SYG Costume Party 2009 - Page 6

pbradley · 11.03.2009, 03:11 AM

Pitchfork is pretty hip-to-be-squarish, isn't it?

davenotdead · 11.03.2009, 03:14 AM

what? no. fail.

davenotdead · 11.03.2009, 03:18 AM

socially conservative, fiscally conservative, blue-collar, family-oriented, traditional, pro-life. this is the new hip. embrace it

pbradley · 11.03.2009, 03:18 AM

Maybe it's just ironic hip-to-be-square.

But isn't all hip-to-be-squareness essentially ironic?

pbradley · 11.03.2009, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davenotdead

socially conservative, fiscally conservative, blue-collar, family-oriented, traditional, pro-life. this is the new hip. embrace it

I'd rather be square.

davenotdead · 11.03.2009, 03:19 AM

not surprised.

being hip isn't easy, otherwise everyone would choose it.

pbradley · 11.03.2009, 03:22 AM

Hope you don't mind me calling you hipster, then, hipster being so fucking hip.

davenotdead · 11.03.2009, 03:25 AM

sure. i've earned my stripes

pbradley · 11.03.2009, 03:29 AM

Bringing it back, y'all.

Satan · 11.03.2009, 04:14 AM

oh.my.god.you.people.

everyone should be allowed to do wtf they want and that includes getting married. if you wanna, great, if not, great, who cares, whatever, dont sit here and hate on people who do.

TOLERANCE.
it goes both ways guys.

atsonicpark · 11.03.2009, 04:45 AM

pbradley · 11.03.2009, 04:48 AM

As with many such debates, the issue of confrontation lies within confusion over the meaning of "marriage." I believe notyourfiend was criticizing the genealogy of marriage as a socio-economic institution, as per her typical Foucauldian vantage.

However, in rebuttal, marriage should not be solely defined by its social and legal expression. To interpret girlgun, marriage is legitimized by being a practice that precedes social norms and legal privileges. In essence, a couple joined in marriage are so in virtue of being joined above all else. To them, marriage as an institution is secondary.

terriblecanyons · 11.03.2009, 04:57 AM

LOLLLLOOLO NEG REP ROFL XD

sheesh.

phoenix · 11.03.2009, 06:05 AM

From my side of the ocean it appears to me that notyrfiend is more against the formal 'procedure' and therefore rocognised ecconomic benefits/restrictions/allowances that come with being married, because it is descriminatory and not something which is available to ALL types of couples.. rather than being against the idea of people who choose to make a life commitment to someone...

just sayin.

phoenix · 11.03.2009, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbradley

However, in rebuttal, marriage should not be solely defined by its social and legal expression. To interpret girlgun, marriage is legitimized by being a practice that precedes social norms and legal privileges. In essence, a couple joined in marriage are so in virtue of being joined above all else. To them, marriage as an institution is secondary.

no but that is the point, it isn't available to all couple's who would like to partake in it, and so it is and can be extremely descriminatory legally financially etc..

Satan · 11.03.2009, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoenix

From my side of the ocean it appears to me that notyrfiend is more against the formal 'procedure' and therefore rocognised ecconomic benefits/restrictions/allowances that come with being married, because it is descriminatory and not something which is available to ALL types of couples.. rather than being against the idea of people who choose to make a life commitment to someone...

just sayin.

yes and i agree with this. it's people getting all radical about it that i can't deal with.

gays should be able to get married with the same benefits as straight people. or perhaps the whole system should be done away with and marriage should be about love.

phoenix · 11.03.2009, 06:14 AM

When I was getting government benefits as a student a couple of years ago, I had to fill out a few forms regarding my financial status, living arangements, etc.

One section basically read:

"Do you live with(spend more than 3 days a week) someone of the opposite sex? If yes, what is their yearly income? "

It didn't matter HOW MANY women/same sex people I might be living with, and what they were earning. To the govt, those details are irrelevant. Yet I am judged on the assumption that I may be in a supportive relationship with someone just because they are of the opposite sex. Because same sex relationships aren't legally recognised, they DONT MATTER.

It is ridiculous.

phoenix · 11.03.2009, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satan

yes and i agree with this. it's people getting all radical about it that i can't deal with.

in what way?

Satan · 11.03.2009, 06:16 AM

it's rude and often intolerant shitspewing

like i said, it goes both ways.

this is like talking about abortion.

phoenix · 11.03.2009, 06:19 AM

I don't care if people want to get married/not. I do care how unfair it is that some people who wish to, cannot. They are different discussions. imho.

lol abortion.

11.03.2009, 03:11 AM	#101
pbradley invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: SoKo Posts: 10,621	Pitchfork is pretty hip-to-be-squarish, isn't it?
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 03:14 AM	#102
davenotdead invito al cielo Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,784	what? no. fail. __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 03:18 AM	#103
davenotdead invito al cielo Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,784	socially conservative, fiscally conservative, blue-collar, family-oriented, traditional, pro-life. this is the new hip. embrace it __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 03:18 AM	#104
pbradley invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: SoKo Posts: 10,621	Maybe it's just ironic hip-to-be-square. But isn't all hip-to-be-squareness essentially ironic?
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 03:19 AM	#106
davenotdead invito al cielo Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,784	not surprised. being hip isn't easy, otherwise everyone would choose it. __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 03:22 AM	#107
pbradley invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: SoKo Posts: 10,621	Hope you don't mind me calling you hipster, then, hipster being so fucking hip.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 03:25 AM	#108
davenotdead invito al cielo Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 7,784	sure. i've earned my stripes __________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 03:29 AM	#109
pbradley invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: SoKo Posts: 10,621	Bringing it back, y'all.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 04:14 AM	#110
Satan invito al cielo Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: noo yawk Posts: 6,331	oh.my.god.you.people. everyone should be allowed to do wtf they want and that includes getting married. if you wanna, great, if not, great, who cares, whatever, dont sit here and hate on people who do. TOLERANCE. it goes both ways guys. __________________ "I love meth." - batreleaser
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 04:45 AM	#111
atsonicpark invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 28,843	__________________
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 04:48 AM	#112
pbradley invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: SoKo Posts: 10,621	As with many such debates, the issue of confrontation lies within confusion over the meaning of "marriage." I believe notyourfiend was criticizing the genealogy of marriage as a socio-economic institution, as per her typical Foucauldian vantage. However, in rebuttal, marriage should not be solely defined by its social and legal expression. To interpret girlgun, marriage is legitimized by being a practice that precedes social norms and legal privileges. In essence, a couple joined in marriage are so in virtue of being joined above all else. To them, marriage as an institution is secondary.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 04:57 AM	#113
terriblecanyons invito al cielo Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: the land where large fuzzy dice still hang proudly like testicles from rear-view mirrors Posts: 5,949	LOLLLLOOLO NEG REP ROFL XD sheesh.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 06:05 AM	#114
phoenix invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: the future where it's hot and dark Posts: 5,926	From my side of the ocean it appears to me that notyrfiend is more against the formal 'procedure' and therefore rocognised ecconomic benefits/restrictions/allowances that come with being married, because it is descriminatory and not something which is available to ALL types of couples.. rather than being against the idea of people who choose to make a life commitment to someone... just sayin. __________________ tiny and lost.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 06:14 AM	#117
phoenix invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: the future where it's hot and dark Posts: 5,926	When I was getting government benefits as a student a couple of years ago, I had to fill out a few forms regarding my financial status, living arangements, etc. One section basically read: "Do you live with(spend more than 3 days a week) someone of the opposite sex? If yes, what is their yearly income? " It didn't matter HOW MANY women/same sex people I might be living with, and what they were earning. To the govt, those details are irrelevant. Yet I am judged on the assumption that I may be in a supportive relationship with someone just because they are of the opposite sex. Because same sex relationships aren't legally recognised, they DONT MATTER. It is ridiculous. __________________ tiny and lost.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 06:16 AM	#119
Satan invito al cielo Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: noo yawk Posts: 6,331	it's rude and often intolerant shitspewing like i said, it goes both ways. this is like talking about abortion. __________________ "I love meth." - batreleaser
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

11.03.2009, 06:19 AM	#120
phoenix invito al cielo Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: the future where it's hot and dark Posts: 5,926	I don't care if people want to get married/not. I do care how unfair it is that some people who wish to, cannot. They are different discussions. imho. lol abortion. __________________ tiny and lost.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|