country, should be ignored when it comes to determining the law. What's next? Should we just remove "In God We Trust" from our coinage? It is extraordinary that a judge would attack religious beliefs in this fashion.

if we're gonna use the Bible to determine the law, can we bring back stoning people? I think that'd be pretty cool....sure, we should remove 'In God We Trust' from our coinage because, personally, I don't trust that ####er one bit. and what exactly are we trusting him with? he done a pretty ####ty job looking out for us so far

 

[jomar]

No that is not the case. If you had the goods you wouldn't be this reticent to have a civil discussion about your area of expertise.

'The goods' has never been defined. if Pickles proves who he is, you can still come back with 'you don't have the goods though'. you'll just find some way to determine that his area of expertise doesn't qualify as 'the goods', so you don't have to pay him. its your way of backing out of the bet if you ever agreed to it.what exactly is 'the goods'?

 

[Claydon]

So the judge is basically saying that the teachings of the Bible, which is the moral foundation for most people living in this country, should be ignored when it comes to determining the law. What's next? Should we just remove "In God We Trust" from our coinage? It is extraordinary that a judge would attack religious beliefs in this fashion.

if we're gonna use the Bible to determine the law, can we bring back stoning people? I think that'd be pretty cool....sure, we should remove 'In God We Trust' from our coinage because, personally, I don't trust that ####er one bit. and what exactly are we trusting him with? he done a pretty ####ty job looking out for us so far

Yes! Stoning people who tie a knot on Sunday.Sounds fun!

 

[McJose]

Annie Up! Yap that fool!

Annie Up! Kidnap that fool!

 

[zander_s]

Annie are you ok?

 

[McJose]

Ante Oakley

 

[Frostillicus]

$20 says Pickles teaches Women's Studies.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I happen to believe that marriage by definition is a man and a woman. Actually, nothing different than what Obama has stated numerous times

Just horrible logic. Justifying your position by finding other people that agree with you doesn't make your position any more valid.

 

[oneohh]

I happen to believe that marriage by definition is a man and a woman. Actually, nothing different than what Obama has stated numerous times

Just horrible logic. Justifying your position by finding other people that agree with you doesn't make your position any more valid.

How do you justify your position?

 

[oneohh]

Since I'm going staff soon, I probably can't get mixed up in these pissing contests anymore. :(

You guys have jackets?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Since I'm going staff soon, I probably can't get mixed up in these pissing contests anymore. :(

You guys have jackets?

Not sure. Do we get jackets, Joe?

 

[oneohh]

Since I'm going staff soon, I probably can't get mixed up in these pissing contests anymore. :(

You guys have jackets?

Not sure. Do we get jackets, Joe?

The FBGbirds

 

[GDogg]

If anyone wants to get back to the original topic, I think it's highly offensive that one judge should be allowed to subvert the wishes of a majority of an entire state.

Why? What if the majority (or to take it a step further, the entirety) of an entire state voted to have you killed? Would you want a judge to subvert their wishes then?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Ante Oakley

Lady Annie Bellum

 

[Statorama]

Annie up

oofYou're throwing away easy money here K-tay. You caught Pickles lying, why not take $10k from him while you're at it?

I've seen it before. You checked and he raised you 10K. Pickles is trying to buy the pot.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Annie up

oofYou're throwing away easy money here K-tay. You caught Pickles lying, why not take $10k from him while you're at it?

I've seen it before. You checked and he raised you 10K. Pickles is trying to buy the pot.

For a guy named golddigger he sure hates money.

 

[oneohh]

If anyone wants to get back to the original topic, I think it's highly offensive that one judge should be allowed to subvert the wishes of a majority of an entire state.

Why? What if the majority (or to take it a step further, the entirety) of an entire state voted to have you killed? Would you want a judge to subvert their wishes then?

Not the majority of half of a state? This is such a ridiculous analogy. This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

 

[Running with scissors]

This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

Why?

 

[oneohh]

This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

Why?

Because you are deliberately removing the natural aspect of the relationship between to humans. It is now an artificial union. Never, ever, ever, ever, never will a woman and a woman be able to naturally - without science - procreate. Ever. These decisions are being made based on a sense of entitlement that's being presented as a sense of equality.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

Why?

Because you are deliberately removing the natural aspect of the relationship between to humans. It is now an artificial union. Never, ever, ever, ever, never will a woman and a woman be able to naturally - without science - procreate. Ever. These decisions are being made based on a sense of entitlement that's being presented as a sense of equality.

So infertile heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either, right?

 

[urbanhack]

If anyone wants to get back to the original topic, I think it's highly offensive that one judge should be allowed to subvert the wishes of a majority of an entire state.

Why? What if the majority (or to take it a step further, the entirety) of an entire state voted to have you killed? Would you want a judge to subvert their wishes then?

This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

I would love some gay marriage power!!

 

[mad sweeney]

This world you people have created that gives gay marriage power such that it's compared with the right to live is such a joke.

Why?

Because you are deliberately removing the natural aspect of the relationship between to humans. It is now an artificial union. Never, ever, ever, ever, never will a woman and a woman be able to naturally - without science - procreate. Ever. These decisions are being made based on a sense of entitlement that's being presented as a sense of equality.

So naturally woman and a man who will never, ever, ever, ever, never be able to reproduce on their own, naturally and without science, should not be allowed to be married. Ever. Excellent point.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...Never, ever, ever, ever, never will a woman and a woman be able to naturally - without science - procreate. Ever....

You missed Jurassic Park?

 

[timschochet]

Judge Walker is going to rule today on whether or not to allow gay marriages to occur during the appeal process. This is a separate issue and I'm curious if any lawyers around here could discuss what the legal precedent is for this sort of thing, if there is one.

Bump. We should have the decision in the next hour. But I don't know what it should be. What should the judge do here?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Judge Walker is going to rule today on whether or not to allow gay marriages to occur during the appeal process. This is a separate issue and I'm curious if any lawyers around here could discuss what the legal precedent is for this sort of thing, if there is one.

Bump. We should have the decision in the next hour. But I don't know what it should be. What should the judge do here?

Weddings are good for the local economy....