BiBottomBoy Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 flipao 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted March 31, 2013 Members Share Posted March 31, 2013 The bunny seems surprised but maybe he is just happy to see a supplicant. Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiBottomBoy Posted March 31, 2013 Author Share Posted March 31, 2013 The bunny is playing hard to get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted March 31, 2013 Members Share Posted March 31, 2013 Yes, I observed that possibility. Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiBottomBoy Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 It's the spirit of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 It is a sociopolitical allegory wherein the white bunny, brown bunny, and pretty gay boy in between depict how the Supreme Court's Virginia v. Loving decision declaring interracial marriage bans unconstitutional is directly comparable to the same-sex marriage cases currently before the Court. The use of bunnies, combined with the particular kind of fun depicted between the boy and the right-hand bunny, is a side joke on the anti-same-sex-marriage arguments that the purpose of marriage is procreation. That it happens to be the brown bunny playing with the white boy is what the literary critic would say is the chiasmus or crossing between the interracial theme and the same-sex-marriage theme, which raises the image from cartoon to allegory. A bolder reader might suggest the boy's supplicant posture toward the white rabbit casts that figure, in some manner, as the Court itself, the implications of which lie outside the proper scope of this essay. lookin and JKane 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiBottomBoy Posted April 1, 2013 Author Share Posted April 1, 2013 That's totally how I saw it. lookin and AdamSmith 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lookin Posted April 1, 2013 Members Share Posted April 1, 2013 And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Not that often, though. Fortunately for certain professions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NCBored Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 It is a sociopolitical allegory wherein the white bunny, brown bunny, and pretty gay boy in between depict how the Supreme Court's Virginia v. Loving decision declaring interracial marriage bans unconstitutional is directly comparable to the same-sex marriage cases currently before the Court. The use of bunnies, combined with the particular kind of fun depicted between the boy and the right-hand bunny, is a side joke on the anti-same-sex-marriage arguments that the purpose of marriage is procreation. That it happens to be the brown bunny playing with the white boy is what the literary critic would say is the chiasmus or crossing between the interracial theme and the same-sex-marriage theme, which raises the image from cartoon to allegory. A bolder reader might suggest the boy's supplicant posture toward the white rabbit casts that figure, in some manner, as the Court itself, the implications of which lie outside the proper scope of this essay. Uh-oh! I think you'll have to re-do your analysis. The brown animal isn't a bunny - I think it's some sort of predator (dog or wolf or ???) ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Damn! You're right -- it looks to be a wolf. Shows the power & danger of Seeing It the Way You Want to See It. Lemme work on a Revised Edition... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted April 1, 2013 Members Share Posted April 1, 2013 Any chance any of you guys would consider the idea that gay marriage is not a constitutional question? In other words, why not let the states decide what to allow and why? I realize that such federal questions as income tax deductions, etc. ARE federal issues but many of the "other" issues are not federal issues. If a preponderance of states provide for gay "unions" then eventually the feds will accommodate us. It isn't simple, is it? Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EXPAT Posted April 1, 2013 Share Posted April 1, 2013 Over 1100 federal benefits are at stake. Leaving it just to the states will never provide equality. I also want to be able to move anywhere in the union and have my marriage recognized just like anyone else. As it is I may not be able to move to states not supporting ObamaCare because I may not now be covered in some states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted April 1, 2013 Members Share Posted April 1, 2013 I think I understand what everyone wants but that may not make it a constitutional issue. The federal government cannot just take over every issue for just any reason, although they seem to be willing to try. The supremes should not try to legislate from the bench. Congress should legislate and the supremes should adjudicate. All else should be left to the states. Obamacare has to be modified. The US cannot afford it in its' present form. We are already 16+ trillion dollars in debt. Do you really want to pay $25 for a Big Mac? Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 Any chance any of you guys would consider the idea that gay marriage is not a constitutional question? In other words, why not let the states decide what to allow and why? Well, letting the states decide would have suited some of us fine and dandy. However, just as you decry, Congress stuck its oar in where it had no business. The result was DOMA. Leaving aside all the questions that follow from considerations of either equal protection or due process, can you see any possible way that DOMA is not a blatantly unconstitutional nullification of the full faith and credit clause? And if it is, then oughtn't this federal blunder be undone? Moreover, oughtn't it be challenged in court as vigorously as possible on the same principle we've agreed elsewhere: that any kind of affront to the Constitution -- for example, some of the current Executive's drone assassinations -- the longer allowed to go on, the more a poisonous disregard or even contempt for the Constitution they foster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted April 2, 2013 Members Share Posted April 2, 2013 In order: Nope, yep, yep. Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 All my girlfriends should be so easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted April 2, 2013 Share Posted April 2, 2013 P.S. So maybe I have rescued my analysis. That it is bunny and wolf (still white and brown respectively) just ups the skewering of the rightist viewpoint further: to the effect that their arguments are about as coherent as fearing that same-sex marriage will open the floodgates to -- wait for it -- not only bestiality among beasts but, ultimate horror, interspecies miscegenation! Given how frequently they bring up sex with animals, clearly a grand wish fulfillment among the great closeted Right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiBottomBoy Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 To be fair there are more states where it is legal to have sex with a horse than to be in a gay marriage. So, the bestiality is already legal. http://www.queerty.com/you-can-have-sex-with-a-horse-in-more-states-than-gay-people-can-marry-in-20130214/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted April 2, 2013 Members Share Posted April 2, 2013 Having sex with a horse is different from marrying one which is what some silly folks offer as a comparison. As the farm hand says, stay away from that cute little sheep at the far end of the pasture. Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiBottomBoy Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 As soon as the IRS started giving tax breaks to married couples they made marriage a federal issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted April 2, 2013 Members Share Posted April 2, 2013 Probably that isn't constitutional either. Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiBottomBoy Posted April 2, 2013 Author Share Posted April 2, 2013 What? Taxes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted April 2, 2013 Members Share Posted April 2, 2013 I do believe there is a group that state federal taxes are illegal and therefore unconstitutional. I am hoping and also thinking you are NOT a member of that group. Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiBottomBoy Posted April 3, 2013 Author Share Posted April 3, 2013 The supreme court ruled years and years ago that Federal taxes are constitutional. It's a closed issue - as gay marriage will probably be in the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
