Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
ParticipantStill not sold out?
Not even close. In fact, they’re delaying their next phase in order to try and sell off some of their existing inventory.
As far as “the other pardee community they just started across the street,” that would of course be Bridle Ridge. Their first phase, which was about 6 weeks ago, has one house (out of I think eight) sold. If you go in and look at their board that tells you how many are available, though, it shows 4 homes off the market. They claim that they suddenly found out that there’s some problem with the survey lines or something on three of the lots. I’m not sure if they tell everybody who sees that board the reason why those 3 homes are off the market. To me, it looks like they’re trying to make it appear that they’re selling well when they’re not. By “coincidence,” they figure they’ll have that problem fixed and those houses back on the market on Monday (the 19th) right after this weekend’s release. This weekend’s release is of 6 homes with canyon views, which will probably all sell due to their location. After that, their board won’t look so bad when they put those 3 houses back up as available. Instead of having 7 of 8 homes available, they’ll probably have 7 of 14 homes available. Still not a great ratio, and definitely, it seems to me, a sign that things are slowing down significantly in Carmel Valley.
Participantjp, I agree that religion is what gets people emotional about it. And I think that a lot of people on both sides don’t understand why the other side is so emotional about it.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think most people who are for gay marriage are thinking of it in the religious sense. I think that their opinion is that they should have access to all the legal and finanacial benefits that heterosexuals have access to.
And if people support gay “marriage” using the word “marriage” in the religious sense (repeating myself from an earlier post: there are other definitions), then I disagree with them. And I also think it shouldn’t matter. The government shouldn’t have anything to do with religious marriage. And religion shouldn’t have anything to do with the law.
And I think (and I could be wrong here, too) that people who are against gay marriage are mostly thinking of marriage using the religious term. Some of them can’t even acknowledge that there is another meaning to the word. And that’s why they’re so upset about it.
Participantjp, I agree that religion is what gets people emotional about it. And I think that a lot of people on both sides don’t understand why the other side is so emotional about it.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think most people who are for gay marriage are thinking of it in the religious sense. I think that their opinion is that they should have access to all the legal and finanacial benefits that heterosexuals have access to.
And if people support gay “marriage” using the word “marriage” in the religious sense (repeating myself from an earlier post: there are other definitions), then I disagree with them. And I also think it shouldn’t matter. The government shouldn’t have anything to do with religious marriage. And religion shouldn’t have anything to do with the law.
And I think (and I could be wrong here, too) that people who are against gay marriage are mostly thinking of marriage using the religious term. Some of them can’t even acknowledge that there is another meaning to the word. And that’s why they’re so upset about it.
Participantjp, I agree that religion is what gets people emotional about it. And I think that a lot of people on both sides don’t understand why the other side is so emotional about it.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think most people who are for gay marriage are thinking of it in the religious sense. I think that their opinion is that they should have access to all the legal and finanacial benefits that heterosexuals have access to.
And if people support gay “marriage” using the word “marriage” in the religious sense (repeating myself from an earlier post: there are other definitions), then I disagree with them. And I also think it shouldn’t matter. The government shouldn’t have anything to do with religious marriage. And religion shouldn’t have anything to do with the law.
And I think (and I could be wrong here, too) that people who are against gay marriage are mostly thinking of marriage using the religious term. Some of them can’t even acknowledge that there is another meaning to the word. And that’s why they’re so upset about it.
Participantjp, I agree that religion is what gets people emotional about it. And I think that a lot of people on both sides don’t understand why the other side is so emotional about it.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think most people who are for gay marriage are thinking of it in the religious sense. I think that their opinion is that they should have access to all the legal and finanacial benefits that heterosexuals have access to.
And if people support gay “marriage” using the word “marriage” in the religious sense (repeating myself from an earlier post: there are other definitions), then I disagree with them. And I also think it shouldn’t matter. The government shouldn’t have anything to do with religious marriage. And religion shouldn’t have anything to do with the law.
And I think (and I could be wrong here, too) that people who are against gay marriage are mostly thinking of marriage using the religious term. Some of them can’t even acknowledge that there is another meaning to the word. And that’s why they’re so upset about it.
Participantjp, I agree that religion is what gets people emotional about it. And I think that a lot of people on both sides don’t understand why the other side is so emotional about it.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think most people who are for gay marriage are thinking of it in the religious sense. I think that their opinion is that they should have access to all the legal and finanacial benefits that heterosexuals have access to.
And if people support gay “marriage” using the word “marriage” in the religious sense (repeating myself from an earlier post: there are other definitions), then I disagree with them. And I also think it shouldn’t matter. The government shouldn’t have anything to do with religious marriage. And religion shouldn’t have anything to do with the law.
And I think (and I could be wrong here, too) that people who are against gay marriage are mostly thinking of marriage using the religious term. Some of them can’t even acknowledge that there is another meaning to the word. And that’s why they’re so upset about it.
ParticipantDWCAP,
Now I understand why you kept arguing the way you did. You thought that CA gays didn’t gain anything yesterday except a word. If that were true, I’d agree with you. To me the word “marriage” isn’t important (except as it applies to getting benefits – see below article). As I’ve said all along, I’d be fine with a civil union (or whatever you want to call it) as long as the benefits were exactly the same as marriage. But they’re not. And CA gays did gain more than a word.
There’s a lesbian who I work with who can’t get her partner on her health insurance. They’ve been together for over a decade, and she should be able to have her partner on her health insurance just as much as I should be able to have my wife on mine. But under her “domestic partnership,” she can’t. When they’re married, she’ll be able to have her partner on her health insurance.
ParticipantDWCAP,
Now I understand why you kept arguing the way you did. You thought that CA gays didn’t gain anything yesterday except a word. If that were true, I’d agree with you. To me the word “marriage” isn’t important (except as it applies to getting benefits – see below article). As I’ve said all along, I’d be fine with a civil union (or whatever you want to call it) as long as the benefits were exactly the same as marriage. But they’re not. And CA gays did gain more than a word.
There’s a lesbian who I work with who can’t get her partner on her health insurance. They’ve been together for over a decade, and she should be able to have her partner on her health insurance just as much as I should be able to have my wife on mine. But under her “domestic partnership,” she can’t. When they’re married, she’ll be able to have her partner on her health insurance.
ParticipantDWCAP,
Now I understand why you kept arguing the way you did. You thought that CA gays didn’t gain anything yesterday except a word. If that were true, I’d agree with you. To me the word “marriage” isn’t important (except as it applies to getting benefits – see below article). As I’ve said all along, I’d be fine with a civil union (or whatever you want to call it) as long as the benefits were exactly the same as marriage. But they’re not. And CA gays did gain more than a word.
There’s a lesbian who I work with who can’t get her partner on her health insurance. They’ve been together for over a decade, and she should be able to have her partner on her health insurance just as much as I should be able to have my wife on mine. But under her “domestic partnership,” she can’t. When they’re married, she’ll be able to have her partner on her health insurance.
ParticipantDWCAP,
Now I understand why you kept arguing the way you did. You thought that CA gays didn’t gain anything yesterday except a word. If that were true, I’d agree with you. To me the word “marriage” isn’t important (except as it applies to getting benefits – see below article). As I’ve said all along, I’d be fine with a civil union (or whatever you want to call it) as long as the benefits were exactly the same as marriage. But they’re not. And CA gays did gain more than a word.
There’s a lesbian who I work with who can’t get her partner on her health insurance. They’ve been together for over a decade, and she should be able to have her partner on her health insurance just as much as I should be able to have my wife on mine. But under her “domestic partnership,” she can’t. When they’re married, she’ll be able to have her partner on her health insurance.
ParticipantDWCAP,
Now I understand why you kept arguing the way you did. You thought that CA gays didn’t gain anything yesterday except a word. If that were true, I’d agree with you. To me the word “marriage” isn’t important (except as it applies to getting benefits – see below article). As I’ve said all along, I’d be fine with a civil union (or whatever you want to call it) as long as the benefits were exactly the same as marriage. But they’re not. And CA gays did gain more than a word.
There’s a lesbian who I work with who can’t get her partner on her health insurance. They’ve been together for over a decade, and she should be able to have her partner on her health insurance just as much as I should be able to have my wife on mine. But under her “domestic partnership,” she can’t. When they’re married, she’ll be able to have her partner on her health insurance.
ParticipantSubmitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 7:59pm.
@zkNotice how in virtually every post you insult the people on the other side of the issue?
Very classy…I’m done with this topic and you since clearly everyone that doesn’t agree with you is an idiot and frankly, what can an idiot offer to the discussion?
meadandale, if you call pointing out the flaws in someone’s arguments an insult, then I agree with you.
Otherwise, I reread all of both of our posts, and I don’t think mine contain any more insults than yours. Perhaps mine point out more reasoning flaws than yours. But not really more insults.
ParticipantSubmitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 7:59pm.
@zkNotice how in virtually every post you insult the people on the other side of the issue?
Very classy…I’m done with this topic and you since clearly everyone that doesn’t agree with you is an idiot and frankly, what can an idiot offer to the discussion?
meadandale, if you call pointing out the flaws in someone’s arguments an insult, then I agree with you.
Otherwise, I reread all of both of our posts, and I don’t think mine contain any more insults than yours. Perhaps mine point out more reasoning flaws than yours. But not really more insults.
ParticipantSubmitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 7:59pm.
@zkNotice how in virtually every post you insult the people on the other side of the issue?
Very classy…I’m done with this topic and you since clearly everyone that doesn’t agree with you is an idiot and frankly, what can an idiot offer to the discussion?
meadandale, if you call pointing out the flaws in someone’s arguments an insult, then I agree with you.
Otherwise, I reread all of both of our posts, and I don’t think mine contain any more insults than yours. Perhaps mine point out more reasoning flaws than yours. But not really more insults.
-
AuthorPosts
