FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Gay Rights XV: everybody gets gay marriage (Page 9)

  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Gay Rights XV: everybody gets gay marriage
Tittles
Member
Member # 12939

 - posted      Profile for Tittles           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They've tried to make sex offenders out of teenage girls who sent naked pictures to their boyfriends. A few years ago a DA in Arizona tried his hardest to get a teenage boy registered as a sex offender for showing his teenage buddy a Playboy. I have little faith in states and DA's to be logical or reasonable when it comes to such things.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
I had a question about the Gay Scout thing.
...
So how can you ever have a Gay scout? You can have a scout with a sexual preference for males, but if they have not consummated that preference, they have not really been gay.
...
On the other hand the only way to prove you are a straight scout is to have sex with a female, and that is breaking the law so you would get kicked out.

So someone is not gay or straight until they have sex.

I like that method of definition. [Big Grin]

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by narrativium:
As far as Ani and Suzy's example, since deportation is under the auspices of the INS, which is a Federal agency, the state of Georgia would not have any say in the matter. If Windsor v. U.S. results in Section 3 being struck down, Ani should have no fear of deportation, regardless of what state she and Suzy reside in, yes?

I was assuming that if a person is granted residency because they are married to a U.S. citizen, and then suddenly they became unmarried because they move to a new state, and if the federal government is obliged to follow state definitions of marriage, then INS would have to treat the person as an illegal alien.

I am very likely wrong. I don't know how resident status is affected for residents legalized by marriage who have their marriages annulled. That is what the Suzy and Ani case most resembles.

If we have a state-by-state patchwork of marriage definitions, one of the next big questions/cases will be suits brought by 'civil-union-ed' couples who live is states where that's all that's available suing for federal marriage benefits. Why should they be treated differently just because their state calls their legal union by a lesser name?

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Corwin
Member
Member # 5705

 - posted      Profile for Corwin           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Video of the crowd in Parliament serenading the MP who proposed the gay marraige bill

I admit I got a little misty listening to it. I love stuff like this.

Also, the crowd harmonized very well for being a random collection of onlookers.

That was quite moving. [Smile]
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Two more victories:

1 - Gay marriage legalized in France on Tuesday, Apr 23!

2 - Gay marriage passes Senate in Rhode Island April 24, which for all intents and purposes legalizes gay marriage in the state! (It already passed the House in January, but after Senate passage it heads back to the House for a procedural approval vote. Governor Chafee vowed to sign it long ago.) That makes RI the 10th state to approve same sex marriage.

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Delaware becomes 11th state with same-sex marriage. [Smile]

quote:
Tuesday, the Legislature in Biden’s home state, Delaware, voted to become the 11th such state, part of a rapid shift on the issue that is making same-sex marriage the norm in liberal parts of the country. The Delaware Senate approved the marriage bill, 12-9, sending it to Gov. Jack Markell, who has championed the measure.
Markell signed the bill a half hour after it passed the Senate.

Rhode Island's bill allowing same-sex marriage became official last week.

The Minnesota House votes on it this Thursday. Keep your fingers crossed that they make it a full dozen states with marriage equality!

States with same-sex marriage:
Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa, New York, Maine, Washington, Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware. (Also D.C.)

Coming up next, and hopefully soon, (with or without the help of SCOTUS):
Minnesota(?), Illinois, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, Oregon, New Mexico(?)

[Smile]

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All of these filthy democratically elected government stepping into 'the culture war'!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
11 states now. And no DOMA is still on the books? Good to know the federal government doesn't want to recognize contracts legally binding in more than 20% of the states.

What percent of the population now lives in a state where same sex marriage is legal?

Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Figured it out myself, 16%.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stephan:
Figured it out myself, 16%.

Thanks!

Minnesota: approx 1.7% of U.S. population
Illinois: approx 4.1%

If they both go this legislative session, we will be pushing 22%.

ETA: When Prop 8 is invalidated or repealed, that adds approx 12.1% more of the population, which will put us over a third.

[ May 08, 2013, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Anthonie ]

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where are the republicans fighting for state rights on DOMA? Seems perfect, a democrat even signed it into law.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Minnesota passes marriage equality bill. Governor to sign tomorrow.
Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Minnesota passes marriage equality bill. Governor to sign tomorrow.

[Smile]
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyingCow
Member
Member # 2150

 - posted      Profile for FlyingCow   Email FlyingCow         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
New Jersey's population is 2.8% of the country... and the NJ assembly passed gay marriage, but the Governor vetoed it 6 hours later with his eye on the 2016 presidential election.

Polls have 62% of the state in support, and a likely upcoming referendum should add NJ to the list.

Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
but the Governor vetoed it 6 hours later with his eye on the 2016 presidential election.
I hope this bites him in the ass big time. It might help him in the Republican primary, but you have to think by 2016 being against gay marriage is going to be a huge negative when trying to win the general.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:
but the Governor vetoed it 6 hours later with his eye on the 2016 presidential election.
I hope this bites him in the ass big time. It might help him in the Republican primary, but you have to think by 2016 being against gay marriage is going to be a huge negative when trying to win the general.
Especially since he can't use that "will of the people" excuse.
Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
New Jersey's population is 2.8% of the country... and the NJ assembly passed gay marriage, but the Governor vetoed it 6 hours later with his eye on the 2016 presidential election.

Polls have 62% of the state in support, and a likely upcoming referendum should add NJ to the list.

Here's a likely scenario for NJ:
If section 3 of DOMA is thrown out by the Supremes, then federal marriage benefits will be available to all legal state marriages. Since it is unlikely a Republican House (which will be that way for at least a decade with the last census redistricting) will ever pass legislation extending federal benefits to couples with civil unions, then states with only civil unions will have extra pressure to extend full marriage status in order for couples to receive federal benefits.

Under those circumstances, I can totally imagine lawmakers in NJ finding the will to override Christie's veto, which they still have the rest of the year to do.

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't see Christie having an 'evolution' of his own on the question prior to the general, actually. Probably timed based on what the primary field looks like and how badly Clinton is dinger up.

ETA: Rather, I do see that. Much will depend on for example what minority turn out projections are the closer we get, and how well Republicans can avoid making themselves the misogyny party in the general. Really my money right now is on the question hinging on how much muscle the far right base can exert, and in which direction.

[ May 16, 2013, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/gay-issues/judge-john-roach-rules-two-lesbians-cannot-live-together
title this "separate equality" or "remember, we are doing this for FAMILIES and CHILDREN"

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A misleading headline that paints over some of the real (if the divorcee's account is accurate) nastiness involved here.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:
but the Governor vetoed it 6 hours later with his eye on the 2016 presidential election.
I hope this bites him in the ass big time. It might help him in the Republican primary, but you have to think by 2016 being against gay marriage is going to be a huge negative when trying to win the general.
Biggest mistake of his career, quite possibly. Showed zero cajones- especially since i'm pretty sure Christy is pro-rights when you get right down to it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Boy Scouts national council vote to allow openly gay scouts.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They went kind of halfway in a way which was guaranteed to satisfy nobody and piss off pretty much everybody.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just the tip!
Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Just the tip!

Lol.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gay marriage bill won't pass Illinois House this session. [Cry]

Today was the last day of the 2013 legislative session.

ETA:
On a positive note, here is a touching song written by a 72 year old grandmother from Tennessee for her lesbian niece's wedding.

[ May 31, 2013, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Anthonie ]

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yeah bro see title
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

Also, Proposition 8 is dead forever btw so gay marriage is back in California whooooooo

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Excuse me while I marry this horse, this stuffed animal and the colour blue and several songs.
Posts: 9938 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anyway there's a remaining section (no. 2) but if Scalia's garbling bullcrap is any indication, this has seeded through precedent the tools to challenge and destroy it as well.

Anyway more ruling quotes:

quote:
There is a "careful consideration" standard: In determining whether a law is motivated by improper animus or purpose, discriminations of an unusual character especially require careful consideration. DOMA cannot survive under these principles.
quote:
The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

Also, Proposition 8 is dead forever btw so gay marriage is back in California whooooooo

It never went away did it? I thought that even though the people had voted for Prop 8, most government officials chose to ignore it.

The court struck it down based on who represented the case, not on whether or not the actual bill was Constitutional. I thought it was an absolutely stupid precedent to set, and frankly I agree with the dissent of Kennedy.


Interestingly, Sotomayor dissented on the prop 8 decision. I'd be pretty interested to hear her reasoning on opposing it.

The DOMA decision was the right one to make. If the state allows gay marriage, the federal government should extend those benefits to those people as well.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It never went away did it? I thought that even though the people had voted for Prop 8, most government officials chose to ignore it.
You are incorrect. People that were already married were permitted to stay married, but no new marriages were legal. A state official would not have the power to "ignore it" and marry a gay couple and if they did it would not be a legal marriage.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
It never went away did it? I thought that even though the people had voted for Prop 8, most government officials chose to ignore it.
You are incorrect. People that were already married were permitted to stay married, but no new marriages were legal. A state official would not have the power to "ignore it" and marry a gay couple and if they did it would not be a legal marriage.
Oh ok. I could have sworn I read some articles of politicians, one being the mayor of San Francisco, that said he didn't care and that he was going to let them continue.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone in the government didn't chose to ignore to uphold a law.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I actually don't care for the Prop 8 ruling.

I still have to read the actual decision, but based on what I've read, I approve of the outcome, but not the method used to get it.

It sets a terrible, dangerous precedent, one that I'm glad SCOTUS chose not to further enforce in the DOMA case.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have been thinking a lot about this and decided to give some historical perspective.

When I was born, sodomy was a felony in every state but Illinois.

The Stonewall riots were when I was five.

When I graduated from college, you could still be arrested and jailed for homosexual activities in most states.

Twenty years ago, DADT was an improvement.

Lawrence v Texas was only 10 years ago.

It has been too long and justice delayed has been justice denied for too many. And there is a lot of work to do yet. It is good, though, to be able to see that arc bending.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I actually don't care for the Prop 8 ruling.

I still have to read the actual decision, but based on what I've read, I approve of the outcome, but not the method used to get it.

It sets a terrible, dangerous precedent, one that I'm glad SCOTUS chose not to further enforce in the DOMA case.

I'm glad I am not the only one.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/06/doma-military-troops-gay/

More seriously, though, the change has been incredible. When I signed my contract, a little less than 4 years ago, I had to sign a paper stating I wasn't gay, and that I agreed not to partake in any homosexual activities. You could be harassed, bullied, and kicked out of the Marine Corps without an honorable discharge for so much as kissing another man.

Now, you can be openly gay. Several of the men I work with have boyfriends that they bring to our Battalion family days, and as of this week, a Lieutenant in our battalion can now finally file for housing with her wife, can put their children through the school on base, and claim her as the recipient for our SGLI life insurance. A lot of the same guys who were openly homophobic and said they would never work with "fags" are now accepting and even defensive of their gay brothers and sisters in arms. It's been an incredible 4 years.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I have been thinking a lot about this and decided to give some historical perspective.

When I was born, sodomy was a felony in every state but Illinois.

The Stonewall riots were when I was five.

When I graduated from college, you could still be arrested and jailed for homosexual activities in most states.

Twenty years ago, DADT was an improvement.

Lawrence v Texas was only 10 years ago.

It has been too long and justice delayed has been justice denied for too many. And there is a lot of work to do yet. It is good, though, to be able to see that arc bending.

I agree, it did take too long.

Look at it another way, though: for such a massive social change, it's gone impressively quickly. Compared to the also ongoing battle against racism, the push for tolerance and acceptance for homosexuals has been a blink of the historical eye.

The many comparisons to be drawn between the two struggles have clearly helped the gay movement. This is only anecdotal, but the argument that discrimination against gay people and discrimination against racial minorities are fundamentally analogous is the argument I've never really heard a good response for. When I've argued with anti-SSM people, they'll either flat out deny it without really being able to articulate why, or they sort of just get uncomfortable and the conversation drags to a stop. I'm also able to use the fact that I'm mixed race to drive home the parallels between anti-SSM laws and anti-miscegenation laws. Whether or not it's changed minds, I can't say, but I do think people worry that down the road they'll come to be seen by society the way racists are viewed today.

Basically, within a couple of generations, it seems to me that society has looked at recent history and tried, albeit imperfectly, to apply the lessons learned to our current situation. And as Gandalf* says, that is an encouraging thought.

*as played by Sir Ian Mckellan.

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think racism will continue to be a problem long after homophobia ceases to be an issue.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, probably.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
I think racism will continue to be a problem long after homophobia ceases to be an issue.

I don't believe homophobia will ever "cease to be an issue".
Posts: 1171 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
I think racism will continue to be a problem long after homophobia ceases to be an issue.

I don't believe homophobia will ever "cease to be an issue".
Depends on how you define an issue. With the extreme generational shifts happening in America, I could see it going away as a national issue within a generation or two. As today's 40 somethings die off in 50 years, I think it will be a quiet issue for small pockets of the country.
Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
I think racism will continue to be a problem long after homophobia ceases to be an issue.

I don't believe homophobia will ever "cease to be an issue".
Why, exactly? There are plenty of things that people used to be extremely prejudiced against that are complete nonissues now, or even seem downright silly. Acting being a highly disreputable career, for example, or basing your judgement of someone (including whether or not you would hire/befriend/speak to said person) based on how respectable their family is, or women being thought of as whores for wearing makeup.

The reason I believe racism will persist is because race is genetic, and family is such a huge part of who you are and what culture you belong to. The injustices and inequality created by racism have lingered and been propogated from generation to generation because of the existence of ghettos, a disparity between educational standards and living conditions in white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods, disparity in wealth and different cultural values in general. Gays, otoh, come from any race, any religious background, any socioeconomic class. They have no inhereted culture, no ghetto, no financial or educational barriers to overcome. There's no reason to think homophobia will continue to be an issuue in the US for more than 20 or 30 years. Of course there will still be people who are homophobes, just like there are people (for likewise religious reasons) who still think dancing and rock music are wrong. But it won't be an issue for hs as a society.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/09/orson_scott_card_gay_marriage_issue_has_become_moot/

this is stupid and probably deserves a direct rebuttal

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't say I recall Card's stance on gay-friendly boycotts in particular or political boycotts in general, whether of businesses or media, so I can't say how stupid this actually is. It is amusing, though, after all these years to see him so neatly fold in pursuit of a bottom line. Or I wonder if this is pressured?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wingracer
Member
Member # 12293

 - posted      Profile for Wingracer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've always kinda been on the fence about his stance on gays. Not that I agreed with him in the slightest, far from it. Just that I could kinda see some of his points even if I disagreed and far be it for me to deny anyone their opinion. But this line:

"Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."

Come on dude, you're bigger than that. Begging for tolerance from a group that has NEVER tried to deny ANY freedoms from you yet you routinely spoke out against. Get over it and grow up already.

Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them...
By "show tolerance," does he mean "go to the movies of?" What other sort of tolerance is in play here?
Posts: 37421 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm pretty sure tolerance is allowing your enemies to say what they want and make whatever movies they want.

Tolerance doesn't compel you to see their movies and line their pockets.

Tolerance also isn't the same thing as acceptance, and I think he'd do well to look up both words.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shanna
Member
Member # 7900

 - posted      Profile for Shanna   Email Shanna         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm really just enjoying the mental image of OSC being berated by those Hollywood producers he hates so much. This comment is only going to add fuel to the boycott-fires.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Olivet 2.0
Member
Member # 12719

 - posted      Profile for Olivet 2.0           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them...
By "show tolerance," does he mean "go to the movies of?" What other sort of tolerance is in play here?
That's what it sounded like to me. I've seen a few calls for a boycott.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2