I don’t know if he’s ugly or lazy. 
It’s wishing death on another poster for disagreeing with you and calling you stupid (something you do rather often yourself). If you think it’s OK to do that, it speaks volumes about you. And since you like to call other people cowardly, I have to wonder if you’d say such a thing to Bosstone’s face, in person, and not hiding behind your safe anonymity.
What the everloving fuck are you talking about? You and Bosstone were not having a private conversation. You took your big shit on him in front of everyone, and your comment definitely ratcheted up the level of vitriol from “UR dumb” to “I hope you get a wasting disease and die.” It was for wider consumption or you would have written it in a PM or e-mail. Perhaps your defensiveness here is backhanded acknowledgment that you’re embarrassed by what you said. You should be. I have every right to call you on it because you did it in a public forum. Don’t like that? Don’t say hateful shit in public.
Outnumbering the next most prolific poster by almost double.
Why is it? I’ve already said why it is. You are obsessed. You feel you have to answer EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT. that is made. What are you afraid will happen if you don’t?
Yes, your stance on this is well-covered territory. Obviously you are terrified that a point in favor of gay marriage will not be rebutted with adequate zeal unless you do it yourself.
You are a zealot. Mr. Moto was doing just fine until you showed up, with much more grace and politeness. But I guess he wasn’t being emphatic or vociferous enough to suit you.
How the fuck am I trying to “rally” a group of people who already think you are wrong? I’m not trying to get anyone to do anything except realize that you are a zealot and let you alone. Advice that I myself have not been able to take, obviously. What’s pathetic is how you’re trying to paint me as persecuting you. Merely pointing out your post count is not rallying people, it’s not inciting a mob. It’s a statement of fact. Get over it and quit whining.
Bolding mine. It “falls to you”? Why is that? Why are you so obsessed with this issue? And if you think me, pointing out your post count 6 pages into this thread, is me solidifying the crowd, you’re delusional. The crowd is already pretty solid. We all think you’re wrong. What I was trying to do is make the point that you are not worth the time and effort because you are consumed by this topic. So what exactly am I trying to “rally” people to do?
You don’t know what the word “fallacious” means either. Not a surprise.
Too bad that’s not what I was doing.
By posting twice as much as anyone else, clearly. You think it’s OK to respond to “you are dumb” with “I hope you die of AIDS.” So reason and sense are not going to work on you, that’s clear. You are the one who is not looking at your own words in a fair light. There’s no excuse for what you said. The provocation did not justify your response. That the “vast majority of them are insult-free” does not make it OK when you wish death on someone for so minor an infraction as calling you dumb./
Do you think your response to that insult was proportionate or defensible? Really?
Yet still you feel qualified to dismiss them as meaningless. Hilarious.
Let’s go over this, shall we?
(1) common residence requirement for domestic partners, not applicable to spouses: Straight people have the right to marry someone with whom they are not cohabitating. Gays do not, under domestic partnership.
(2) application for lifting of the minimum age requirement not possible for domestic partner: Straight people who are underage can apply to marry; gays do not have this right.
(3) to register a domestic partnership the couple must file a declaration with the Secretary of State, whilst spouses must obtain a marriage licence from the county clerk: Straight people can walk into the county clerk to get married; gays have to file a declaration with the SoS. A minor difference, mostly of how these unions are solemnized.
(4) possibility for confidential marriage in which marriage certificate and date of the marriage are not made public, not applicable to domestic partners: Straight people have the right for their marriages to be confidential. Gays do not have that same right to privacy.
(5) summary dissolution for domestic partnership initiated by filing joint notice of termination with Secretary of State, for summary dissolution of a
marriage is petitioned to the superior court: It’s easier to dissolve domestic partnerships, indicating that they are not taken as seriously.
(6) residency requirements for dissolution are different providing for a forum necessitates for domestic partners: Basically, CA can dissolve a domestic partnership even if neither partner lives in CA. It cannot do this with a marriage because at least one of the parties must live in the state for a required amount of time.
(7) differences with respect to the State Public Employee’s Retirement System: *Domestic partners are ineligible for CalPERS long-term care insurance program. *
(8) difference in interpretation with regards the property tax exemption for unmarried spouse of a veteran: *Gay couples are ineligible for a property tax exemption as a widowed spouse of a veteran. *
(9) putative spouse doctrine does not apply to domestic partners: The putative spouse doctrine protects property rights & members of a nullified marriage who believed it was valid. Gays are not entitled to that protection.
The denial of these rights is nonsense to you, eh? Nice.
In all honesty, I probably wouldn’t have the stones to call someone a bigoted fuck to their face unless they were saying all gays should die or something. Face to face, I’m not terribly confrontational. So I wouldn’t call him out on that. Spot on for everything else in the rest of your post I didn’t quote, though.
Fair enough. You aren’t accusing other people of cowardice, though. magellan01 is. And I would call someone a bigoted fuck if I thought they warranted it. I would never wish AIDS on someone. That is really fucked up IMO, and no one else was calling him on it. Rather than apologize and admit it was over the top, you get “Most of what I say isn’t insults!” and “You posted my post count, so you’re much worse!” and “That was a private conversation, so just shut up about it!” Pretty lame. You deserve an apology. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if you get one.
Well, when you put it like that, how can I argue? 
I do think what he said is fucked up too, even if I’m treating it more lightly than you. I’m a little curious how I’ve pushed his buttons, but he’s still talking to Miller (or was after he declared me persona non grata) and so far as I can tell there’s little daylight between me and Miller here.
It’s my irresistable charisma that does the trick.
I tried to participate earlier, and I would like to clarify:
I voted “no” to Prop 8.
However (and back to the OP), when a group decides to post “Mapquest” style locators of the homes of folks who donated money to the “Yes on 8” PAC’s, I can only think that they are doing so with the hope that someone may “take it too far”, and commit violence or vandalism upon them. I see that as “enabling”.
I realise that assault/vandalism are already crimes, but that is small comfort to those who might be a target because of the info.
If the shoe were on the other foot: Let’s sat Prop 8 was defeated, and the Mormon church wanted to post Mapquest links of locations of all those folks who got SSM’s, would it be OK?
I don’t like the intimidation tactics. 
I don’t know that donating to a campaign and marrying someone is analogous. A marriage should be nobody’s business but the two being married and the state (and their church if applicable). That’s sort of the whole point of this exercise. Donating to a campaign is all about influencing other people; it’s not private by its nature.
Now, making public who donated to the No on 8 campaign? I didn’t, nor did I donate to the similar campaign here in Arizona, but I wouldn’t have cared if my name got published. If I’m going to put my beliefs into action that way, hell yes I’m going to stand by them.
The buisness of the State should be the buisness of all of the voters. If the State wants to grant another person a tax break (or charge them more, or differently), I should be allowed to know “why”, correct?
For example: if the State of California wanted to level higher fees on “some” people who use the DMV, wouldn’t you want to know who is (and isn’t) “on the list”, and why?
Also, I don’t think your Marriage lisense is private info. I assume that anyone (like say, an insurance company, or a divorce lawyer) can verify that you are married.
Sure, which is why people who have no interest in SSM are allowed to vote on it at all. I still don’t think donations are equivalent to the actual marriages themselves. Perhaps someone better than I can do a better job articulating why.
It’d be fine with me. If you want to find out who filed for a marriage license, all you have to do is the exact same thing you do to find out who contributed to a political cause. Check.
Mod note: One of the few rules we have here in the Pit is that you can’t wish harm on someone. We’ve been fairly casual about allowing remarks of the “fuck off and die” variety, but if this leads people to think the rule is out the window, we’re going to start getting more anal about it. Don’t do this again.
Hmmm. Call me “skeptical”. 
(Hi, skeptical mlees!)
I assumed I would be seeing howls of fury about privacy violations, and the enabling of bigoted violence if a “right wing” group posted addresses of (insert minority group here) on the internet, especially if some lone nutjob did something bad.
Even though there is no violation of the law to post info already public. Heh. Ah well. I didn’t want to be mistaken for Magellan. 
If (and when) it comes around again, I will vote to repeal it.
Actually, as pointed out by Rubystreak in her excellent summation of the differences between marriages and civil unions, a marraige license is not necessarily public information.
The only thing objectionable about that is the motives of the person posting the information, not the posting itself. The person compiling the hypothetical list is a cock for being a homophobe, not for his superior data collating skills.
You don’t seem to understand how publication of political contributions actually work.
The Huffington Post, for goodness sakes, lets you search on a google map for anyone who donated in the last campaign cycle. You can look up your own neighbors, people from the next town over – anyone in any city in any state across this country and find out exactly how much each individual donated and to whom – and find their home or business address on a map! Here’s just some random name I clicked on in the Los Angeles area; Adam Chesnoff, who donated $5,000.00 to Univision Communications Inc Political Action Committee. He doesn’t get to keep that information private. Political contributions are public information. It’s really just that simple.
You don’t seem to be following my reasons for concern.
What does the Huffington Post expect me to do with the info about Mr. Chesnoff?
I understand the need for transparency in the donation process, so that we can be assured that our politicians are not on the take.
But I presume these “lists” are composed with the intent that some segment of the population intimidate others, and that they are NOT concerned about corruption.
That’s what I’ve posted. Three times now. Motives.
No, the “lists” are composed with the intent that some segment of the population boycott others. In fact, the very site in question has several boycott campaigns underway and is more than happy to acknowledge that publicly.
I fully support boycotts.
If ACME Pest Control donated money to “Yes on 8”, then by all means, refuse to do buisness with them.
How do you boycott a residence?
Why make that presumption? It’s a list of people who oppose gay marriage, but why make the leap to the assumption that the only thing to do about these people is to illegally harrass and vandalize them? If you’re organizing a campaign to change people’s minds about gay marriage, what better tool for that purpose than a list of people who are opposed to it?