quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's striking how abruptly arguments against legalizing SSM fall flat on their faces when you merely insist that, no, it's not a given that it's bad for whatever reason-you have to demonstrate why it's bad without the starting assumption that it is.
I had a very intelligent friend respond to the original decision against prop 8. by stating that it "went against common sense," and that the state should by default preference heterosexual marriage- and all the pursuant canardary about animals and incest. The argument rather withered when he could not produce a satisfactory case for it actually being in the public interest to legislate hetero-normative behavior. He was just assuming that it was a good thing.
That was the very essence of this trial: the defense really had not, and could not, prepare itself to defend the notion that the state should legislate in favor of heterosexual unions. They had thought that the default stance would be enough (as it had been for forever before), but they were totally, shockingly unprepared to handle the simplest challenge to that thesis: "What possible interest does the state have in an exclusive definition of marriage?" It turned out, none.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rakeesh, the only part of your assessment of the homosexual agenda that I disagree with is that they're all liberals.
As the gay population skyrockets and becomes the new normal (and straighties hide in the shadows of the huge rainbow skyscrapers in the gay megapolis), and social conservatism as we know it evaporates, we'll see the normal distribution of left/right between the new all-gay-all-the-time population.
But yeah, otherwise you're right. The dominant scientific theory says it's the gay pheromones that do it, and the fringe religious group that worships Gay Stan (you know what, I'm gonna leave that typo as-is) is fading, hopefully vanishing into the mists of time.
I have two gay friends from Utah who when you hear them discuss gay rights, you get that liberal vibe, but when they discuss just about everything else they sound no different than most folks in Utah. Uber conservative.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but you're some sort of bleeding heart liberal (how on Earth that became a slur among social conservative Christians is beyond me), and therefore everything you say is suspect unless it confirms our preexisting beliefs.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes, but you're some sort of bleeding heart liberal (how on Earth that became a slur among social conservative Christians is beyond me),
Not bootstrappy enough.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rakeesh, the only part of your assessment of the homosexual agenda that I disagree with is that they're all liberals.
As the gay population skyrockets and becomes the new normal (and straighties hide in the shadows of the huge rainbow skyscrapers in the gay megapolis), and social conservatism as we know it evaporates, we'll see the normal distribution of left/right between the new all-gay-all-the-time population.
But yeah, otherwise you're right. The dominant scientific theory says it's the gay pheromones that do it, and the fringe religious group that worships Gay Stan (you know what, I'm gonna leave that typo as-is) is fading, hopefully vanishing into the mists of time.
I have two gay friends from Utah who when you hear them discuss gay rights, you get that liberal vibe, but when they discuss just about everything else they sound no different than most folks in Utah. Uber conservative.
Everything about gay rights is in the republican wheelhouse, except the conservative base is irrationally homophobic. I think Adam Carolla summed it up rather well for a fiscal conservative, non-homophobe, and sounded a lot like you would think a republican would sound: "why do I think gays should be allowed to get married, first because they're citizens, and because they pay taxes, but mostly so that we can just move on." this is of course played for laughs, but it's rather a strong indictment of moral conservatives. .
When you get down to the brass tacks, little of their position on gay rights makes any sense in relation to their views on government involvement with personal, private lives, except that there is a baseline assumption that the law should actively preference Christians ( often packaged as "protect" Christian values). Take somebody like Carolla who comes by conservative opinions on his own, without a religious background (he's an atheist), and the anti-gay stuff is right out the window. And you can't say that for a lot of basic conservative values: there is nothing behind this but religious indoctrination.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ...there is nothing behind this but religious indoctrination.
Please define "this".
I totally disagree with the side who is against SSM, but I understand a bit of where they are coming from.
The thing is, you don't -legislate- your religion or your morality. Laws are not for protecting traditions, customs or preferences. Laws are for protecting people from obvious and direct harm from others (as well as other things).
If you feel strongly that SSM is wrong, live that way; teach your kids that way, and don't associate with those who disagree (stay out of big cities). That's fine and dandy. But please don't try and force your mindset on to the world around you, especially through such a heavy weapon as the law.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, I know we disagree pretty vehemently on a plenty of other issues, but I think you (and Carolla) are pretty much nailing this for me.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe by 'this' he meant 'the ultimate reasons behind opposition towards SSM and homosexuality in general'. None of it is rooted in any completely secular philosophy or ideology oriented towards rationlism. All of it stems from, somewhere back down the line-and very, very often not very far back at all, like right in your face even!-stems from 'God says so'.
So of course you understand a bit where they're coming from. Even in America, our culture is steeped in religious influence, and that same influence teaches us 'gay=icky!' almost universally, and that's at the low end of things. You grew up in our culture too, so it's natural you understand a bit of where they're coming from.
But, see, that's just a feeling. You go on to describe all of the reasons you don't understand where they're coming from. The position against SSM and homosexuality isn't just 'gay bad', a private opinion. It's 'gay bad, government should say so'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, exactly Rakeesh. Ultimately there is no sound justification offered for maintaining a status quo legal situation regarding gay rights to marriage. The justification offered is an appeal to traditional values that are not justifiable for codification in law.
So, just as you may feel that women should take care of children at home by default (in general) because it has always been that way, and been that way for a reason, this does not provide a clear mandate for codification within the statutues of law- and in fact, the framework of our legal system and tradition strongly contradict such an impulse. Our system also strongly contradicts prop 8. Anybody who says it doesn't, frankly, doesn't have a great handle on the subject.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't disagree on any particular point...someone write down this date! Rakeeeh, Orincoro and me agreed about something today! Sure sign of the apocalypse.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not particularly tickled when you point out that we agree on something. You may find it amusing. Probably you're just uncomfortable agreeing with me without signaling it as some sort of exceptional circumstance. It's a little insulting- even when you try to pass it for cute. Perhaps you should have enough confidence in yourself not to have to be apologetic when you share an opinion with someone else. I didn't make you agree with me, you already did.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
That is to say: pull your weight in a conversation, and you won't have to make silly comments about agreeing with other people when they say what you don't know how to say for yourself.
Or I don't know, just stop being a tool about it. There's dignity in: "I agree," and not much in "Gaw Shucks Mabel! I agree with you on something, golly-jee wizz!" It's embarrassing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please, you don't need more ways of embarrassing yourself. At least you have enough dignity to pretend you never agree with anyone, even when you do.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Are you allergic to the highground?
IP: Logged |
I happened to read where someone said that exact thing to you not so long ago.
But that's just method number 5 right- constant unapologetic cribbing?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Aren't we tough now. But I'm not the one trashing someone for a common internet witticism.
In fact it's a trope; Your Approval Fills Me With Shame.
Which is what it was, eye rolling worthy as someone who at least claims to the level of intellect you do sees fit to waste his and everyone else's time on it.
Leave Stone_Wolf and other new posters alone for their memeyness, you are not helping.
e: If I am anything, it is that I am a combat protagonist, you get trained these things in the People's Liberation Army Cyberforce.
IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously man, whatever it is about me that bugs you so much, get over it already. It's played out and boring. And if you can't get over it, just keep it to yourself. All I see when you post stuff like this is "Blah blah blah." And it makes it harder to take your other posts seriously.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Seriously man, whatever it is about me that bugs you so much, get over it already. It's played out and boring. And if you can't get over it, just keep it to yourself. All I see when you post stuff like this is "Blah blah blah." And it makes it harder to take your other posts seriously.
Perhaps you shouldn't post trivial insulting nonsense for no reason then. Problem solved. I'm sure you'll survive without saying "A sure sign of the apocalypse" for the 5th time in response to something I say that you agree with. You actually agree with me on a fairly regular basis; which makes since, because I'm often right.
Don't get a persecution complex, I don't care that much if you agree with me. I would just rather you not constantly undermine yourself in this way, and at my expense as well.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Perhaps you shouldn't post trivial insulting nonsense for no reason then. Problem solved. I'm sure you'll survive without saying "A sure sign of the apocalypse" for the 5th time in response to something I say that you agree with. You actually agree with me on a fairly regular basis; which makes since, because I'm often right.
Don't get a persecution complex, I don't care that much if you agree with me. I would just rather you not constantly undermine yourself in this way, and at my expense as well.
posted
*shrug* I viewed it not unlike Orincoro, albeit it many levels lower. It does come off, to me at least, as a little insulting-even if unintended-if not just surprise but amazement is expressed repeatedly on agreeing with someone. There's a whiff, somewhere, of, "Wow, you're not totally crazy!" Or perhaps kissing cousins kind of closeness.
I don't think you meant it that way, Stone, and I may very well be mistaken when I think you've expressed similar amazement before. Just wanted to point out Orincoro's was not a lone interpretation, though I disavow his method of expressing it.
(Hey, Blayne, this doesn't help your case when you complain about other people following you around bugging you.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Rakeeeh...all I meant was all of us agreeing is strange and rare. One day I hope Orincoro and I will be able to put aside our differences as you and I have, although I'm not holding my breath about the timing.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not, though. You and I have more in common than in contrast...and on this issue, at leasst, I would have predicted your eventual agreement anyway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about "eventual" as I was part of this thread on page one with the same stance I have now. I have always been pro equal rights.
The rare and strange thing is a conversation where all three of us (some of the most disagreeable Hatrackers there are) all at the same time agree, and the comment was just a bit of fun and not intended to be a jab at anyone. Nor do I remember (for the record) having pointing this out before.
I'm explaining all this to you where I did not for Orincoro as his behavior is such that I choose to not engage him on any meaningful level as it would only fuel the flames, where as for your part, you have been calm and reasonable, and I appropriate it and am therefore happy to explain.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
They got something like 17k pledges so far. Which is something like an eighth the number of 'thank you starbucks' counterpledges.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:WASHINGTON -- The U.S. appeals court in Boston became the first such court to strike down as unconstitutional the federal Defense of Marriage Act, ruling Thursday that it unfairly denies equal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
The ruling is a victory for gay-rights advocates and the Obama administration, which had refused to defend that part of the 1996 law.
The decision sets the stage for a ruling next year by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the law that limits federal recognition of marriage to the union of a man and a woman.
The Boston-based judges stressed their decision did not establish a national right to gay marriage. That issue remains a matter for the states, they said.
But in states such as Massachusetts, where gays and lesbians can legally marry, the federal government cannot deny these couples the right to file a joint federal tax return or to receive a survivor's benefit under the Social Security Act, the appeals court said.
posted
FOF's are usually the most heartening in this sort of thing. Expectedly, I am liking a lot of the wording in this ruling:
quote:The court ruled the denial of federal benefits to married gay couples was not "adequately supported by any permissible federal interest"
We should be getting close to the point where the GOP begins to get itchy on the issue of gay rights and gay marriage as a wedge issue, since the strategists likely now at least see the advent of the conclusion in which their actions and stance will have come to hurt them direly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
They got something like 17k pledges so far. Which is something like an eighth the number of 'thank you starbucks' counterpledges.
I missed this before. So, a largely Mormon organization boycotts Starbucks...that doesn't strike me as a particularly effective threat.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks like Maryland is going to go to the ballot. $100,000 was spent by the Christian groups to try and stop gay marriage from becoming legal and get petition signatures. So much better than spending that money on, I don't know, ending world hunger or something.
Gay couple can, however, divorce legally in Maryland now. I'm not sure how the state can recognize marriage for divorce purposes, if the marriage itself isn't recognized.
Maybe one day my daughter's best friend will have parents legally married under the law.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: countdown to 9th court being called a bunch of liberal radicals imposing their x in our y
3
2
1
This Boston decision was the 1st Circuit Court.
Them liberal radicals are everywhere.
I just hope this hastens the decision to SCOTUS so we can get it over with and move on. GOP is on the losing side of this issue. Public opinion has shifted dramatically in the last decade. Opinion polls show one of the steepest shifts in public perception on any contentious social issue I can think of in US history. It's over the 50% mark for the first time, and stands to only continue on its course toward acceptance. Like many other social issues, the GOP is on the wrong side of history on this one, and they're sacrificing their political future for the rabid interests of the present.
Though in fairness, people are stupid. We'll have forgotten this whole mess in a couple decades.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Meanwhile, Million Moms is trying to square off against JCPenny again.
Never heard of them before, but amazed by their web site. They want Marvel and DC to remove ALL references to sexual orientation. Power Girl's boobs can hang out though.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: ALBANY, N.Y. — A court says it's no longer slander in New York to falsely call someone gay.
A mid-level appeals court on Thursday wiped out decades of rulings, including its own, to say that society no longer treats false comments that someone is gay, lesbian or bisexual as defamation. Without defamation, there is no longer slander, the court ruled.
quote: The ruling stems from an incident in the Binghamton area. Mark Yonaty sued, claiming a woman spread a rumor she heard in hopes that Yonaty's girlfriend would break up with him. He said the comment hurt and ultimately destroyed the relationship.
posted
Oh, yeah, and for anyone who hadn't heard about Million Moms, they were a little epic swell of notoriety:
quote: In 2012, the group started and then backed off from a failed campaign against the hiring of talk show host Ellen DeGeneres as a spokesperson for department store chain JC Penney. They opposed this employment on the grounds that DeGeneres is "an open homosexual". At a taping of her show, DeGeneres informed her audience of the fizzled effort: "They wanted to get me fired and I am proud and happy to say JC Penney stuck by their decision to make me their spokesperson."
The thing I noticed is that, when you read this, one million moms does indeed translate 'staying neutral in the culture war' as 'never even SHOW gay families, ever, because they are wrong and against traditional culture' ... something which is hard to parody any further.
posted
That sort of thing-neutrality defined as an omertà level of discussion about homosexuals and homosexuality-is the sort of thing I was referencing in the idol thread.
The idea that if someone or a group doesn't make an oppositional statement about homosexuals when they're nicely closeted, that this is 'neutrality'. This is still the way things are for a lot of people, and much of the politics, in our country it seems to me. Wishing people just wouldn't talk about 'it' is still considered an acceptable way to be.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
