Republican

[drewl]

How’d I get dragged into this?
I haven’t voted Rep. since '92.

[Tankero]

He’s not doing it for ideological reasons, you bullies. He just wants to win! Can’t you let the kid just WIN for once?

[Dirt]

@bigdruid

Seriously, you’re going to vote Republican after the last 8 years? Either someone is trolling, or just hasn’t been paying attention.

Jonathan Blow has been paying more attention than you.

@bigdruid

Edit: Just read the Everything Else thread about different species of dinosaurs independently evolving into different species of mammals. I take it back, you’d fit in with the Republican Party just fine. Give Dubya a kiss for me.

Where is the proof that different species of dinosaurs have evolved into different species of mammals? So far as I can tell, they have only determined that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.

[drewl]

@drewl

How’d I get dragged into this?
I haven’t voted Rep. since '92.

Actually it was '88…this thing won’t let me edit.

[bigdruid]

@Dirt

Jonathan Blow has been paying more attention than you.

He’s better looking than me, too, but what does that prove? And if he’s been paying more attention than I have, then I feel sorry for him, as I waste way too much fucking time on keeping up with politics as it is.

Where is the proof that different species of dinosaurs have evolved into different species of mammals?

Hint: they didn’t.

Edit: Drewl: Yeah, 88 was my last republican vote too, although my vote for Perot in '92 could technically be considered a Republican vote, in a parallel universe where Republicans didn’t become the political arm of the Judeo-Christian front.

Edit again: Haha, I can edit.

[Dirt]

@bigdruid

He’s better looking than me, too, but what does that prove? And if he’s been paying more attention than I have, then I feel sorry for him, as I waste way too much fucking time on keeping up with politics as it is.

back-peddle back-peddle back-peddle back-peddle

@bigdruid

Hint: they didn’t.

Then I’m afraid I don’t get your reference.

[Aeon221]

@bigdruid

If you can’t tell the difference between “completely ineffectual at fighting evil” and “evil itself”, then there’s no hope for you.

Seriously, you’re going to vote Republican after the last 8 years? Either someone is trolling, or just hasn’t been paying attention.

Edit: Just read the Everything Else thread about different species of dinosaurs independently evolving into different species of mammals. I take it back, you’d fit in with the Republican Party just fine. Give Dubya a kiss for me.

Because Dirt has nothing else in common with those Republicans. Nope, nothing at all.

[Dirt]

@Aeon221

Because Dirt has nothing else in common with those Republicans. Nope, nothing at all.

That doesn’t align me with the Republicans. The thing that aligns me with Republicans is I think that, though gays should have all the same rights under law, they can’t call their union “marriage”.

[bigdruid]

@Dirt

Then I’m afraid I don’t get your reference.

I’m sure you don’t.

@Dirt

The thing that aligns me with Republicans is I think that, though gays should have all the same rights under law, they can’t call their union “marriage”.

Ah, stupidity and homophobia - the ties that bind.

[Dirt]

@bigdruid

I’m sure you don’t.

Is that my problem or yours?

[Aeon221]

@Dirt

That doesn’t align me with the Republicans. The thing that aligns me with Republicans is I think that, though gays should have all the same rights under law, they can’t call their union “marriage”.

Hey, I said you had nothing in common with them =(

Why the hate? Walla wazza gooboo?

[Dirt]

@Aeon221

Hey, I said you had nothing in common with them =(

Why the hate? Walla wazza gooboo?

No hate. I just think it needs to be categorized the same way we categorize “he” and “she” and “her” and “him”.

[bigdruid]

@Dirt

No hate. I just think it needs to be categorized the same way we categorize “he” and “she” and “her” and “him”.

Because you feel that the love between a homosexual couple is fundamentally different than the love between an infertile hetero couple? Care to elaborate? Because if it’s not different, then I’m not sure why you’d want to call it something else.

I mean, at least the canonical anti-gay position (“Allowing immoral gay love to be called marriage taints the institution of marriage itself”) makes a kind of dim sense, in the same way that “Kunikos posting about parallel dinosaur evolution makes Dirt’s post seem even stupider by association”. But that doesn’t seem to be what you’re saying.

[Dirt]

@bigdruid

Because you feel that the love between a homosexual couple is fundamentally different than the love between an infertile hetero couple? Care to elaborate?

Because there’s a difference in terms of genitals and the numbers thereof.

Edit: I’m assuming you’re male. Do people call you ma’am, miss, mrs. or ms?

[Aeon221]

@Dirt

Because there’s a difference in terms of genitals and the numbers thereof.

Edit: I’m assuming you’re male. Do people call you ma’am, miss, mrs. or ms?

Last I heard, nobody checks what a couple has under their pants before they get married.

[Dirt]

@Aeon221

Last I heard, nobody checks what a couple has under their pants before they get married.

Nobody checks your genitals before determining whether to call you Mr or Ms.

[bigdruid]

First off, I’m going to call bullshit on your “I merely want to call heterosexual relationships by a different name for cladistic reasons!” argument. There’s a hidden implication that if you call a homosexual relationship by a different name, it’s because it’s fundamentally different from a hetero one, and there’s no evidence for that. Why create a dichotomy based on number/type of genitalia? Why not divide by race? Religion? Hair color?

@Dirt

Nobody checks your genitals before determining whether to call you Mr or Ms.

Ah, so they call you Mr/Ms based on either outward appearance, or based on what you tell them to call you.

So are you saying that gay marriage can be called marriage if it looks like hetero marriage on the outside? Or are you saying that you should call gay marriage “marriage” if the couple asks you to call it marriage?

Or are you just pulling half-baked arguments out of your ass? Because that’s what it seems like here.

[Dirt]

@bigdruid

First off, I’m going to call bullshit on your “I merely want to call heterosexual relationships by a different name for cladistic reasons!” argument. There’s a hidden implication that if you call a homosexual relationship by a different name, it’s because it’s fundamentally different from a hetero one, and there’s no evidence for that. Why create a dichotomy based on number/type of genitalia? Why not divide by race? Religion? Hair color?

What’s fundametally different is that it’s a union between 2 people of the same gender versus one of different genders. It’s no different than the classification of the same human beings as “male” or “female” except that it would be easier and appropriate to identify; it doesn’t imply that one is superior to the other.

Edit: If we were an asexual species then the same identification would make sense.

[bigdruid]

@Dirt

What’s fundametally different is that it’s a union between 2 people of the same gender versus one of different genders.

Please explain why we need a special word for this, while we don’t need a special word for an interracial marriage? What makes gender a defining characteristic in your mind in a way that race is not?

Now, at least if you were making the argument that we should have a different term for a relationship with children and without children, I’d agree with you - there’s at least a practical difference there.

[Dirt]

@bigdruid

Please explain why we need a special word for this, while we don’t need a special word for an interracial marriage?

This isn’t about race. It’s about gender. Being different colors doesn’t make one fundamentally different than someone of a different color. However, being of a different gender does make one fundamentally different than the “opposite” gender.