Millions of Hetrosexuals in Maine Divorce as Gays Marry

[Moses]

Yes, millions of married heterosexuals in Maine filed for divorce because
gay people were married in Maine at midnight. Oh the horror! NOT!

<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/us/same-sex-marriage-becomes-legal-in-maine.html?_r=0>

[hal lillywhite]

On Dec 30, 1:40 pm, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
wrote:

> Yes, millions of married heterosexuals in Maine filed for divorce because
> gay people were married in Maine at midnight. Oh the horror! NOT!

What a whopping big lie! The article you reference mentions neither
divorce nor hetrosexual.

[Paul Duca]

Irony goes over your head, apparently....

Paul

[rwalker]

Unfamiliar with satire, are we?

[hal lillywhite]

On 30 dic, 22:26, rwalker <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:44:46 -0800 (PST), hal lillywhite
>

> <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 30, 1:40 pm, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
> >wrote:
> >> Yes, millions of married heterosexuals in Maine filed for divorce because
> >> gay people were married in Maine at midnight. Oh the horror! NOT!
>
> >What a whopping big lie!  The article you reference mentions neither
> >divorce nor hetrosexual.
>
> Unfamiliar with satire, are we?

We? What, you got a frog in your pocket? I'm quite familiar with it
and decent satire requires at least a kernal of truth. That truth is
completely lacking in the lie posted.

[Moses]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 05:47:01 -0800 (PST), hal lillywhite
<hlil...@juno.com> wrote:

> We? What, you got a frog in your pocket? I'm quite familiar with it
> and decent satire requires at least a kernal of truth. That truth is
> completely lacking in the lie posted.

Gays did marry in Maine at midnight, so there is a kernel of truth in the
article.

[clw]

In article <kbsdv...@news6.newsguy.com>,

It isn't midnight yet in Maine but Maine does exist. That is the
current kernel of truth.

[hal lillywhite]

On 31 dic, 10:19, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 05:47:01 -0800 (PST), hal lillywhite
>

> <hlill...@juno.com> wrote:
> > We?  What, you got a frog in your pocket?  I'm quite familiar with it
> > and decent satire requires at least a kernal of truth.  That truth is
> > completely lacking in the lie posted.
>
> Gays did marry in Maine at midnight, so there is a kernel of truth in the
> article.

Sorry the kernel of truth must be in the claim. Your claim was that
*millions* of heterosexuals were filing for divorce because of
homosexual marriage. Not a shred of truth to that, no evidence that
anyone has filed for divorce for that reason. You post was an out and
out lie, and a bad one at that.

[Moses]

Don't you have some dead people to baptize?

[Bill Shatzer]

It was intended as a parody of the oft repeated claim that allowing gay
marriages will somehow destroy "traditional" marriage.

And that legalizing gay marriages will somehow have spouses in
heterosexual marriages rushing out to divorce their mates to enter into
homosexual partnerships.

In that sense, it was satire.

peace and justice,

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <kbtcf6$sir$1...@dont-email.me>,
Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
...

>And that legalizing gay marriages will somehow have spouses in
>heterosexual marriages rushing out to divorce their mates to enter into
>homosexual partnerships.

Well, that's really the essence of it. When the loonies start yapping about
"destroying traditional marriage", what they really mean is exactly this -
that lots of people will see that gay marriage is better than (their)
straight marriage (for a host of reasons, starting with #1 - no children
[unless you really, really want them, in which case, by all means, go for
it!]) - and that they will make the switch.

If this happens on any kind of large scale, it will seriously screw up many
many segments of the social order - including especially the economy, which
is entirely based on perpetual over-pro-creation.

>In that sense, it was satire.

Indeed. But explaining satire to Republiloons is like explaining snow to
(native) Floridians - or rain to (native) Arizonans. They have no context
for it.

--
"The anti-regulation business ethos is based on the charmingly naive notion
that people will not do unspeakable things for money." - Dana Carpender

Quoted by Paul Ciszek (pciszek at panix dot com). But what I want to know
is why is this diet/low-carb food author doing making pithy political/economic
statements?

Nevertheless, the above quote is dead-on, because, the thing is - business
in one breath tells us they don't need to be regulated (which is to say:
that they can morally self-regulate), then in the next breath tells us that
corporations are amoral entities which have no obligations to anyone except
their officers and shareholders, then in the next breath they tell us they
don't need to be regulated (that they can morally self-regulate) ...

[hal lillywhite]

The fact that you have to say, "In that sense" to explain it indicates
that it was at best an inept attempt at satire.

[hal lillywhite]

On Jan 1, 4:39 am, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

> Well, that's really the essence of it.  When the loonies start yapping about
> "destroying traditional marriage", what they really mean is exactly this -
> that lots of people will see that gay marriage is better than (their)
> straight marriage (for a host of reasons, starting with #1 - no children
> [unless you really, really want them, in which case, by all means, go for
> it!]) - and that they will make the switch.

Where is the evidence that *any* real hetrosexual will leave a real
marriage for the sham of a homosexual marriage? Some bisexuals and
closet homos might but where is the evidence that any hetrosexual
would do such a thing?

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <a3444802-d7b4-4d8e...@jl13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

If you're not worried about it, then you have nothing to worry about.

I.e., I'm not saying one way or the other which is better, but it seems
clear to me that a lot of Establishment (church, corporate world, etc) types
are worried that if they allow it, many will make the move. If they are not
so worried, then they really have no reason to oppose gay marriage.

--
A liberal, a moderate, and a conservative walk into a bar...

Bartender says, "Hi, Mitt!"

[Bill Shatzer]

Thus the satire.

peace and justice,

[hal lillywhite]

On Jan 1, 8:39 am, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

> I.e., I'm not saying one way or the other which is better, but it seems
> clear to me that a lot of Establishment (church, corporate world, etc) types
> are worried that if they allow it, many will make the move.  If they are not
> so worried, then they really have no reason to oppose gay marriage.

An all too common way of thinking, especially on the left. You come
up with a theory that sounds good and is self-consistent and on that
basis you assume it must be true. What is lacking is checking that
theory against the real world. Any evidence whatever that homosexual
marriage opponents are afraid that hetrosexuals will walk away from
their marriages in favor of homosexual "marriage"?

Think a bit more about it and you will see that there are plenty of
other reasons to oppose homosexual "marriage." For one marriage is a
contract between differences and historically has been so. For
another, the way things go government is likely to force churches to
perform homosexual "marriages" regardless of their beliefs. If you
don't believe the last, look at how New Mexico was forcing a
photographer to do pictures for such a wedding against the
photographer's deeply held beliefs.

[hal lillywhite]

On Jan 1, 3:14 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:

> > Where is the evidence that *any* real hetrosexual will leave a real
> > marriage for the sham of a homosexual marriage?  Some  bisexuals and
> > closet homos might but where is the evidence that any hetrosexual
> > would do such a thing?
>
> Thus the satire.

Huh? Telling falsehoods makes satire?

[Moses]

OK Hal. We understand that you are humorless. Find a new thread to bitch
about.

[Bill Shatzer]

Parody, exaggeration, caricature, and logical absurdities are rather the
mother's milk of satire.

See, for example, any recent edition of The Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/

If any of this were entirely true, it wouldn't be funny - nor satire.

peace and justice,

[hal lillywhite]

On Jan 1, 8:30 pm, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
wrote:

>
>Huh?  Telling falsehoods makes satire?
>
> OK Hal. We understand that you are humorless. Find a new thread to bitch
> about.

Figures. You have no reasonable response to my posts so you resort to
ad hominem.

[hal lillywhite]

But as I say, satire requires at least a kernel of truth. This has
none, it us pure fabrication. There is nothing to exaggerate, not even
one example of any hetrosexuals divorcing because of that law. If it
is an attempt at satire it is a very poor attempt;.

[Paul Duca]

I thought the only belief a wedding photographer had was that the check clears.

Paul

[Bill Shatzer]

There's a kernel of truth - the fundie wailing about how recognizing
same-sex marriages will somehow destroy "traditional" marriage. The
piece merely takes that wailing to its ultimate and rather absurd
conclusion.

But, I suspect we've sucked this lemon dry and we're just gonna have to
agree to disagree.

Still, there was no truth in Dean Swift's suggestion that Irish babies
be fricasseed.

peace and justice,