posted
You, gay person, are taking sides in our culture war, if you refuse to actively hide yourself. So is this company, if they do not restrict themselves specifically to depictions of family life that we consider appropriate. Neutrality, to us, is not to be entitled to equal status, but to a monopoly on who is allowed status. So on. So forth. It is the attitude which leads to gays being allowed to marry being translated into "oppression," on either a social or a legal level, simply because others are now allowed into an institution that you previously had all to yourself. I am being "oppressed" — not because any rights available to me have changed at all, but because now those different people are allowed into my country club. And yes, the same attitude was prevalent with the miscegenation battle over marriage.
It is because of stuff like this that I like to continually harp on that infamously telling quote of OSC's, "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books ... to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." To violate their demands that gays be made to stay discreet and have to hide their behavior, their existence, is to 'go to war' against the side that attempts to own and command society's repression against gays. You are only an acceptable, equal citizen when you abide to our satisfaction with a policy that makes you unequal and lesser.
Ah, but even funner is the latent homophobia and transphobia that crops up when groups like Million Moms get right down to the real concerns that spur them to attempted boycotts. It's why I like the J Crew's painted toenails as being even better — and not just because it features Dr. Keith Ablow midway through burning out and down as fast as he could.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, Degeneres could I have little doubt garner as many online followers as OMM's entire membership by, say, announcing she was thinking of being in another Pixar film, or considering hosting another show.
I've almost got to admire their brazen dishonesty when they urge JCP to remain 'neutral' in the culture wars (such a stupid term), and then go on to use words like 'deviant' and 'unhealthy' to describe homosexuality. As if it weren't perfectly clear they don't actually want neutrality at all.
I guess this is just another evolution in the gradually degrading acceptance of intolerance of homosexuality: a group doesn't demand allegiance (well, not exactly), it 'urges neutrality'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I often point out, it's the domain of immature and overly-entitled to try and, when defeated, change the rules so that a loss becomes a sort of draw. This comes with the expectation that society should treat them as if they are entitled, by default, to a status above reproach. "I'm taking my ball and I'm going home," is essentially the strategy here; or maybe: "you can't fire me because I quit!" If you happen to be losing in the only realm that really matters in the long-term, in this case the legal realm, then you retreat to a defensive position. The fact that religious groups are adopting defensive positions now is an indication that they have already lost the initiative.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
The one caveat being that I still believe the machinery of organized religion does not improve the world in general as much as it hurts it, by becoming a thing on its own, the basis of neo-tribalism and hatred and wars and producing other lovely byproducts. But I believe the world will eventually wise up on that point as well. Eventually.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Earlier today administrators of the One Million Moms Facebook site posted a “warning” about Green Lantern being rebooted as gay, which they quickly pulled when over one hundred pro-gay comments flooded the post. Subsequently, they wrote a Facebook post stating they would be away for a week, possibly next week, for bible camp.
quote:FYI for all of our members that are on Facebook: OMM will be offline most of next week for Vacation Bible School!…
posted
I feel like the title of this thread should say 'homomomentum' instead. 'Homomentum' makes it sound like it's dem hos who are gaining momentum. Which is not what we want.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I feel like the title of this thread should say 'homomomentum' instead. 'Homomentum' makes it sound like it's dem hos who are gaining momentum. Which is not what we want.
While it's obviously a joke, it's true that the the various campaigns for gender equality in the military have been stepped up since DODT was repealed. There's been a considerably larger pushback, though... apart from the social taboos associated with women being part of the lifestyle associated with infantry and other male only MOS's, there's a general conception that women are physically incapable of handling the stresses.
I feel my own personal experiences contradict that to a degree - my job is male only. We once had a female lieutenant go out with us and she managed just fine... the taboo part wasn't really a big deal. If you think it would be, imagine sleeping curled up next to a beautiful young woman... who hasn't showered in 3 weeks in 120 degree weather, is dirty as hell, and smells horrible. And you're in a hot camouflage sleeping bag and are itchy and sweating and miserable. It might seem weird at first, being around a member of the opposite sex while she takes care of various bodily functions or briefly seeing her naked in a very nonsexual situation doesn't drive men wild with lust... who would have guessed?
The physical stress thing is a bit more of a valid point - it is true that the average female lacks the strength and endurance to perform my job. On the other hand, there's a reason why the Marines are only 5% female... the women in the Marine Corps are not "average" by any means. Just getting through boot camp and SOI (which all Marines, male and female have to complete) requires a female to be physically gifted - a very large number get broken and kicked out attempting it. (mostly with hip injuries) Almost any of them could run circles around the "average male." (who unfortunately, in America, probably couldn't run more than 3 miles to save his life)
Sorry for highjacking the thread a bit, just interested in what you all think of females in the military. Do you think there will ever be a 50/50 ratio in the military? (I mean, actual physical combat oriented military, not the Chair Force or Navy) 80/20? Or will female fighters always be something of a novelty?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it likely will happen, someday, way way wayyyy down the line. I don't think anyone reading this would be alive when it does.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think it likely will happen, someday, way way wayyyy down the line. I don't think anyone reading this would be alive when it does.
I think it a dubious assumption that in 80+ years there will even be a military that exists and is filled with "grunts" in any capacity.
The world is going to be a very different place.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you're in a hot camouflage sleeping bag and are itchy and sweating and miserable. It might seem weird at first, being around a member of the opposite sex while she takes care of various bodily functions or briefly seeing her naked in a very nonsexual situation doesn't drive men wild with lust... who would have guessed?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in general -- but there seems to exist a *huge* problem with rape in the military.
I'd guess it's because all hierarchies are prone to abuse, and military is the strictest hierarchy you can find...
This by itself doesn't mean that women in the military is a bad thing. More women in the military might even mean *fewer* rapes. Still, that's not certain either.
quote:"Do you think there will ever be a 50/50 ratio in the military? (I mean, actual physical combat oriented military, not the Chair Force or Navy) 80/20?"
In those parts of the military where physical strength remains an advantage, and as long as joining the army remains voluntary (unlike e.g. Israel), no there won't be a 50/50 ratio in the military, nor is there much of a reason that there should be.
Unless future generations genetically engineer the sexes to have the same average physical strength. Which would be cool.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it a dubious assumption that in 80+ years there will even be a military that exists and is filled with "grunts" in any capacity.
The world is going to be a very different place.
Hmmm. You might be correct, it's true. I suspect we'll still need infantry though quite possibly in a vastly smaller size four generations down the road.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our military does absolutely have a problem with rape, and it has stemmed from culture and institutional neglect. Other countries have proven, though, that it is not an issue we should have, and it's one we can get rid of by not being idiots.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris: I absolutely agree there's a huge problem with rape in our military. Actually, there's a huge problem with rape in our country. I think the reason it's so prevalent isn't so much due to anything particular to the military as much as the military is basically a large collection of young, highly aggressive and often sexually frustrated men. And they outnumber the women 20 to 1, so even if there are the same number of rapists among the men, there are a lot fewer women to rape, so statistically a larger percentage of women are assaulted. To imply that the military is doing nothing about it or is just covering it up (like that article did) annoys me, though. I've been through numerous rape prevention classes and the NCIS has been cracking down on it very hard in the past few years - several COs have been jailed for trying to cover it up, and there are a lot more cases going to trial.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
2012: The tide has turned. Voters approve same-sex marriage at the polls! (In Maryland and Maine, and probably also in WA where it is currently up 53% - 47%).
posted
And it looks like they voted not to ban it in a couple states as well.
Of course, you also have to consider that it was already banned in dozens of states over the last decade, so this sort of feels like the settling into foxholes rather than a real turn of the tide.
SCOTUS will solve this one in the next year.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Rhode Island is ready to put it up to vote next year in January, and Oregon and Illinois are good candidates for switching sides as well as perhaps Hawaii and Colorado. Also, independent of results of SCOTUS, California must be feeling left out and kicking themselves for letting another state beat them to the punch for approving gay marriage by vote, and they would probably amend their constitution in favor of gay marriage if presented with another referendum. (No evidence here, just my hopeful conjecture.)
After likely losing 4/4 this election, NOM will lose a lot of steam and won't be able to procure the resources to fight large-scale again in a second constitutional referendum in CA.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
AND Iowa voted to keep Justice Wiggins, who was part of their gay marriage ruling, in place on their Supreme Court.
So I guess that's 5/5: Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, Iowa
I'm curious to see what NOM posts tomorrow on their blog. Something along the line of, "We lost all the contests because the misleading gay marriage supporters outspent us. Send us more money!"
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Keep knockin' em down, guys and dudes. Popular ballot majority wins, while expected, were the most important step, and now they're starting to come in en masse.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm curious to see what NOM posts tomorrow on their blog. Something along the line of, "We lost all the contests because the misleading gay marriage supporters outspent us. Send us more money!"
posted
I was pleased to see these results on election night, too. Especially since Kansas continues to be a bitter disappointment to me.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, reading back through this thread I'm a bit ashamed of my overly cautious, pessimistic view earlier this year--less than ten months ago--on how far away I believed we were from a state electorate supporting marriage equality.
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: Let's hope the best for Maryland, but again don't hold our breath. It is almost certain there will be referendums in both Washington state and Maryland before either law will go into effect. Sadly, at this point, I still think any state will reject gay marriage if put to a popular vote, due to both the Bradley Effect and the fact that the older generations are the most faithful voters.
I guess I was susceptible to the previous mantra of opponents: "in 32 out of 32 states, voters have never approved SSM." Maine was the only state I had no reservations about voting, since they seemed likely to go back every single election cycle if necessary with another citizen initiative.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been wondering after Tuesday's vote, perhaps the Bradley Effect is no longer going to be an issue in polling on gay marriage? The final polls did not understate opposition as much as many other elections. This 2010 study by Professor Patrick Egan at NYU found that opposition to SSM on average has been understated by 7 percent.
from the study:
quote: Nevertheless, survey data consistently underestimate voter opposition to legal recognition of samesex couples. The share of voters in pre‐election surveys saying they will vote to ban same‐sex marriage is typically seven percentage points lower than the actual vote on election day.
posted
That was beautiful. Between that and the Landfilharminc video, I was crying at my desk most of yesterday afternoon.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My cousin (who is gay) posted on Facebook that he was uber excited that the SCOTUS was going to hear the Prop 8 case....
Honestly I thought he would be mad about it. The previous courts ruled against Prop 8, so if the SCOTUS denied hearing the case the previous ruling would stand, correct?
Hearing the case now opens up the possibility that the SCOTUS say that marriage is a state issue, in which the amendment to the CA constitution would stand, effectively banning gay marriage.
Am I misunderstanding something?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage being a state issue eliminates doma which would make people happy. It also doesn't affect the CA issue because the original ruling was based on the California constitution, not the us. Also, the prop 8 ruling was extremely limited but in the briefing the anti Ssm defined the ruling to be very broadly in favor of Ssm so this supreme court case could broaden the definition of the past ruling.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
prop 8's case going to the SCOTUS is a pretty best-case scenario because the case was an absolute self-inflicted fiasco for the "defenders of marriage" folk, every finding of fact went against them, and the conclusions are written as a very long love letter appealing directly to the rulings and mentality of roberts
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: My cousin (who is gay) posted on Facebook that he was uber excited that the SCOTUS was going to hear the Prop 8 case....
Honestly I thought he would be mad about it. The previous courts ruled against Prop 8, so if the SCOTUS denied hearing the case the previous ruling would stand, correct?
Hearing the case now opens up the possibility that the SCOTUS say that marriage is a state issue, in which the amendment to the CA constitution would stand, effectively banning gay marriage.
Am I misunderstanding something?
I don't like the reason SCOTUS is considering not hearing the case on DOMA. Sets a dangerous precedent.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp- I thought it was appealing to Kennedy. Lyrhawn- can you expand on this? I am not sure what yoU are referring to.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basically, when Obama decided to stop defending DOMA in the Courts, there's no longer an entity that has legal standing to do so.
SCOTUS is considering dropping the case because Senate Republicans, who want to defend the law, might not have standing.
If that's the case, then in the future, all the president has to do when a case he doesn't like comes before SCOTUS is to take his ball and go home. It's sort of like a sneaky veto.
Sure, DOMA would still get struck down, an I'd be happy about that, but I'd rather SCOTUS do it, not a lower court.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents' assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."
"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation."
"Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex."
"Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."
"Same-sex couples receive the same tangible and intangible benefits from marriage that opposite-sex couples receive."
"The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."
"Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."
Most important: the fact that Prop 8 passed as a voter initiative was irrelevant as "fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
