Prop 8, tyranny of the majority? [Archive] - Page 7

Generation ABXY

06-18-2009, 03:39 PM

Frankly asking whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental, inherited or learned, leads to a very slippery slope. If it's genetic then research into "curing" it could be a viable research track. If it's learned, then either 'reeducation' or forced removal of children from a "gay" environment could be the result.

I will almost never say that we shouldn't look into a theory, but the question of whether gay is inherent or not leads to a scary place with no real value.

Trying to "cure" it actually sounds reasonable compared to some of the other possibilities we could see come out of that sort of research. I mean, considering some of the opinions I've seen expressed about things like autism or down syndrome, it doesn't seem too far-fetched to imagine a day when people are advocating for abortion of “gay babies,” should we ever find some sort of marker for it.

06-18-2009, 03:40 PM

Just like those women and blacks who "forced" their "personal view" about who should have the right to vote on upstanding white males.
Uh, yeah. There's still compulsion, and it's still a "personal view," whatever the fuck that means. I have no problem with using force to impose so-called "personal views" upon others, I have a problem with the rather asinine practice of denigrating other people's views about the fundamental truths of the human condition to be somehow "just, like, your opinion, man."

People seem to be so fond of liberal neutrality they want to fondle its genitals in a dark alley. It would be nice if they understood the limits of that concept and how it doesn't actually provide guidance on every issue.

mister slim

06-18-2009, 05:42 PM

Marriage has a existed for thousands of years, not exclusive to any one religion, as the concept of a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuality has also existed for thousands of years.

I'm not interested in getting into this again, you can read back if you like, but that's a gross oversimplification, starting with using the singular instead of 'men' and 'women'. Also, gay marriage predates Christian marriage.

MagGnome

06-18-2009, 05:46 PM

Obama's gesture is hollow at best, and insulting at worse. Relocation assistance? Give me a break! Where is the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the DOMA? That's the LEAST he could do.

Damn, I'm already regretting my vote, and if he doesn't shape up quick I'll vote for a third party in 2012.

06-18-2009, 06:19 PM

rifter

06-18-2009, 06:23 PM

MagGnome

06-18-2009, 06:28 PM

No you won't. Mags, I loves ya, but if half the people who over the course of four years said, "if he doesn't shape up quick I'll vote for a third party" actually followed through, it wouldn't be a third party any more. You're going to be sane and rational and realize that, however much you may be annoyed with Obama, you'd rather he remained in office than whatever Republican gets nominated. Reason and sobriety will carry the day. Muahahahahaha.

No, that's not true at all. I'm not a Democrat, and I don't vote straight down the party line. In fact, I voted for several third-party candidates in the last election, even though I knew deep down that they likely wouldn't win. If I'm not happy with Obama's overall job (and so far I'm mixed) then I will vote for someone else. It will most likely not be a Republican, but my vote is very much up in the air as far as I'm concerned. Granted the next election is over three years away, but I wouldn't be surprised if the networks started covering it next year. :p

That is the long and short of it, and ultimately, gay marriage is about getting equal rights under the law. Push that agenda. I would vote for it in a heartbeat.

A lot of anti-marriage advocates are against that as well. In fact, I've seen outcry over Obama's little announcement because it "paves the way for marriage" and "legitimatizes homosexual relationships". A lot of right-wing religious types are against homosexuality, period, although they are loathe to admit it in public these days. They keep pushing back hoping we will all go back into the closet, but it's too late for that.

rifter

06-18-2009, 06:41 PM

A lot of anti-marriage advocates are against that as well.

You are right. But, that being said, I think the "gay marriage" lobby would garner a LOT more votes like mine, if they backed off of gay marriage, and went for civil unions, EQUAL to marriage under the law. And, I think they need to explain more, about WHAT equal treatment gives you... like visiting loved ones in the hospital. I think many people against gay marriage don't get it... I also think those are the ones you would sway quickly with the "civil union" title, instead of marriage.

MagGnome

06-18-2009, 06:51 PM

What is there not to get though? Gay rights advocates have said over and over that we just want to same rights as everyone else, yet the anti-rights folks just scream and yell. It's been explained clearly over and over, but I don't think most of "them" care.

Generation ABXY

06-18-2009, 06:51 PM

A lot of anti-marriage advocates are against that as well. In fact, I've seen outcry over Obama's little announcement because it "paves the way for marriage" and "legitimatizes homosexual relationships". A lot of right-wing religious types are against homosexuality, period, although they are loathe to admit it in public these days. They keep pushing back hoping we will all go back into the closet, but it's too late for that.

Honestly, I'm not sure you need that “right-wing” tag at all; religion seems to transcend political leanings – just look at California. ;)

What's more, even though there's no doubt my politics veer to the right, I still acquiesce to gay marriage. Hell, I've made no attempt to hide the feelings about homosexuality (even if I've never revealed the full extent of them, out of respect), and I'd be happy as a pig and shit if, lacking a nationwide policy, each state legalized it all on their own.

MagGnome

06-18-2009, 06:53 PM

Honestly, I'm not sure you need that “right-wing” tag at all; religion seems to transcend political leanings – just look at California. ;)

I almost used the word "bigots", but I didn't want to start that stupid argument up all over again. :p

Ink Asylum

06-18-2009, 08:00 PM

What people that want equal rights should do, is this. QUIT trying to get gay marriage. Go after it as a way to get legal rights equal to a man and wife marriage. Not similar, not equivalent, EQUAL. There is NO reason for gay couples to HAVE to grab a title. Whether it has only been used by Christians for a couple of centuries... it has still been used that way for a long time. The societal changes to marriage didn't come about over a vote after a couple of years. Societies evolve. Unless there is a catastrophe, they don't normally dramatically change over night.

"What black people should do, is this. QUIT trying to get into the same schools. Go after it as a way to get better blacks-only schools. Not similar, not equivalent, EQUAL. There is NO reason for black students to HAVE to be in the same classrooms. Whether the schools have only been used by Whites for a couple of decades... they have still been used that way for a long time. The societal changes to race relations didn't come about over a vote after a couple of years. Societies evolve. Unless there is a catastrophe, they don't normally dramatically change over night."

Sorry, that "if you'd just stop asking for so much we'd let you have something, even if it isn't what you really want" argument is bullshit. Nothing is more pathetic than a majority telling a minority to stop being so demanding and just settle for what the majority is willing to give them. When that argument gets trotted out it's the surest sign that the minority is going to win soon enough and the majority is bargaining to hang onto something, anything that will allow them to continue to pretend that they're special, even if it's just for a little while longer.

johnperkins21

06-18-2009, 11:42 PM

Maybe you should read this thread, then? I make a logical argument. You can DISCOUNT it, if you want, but it is a logical argument, that you may disagree with.

No you haven't. All of your posts in this thread amount to the "separate but equal" argument, which is in no way logical. It's insulting.

You are right. But, that being said, I think the "gay marriage" lobby would garner a LOT more votes like mine, if they backed off of gay marriage, and went for civil unions, EQUAL to marriage under the law. And, I think they need to explain more, about WHAT equal treatment gives you... like visiting loved ones in the hospital. I think many people against gay marriage don't get it... I also think those are the ones you would sway quickly with the "civil union" title, instead of marriage.

Ink Asylum did a good job countering this, but seriously, if some bigoted douchebag assholes don't want to be associated with gay marriage in any way, let them invent their own new word to describe their douchey union. The state gave my wife and I a marriage license. Says marriage right there on the document: License and Certificate of Confidential Marriage. You want to give gays equal rights, let them get the same certificate.

Shieldmaiden

06-19-2009, 03:09 AM

"What black people should do, is this. QUIT trying to get into the same schools. Go after it as a way to get better blacks-only schools. Not similar, not equivalent, EQUAL. There is NO reason for black students to HAVE to be in the same classrooms. Whether the schools have only been used by Whites for a couple of decades... they have still been used that way for a long time. The societal changes to race relations didn't come about over a vote after a couple of years. Societies evolve. Unless there is a catastrophe, they don't normally dramatically change over night."

Sorry, that "if you'd just stop asking for so much we'd let you have something, even if it isn't what you really want" argument is bullshit. Nothing is more pathetic than a majority telling a minority to stop being so demanding and just settle for what the majority is willing to give them. When that argument gets trotted out it's the surest sign that the minority is going to win soon enough and the majority is bargaining to hang onto something, anything that will allow them to continue to pretend that they're special, even if it's just for a little while longer.

Being gay is not the same as being black and as long as the debate is reduced to that level it won't move forward. Race is an uncontrollable aspect of your genetic makeup, period. Homosexuality, to some degree, is a lifestyle choice. You can't choose to be black or white, no matter what Michael Jackson or Fred Durst would like to believe, but you can choose whether or not you have an intimate relationship with someone of the same gender. The issue of whether or not someone chooses to be gay is completely seperate, but there plenty of people who are equally attracted to members of both genders and choose to be in same-sex relationship.

The concept of equal rights is, surprisingly enough, about equal treatment, whether it be based on race, gender or sexual orientation. Changing the definition of marriage is not asking for equal treatment, it's about changing existing, long-standing definitions. The earlier point about interracial marriage simply isn't relevent. It didn't change the definition of marriage, it ended discrimination based on race. It's not like the definition of marriage was previously "Marriage is a union between a white man and woman or a man and woman of another race" and it had to be fundementally changed. There were a bunch of ridiculous laws applying to the basic concept of "marriage is a union between a man and a woman."

Allowing gay marriage would mean changing that to "marriage is a union between two people" or "marriage is a union between a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman." Writing marriage off as just another legal term that can be changed at the drop of a hat makes it seem like it is being devalued and will alienate thousands of people.

Kelegacy

06-19-2009, 05:08 AM

Homosexuality, to some degree, is a lifestyle choice. You can't choose to be black or white, no matter what Michael Jackson or Fred Durst would like to believe, but you can choose whether or not you have an intimate relationship with someone of the same gender.

When did you first choose to be heterosexual and why?

You're basically telling gays that they might as well stay in the closet, that it's their choice to act on their gayness. Yes, everyone could stay single, live solitary lives without love and relationships. That sounds real fun, huh? As a heterosexual male with a loving partner and baby on the way, I can't imagine doing that myself, and I bet you can't either.

I think that is insulting to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, watering down partnership, love, family and commitment into "lifestyle choices". Yet, using your theory--as far as choice is concerned--they chose to be happy. The alternative was stay in the closet and be unhappy. Which do you think is the proper choice?

Kelegacy

06-19-2009, 05:24 AM

Allowing gay marriage would mean changing that to "marriage is a union between two people" or "marriage is a union between a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman." Writing marriage off as just another legal term that can be changed at the drop of a hat makes it seem like it is being devalued and will alienate thousands of people.

As a guy that's probably going to be married this year, I don't think the wording of marriage will have any impact on my own marriage. In fact, I KNOW it won't. I won't look at my lady and suddenly feel any different. Marriage is about love and commitment. Who cares if the wording changes slightly? It still means the exact same thing for you and your partner! It's like falling out of love because your wife painted her nails--it's inconsequential. A tiny rewording of marriage doesn't devalue your own love and marriage commitment, not one bit. Your marriage stays exactly the same.

Again, the racial comparison fits perfectly. "Man, Olive Garden used to be such a nicer place before they started letting the blacks eat here too." The food's the same. The atmosphere is the same. But now there is another race eating at the table next to you. Can't you see how silly that is?

Shieldmaiden

06-19-2009, 05:34 AM

Choosing a partner is a lifestyle choice. Marriage, children, anything to do with relationships is a lifestyle choice. No-one forces you to do them. Many people live perfectly happy lives without doing them.

Imagine a hypothetical country where it is commonplace to take part in a ritual involving doing something with a potato. People have undertaken this are called "tatoers." Certain legal rights are only applicable to tatoers, which is based on old prejudices and is completely outdated. Many people agree, although many people still hold the potato ritual to be a special thing. There are many people who also believe in both. You join a movement promoting equal rights for people who aren't tatoers. You don't want to do anything with potatoes, but you want equal treatment in the eyes of the law.

You could have been a tatoer, but you decided against it. For whatever reason, it's not for you. Would you want to be called a tatoer if you didn't want to do the potato thing? Would it be fair to the tatoers if anyone could be called a tatoer even if they didn't do the potato thing?

Yes, that's an incredibly ridiculous example, but it's the same concept as gay marriage. It's comparable to demanding that the meaning of the word heterosexual is changed to include gay people as well as straight. It's not simply a demand for equal rights, but a demand to change an entire concept to fit the desires of a minority group.

Shrinn

06-19-2009, 05:45 AM

It's comparable to demanding that the meaning of the word heterosexual is changed to include gay people as well as straight. It's not simply a demand for equal rights, but a demand to change an entire concept to fit the desires of a minority group.

Guess what. Language evolves. Words don't mean the same thing that they used to mean. Language is the speech of the people and the correct definition is the one most commonly understood by the people speaking that language. That's why words like noob are now considered words by dictionaries.

All this bullshit about changing a concept. Times change. Nothing is static and there's no reason to keep things static.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Fine. But if the understanding of that concept changes to "a union between two people in love" then let the concept change with the understanding.

Shieldmaiden

06-19-2009, 05:48 AM

Shieldmaiden

06-19-2009, 05:54 AM

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Fine. But if the understanding of that concept changes to "a union between two people in love" then let the concept change with the understanding.

I don't believe that understanding has changed, at least not for a very large number of people. That's why I believe that equal rights for homosexuals and gay marriage are two different issues that need to be viewed seperately. Which is all I'm trying to argue, really.

Shrinn

06-19-2009, 06:12 AM

I hear what you're saying. But you seemed to be speaking in a manner that states that the definition is either impossible to change, or changing it would make the meaning evaporate. I just wanted to get it out there that definitions themselves do change. =)

Ink Asylum

06-19-2009, 06:20 AM

Being gay is not the same as being black and as long as the debate is reduced to that level it won't move forward. Race is an uncontrollable aspect of your genetic makeup, period. Homosexuality, to some degree, is a lifestyle choice.

Religion is also a lifestyle choice, arguably even more of a choice than homosexuality is. No one is born a believer. So I suppose a law banning jews from marrying christians would be fine by you?

Allowing gay marriage would mean changing that to "marriage is a union between two people" or "marriage is a union between a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman." Writing marriage off as just another legal term that can be changed at the drop of a hat makes it seem like it is being devalued and will alienate thousands of people.

If the choice is between "equality for gays" and "some selfish straights feeling bad" it's not a hard choice for me. I'm sure that there were many white people who felt that their very essence was being "devalued" by having blacks recognized as full persons worthy of rights, and not just animals or property. Too bad for them.

astranoir

06-19-2009, 06:23 AM

It confuses me that people get so charged up about the word "marriage" one way or the other. Honestly, it seems like the best idea would be to completely remove "marriage" from any legal standing. Both straight and gay people could get legal civil unions, and then individual people and churches could choose to recognize "marriage" in their own ways.

Ink Asylum

06-19-2009, 06:26 AM

Gay marriage being legalised wouldn't change how I feel about my wife, either. If we weren't married at all, I wouldn't feel any differently about her. But marriage is a big part of who we are as a couple and as people. It's the same for millions of other people. Changing the definition of marriage could affect them in a way that giving gay couples the same legal rights as straight ones simply wouldn't. It still stands that it's not as simple as "changing that won't affect anyone else, they're just getting equal rights.

You talk so much about how important the bond of marriage is between you and your wife, and other couples as well. Have you ever stopped to think that gay people might want to feel that way too? You're essentially telling gay people that the rights of marriage without the name should be enough for them, and at the same time the term "marriage" is so special and wonderful that we can't risk having it sullied by allowing them to use it to. Do you have any idea how insulting and demeaning that is? Can you imagine for one second how you would feel if someone told you that you had all the same rights and privileges of marriage, but you couldn't call it a marriage anymore?

It's selfish, pure and simple. Gays aren't looking to take anything away from you and other married people. They want to share the same marriage you laud. There's enough marriage to go around, it's not a zero sum game. Giving gays marriage doesn't mean straight marriage is lessened in any way.

Shrinn

06-19-2009, 06:43 AM

You talk so much about how important the bond of marriage is between you and your wife, and other couples as well. Have you ever stopped to think that gay people might want to feel that way too? You're essentially telling gay people that the rights of marriage without the name should be enough for them, and at the same time the term "marriage" is so special and wonderful that we can't risk having it sullied by allowing them to use it to. Do you have any idea how insulting and demeaning that is? Can you imagine for one second how you would feel if someone told you that you had all the same rights and privileges of marriage, but you couldn't call it a marriage anymore?

It's selfish, pure and simple. Gays aren't looking to take anything away from you and other married people. They want to share the same marriage you laud. There's enough marriage to go around, it's not a zero sum game. Giving gays marriage doesn't mean straight marriage is lessened in any way.

I wanted to make that point, but couldn't figure out how. Thank you.

National Kato

06-19-2009, 07:58 AM

Allowing gay marriage would mean changing that to "marriage is a union between two people" .

And that devalues it? Really? How do you feel about the usage of the term 'marriage' to define an intimate or close union between objects, ideas, or other non-tangibles, e.g. a marriage of painting and poetry? It's a valid use of the term and one of Mirriam-Webster's definitions of 'marriage.'

Generation ABXY

06-19-2009, 08:36 AM

When did you first choose to be heterosexual and why?

You're basically telling gays that they might as well stay in the closet, that it's their choice to act on their gayness. Yes, everyone could stay single, live solitary lives without love and relationships. That sounds real fun, huh? As a heterosexual male with a loving partner and baby on the way, I can't imagine doing that myself, and I bet you can't either.

I think that is insulting to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, watering down partnership, love, family and commitment into "lifestyle choices". Yet, using your theory--as far as choice is concerned--they chose to be happy. The alternative was stay in the closet and be unhappy. Which do you think is the proper choice?

As I said before, I'd like to see gay marriage accepted, but I also have to say that your argument can be a pretty tricky one to make. I mean, people have all sorts of urges that we override because, frankly, acting on them just isn't considered normal, decent, civilized or whatever.

Again, we both support gay marriage (as a means to an end), but I just thought I'd point out that some people could easily make this an issue of self-control.

rifter

06-19-2009, 08:38 AM

No you haven't. All of your posts in this thread amount to the "separate but equal" argument, which is in no way logical. It's insulting.

Ink Asylum did a good job countering this, but seriously, if some bigoted douchebag assholes don't want to be associated with gay marriage in any way, let them invent their own new word to describe their douchey union. The state gave my wife and I a marriage license. Says marriage right there on the document: License and Certificate of Confidential Marriage. You want to give gays equal rights, let them get the same certificate.

So, John... I see that you DIDN'T read what I have said. Thank you for jumping in, and missing out. Let me try to boil the essence down for you...

Remove marriage licenses, completely. Create Civil Union contracts. Man and woman, man and man, and woman and woman can get these.

It is not separate but equal. It is EQUAL.

Now, if a man and wife want to get married under the eyes of god. They go to their church, and get the marriage certificate. If two men, or two women want to get married under the eyes of god, THEY go to their church. But, if a church does not recognize gay marriage, they need to go to one that does.

The government contract is what gives a couple all the rights, and responsibilities of a union. The church marriage title, is just that, a church title...

Oh, and John, Gay people are not black. You can't (generally) look at one, and go oh my gosh, he is gay, and he can't come in here... Your moral equivalency circuit is broken. There is no such thing as separate but equal in my arguments. There is just equal. To the government, ALL unions are equal. All rights ARE equal, because they are the same. The old "separate but equal" argument has worn itself out on me. Once again, if you would read what I have posted before. I want EQUAL rights for all sides. Not equal, but different.

Ink Asylum

06-19-2009, 09:02 AM

Now, if a man and wife want to get married under the eyes of god. They go to their church, and get the marriage certificate. If two men, or two women want to get married under the eyes of god, THEY go to their church. But, if a church does not recognize gay marriage, they need to go to one that does.

Under your proposal what if non-religious people want to have a non-religious ceremony, or no ceremony at all, and call themselves "married?" They shouldn't be able to? Religion doesn't own that term, nor should they.

Oh, and John, Gay people are not black. You can't (generally) look at one, and go oh my gosh, he is gay, and he can't come in here...

What does that have to do with anything? Minorities that can blend in can't be discriminated against? What about religions? Jewish people can blend in yet somehow they had no problem getting singled out.

rifter

06-19-2009, 09:23 AM

Under your proposal what if non-religious people want to have a non-religious ceremony, or no ceremony at all, and call themselves "married?" They shouldn't be able to? Religion doesn't own that term, nor should they.

They can call themselves beans, for all that I care. But the title is bestowed by the church. I, and MANY people like me, believe that marriage is a religious entity. Because you don't think so, doesn't change the fact that it IS a religious designation. If someone is non-religious, why do they want a religious title?

What does that have to do with anything? Minorities that can blend in can't be discriminated against? What about religions? Jewish people can blend in yet somehow they had no problem getting singled out.
The broken moral equivalency arguments are getting old. Jewish people can and DO blend in. There are not a lot of Jewish people where I live, but I have known two. If they hadn't outright come and told me they were Jewish, I would have had no clue. In Boise, most people are considered Mormon, unless proven differently. Who cares?

As others have stated, homosexuality is a life choice. Much like heterosexuality is a life choice. Choice #3 would be neither. Priests choose to remain single in service to god. I have a few friends that have chosen to stay single. It is all a life choice. What color your skin is, is not. They are not equal arguments.

Kelegacy

06-19-2009, 09:35 AM

Remove marriage licenses, completely. Create Civil Union contracts. Man and woman, man and man, and woman and woman can get these.

It is not separate but equal. It is EQUAL.

Isn't that more effort than just allowing gays to marry? Instead of getting rid of marriages altogether and creating just civil unions for everyone regardless of orientation, just extend the marriage benefit to gay couples and you've come to the same end result--equality.

And I do see similarity between race and orientation. Opponents don't like to admit to correlations because then suddenly they look like bigots. You can't help if you are black or white, and you can't help if you are gay or straight. Regardless of what group you are born into, you should share the same rights as every other person. This is America, after all.

I'm sure you can not act on your gay or straight instincts, but that's like telling an African American to not "act black". Listen to country, shop at Gap, watch Seinfeld. You see how insulting that is to people? Telling a gay person to not be gay, to refrain from gay interaction, is completely ridiculous. Don't we learn from an early age to "be yourself"? People in this thread are basically telling other people not to be themselves, but create a facade and hide within it. That's stellar.

Ink Asylum

06-19-2009, 09:39 AM

They can call themselves beans, for all that I care. But the title is bestowed by the church. I, and MANY people like me, believe that marriage is a religious entity. Because you don't think so, doesn't change the fact that it IS a religious designation. If someone is non-religious, why do they want a religious title?

You didn't answer the question. Do you care if non-religious people call themselves "married" or not?

You can keep saying that marriage is a religious designation but that doesn't make it fact. That is ONE definition of marriage. Another definition, at least as old, if not older, than the religious definition is a social or civil contract.

Maybe non-religious people want the title because they, and the government and society they live under, do not consider it a strictly religious title.

The broken moral equivalency arguments are getting old. Jewish people can and DO blend in. There are not a lot of Jewish people where I live, but I have known two. If they hadn't outright come and told me they were Jewish, I would have had no clue. In Boise, most people are considered Mormon, unless proven differently. Who cares?

You completely missed the point there. It doesn't matter if a minority can blend in or not, they can still be singled out, discriminated against, and persecuted, even if they don't come out and tell people that they are Jewish, gay, etc.

As others have stated, homosexuality is a life choice. Much like heterosexuality is a life choice. Choice #3 would be neither. Priests choose to remain single in service to god. I have a few friends that have chosen to stay single. It is all a life choice. What color your skin is, is not. They are not equal arguments.

Religion is a lifestyle choice, probably moreso than sexuality. You aren't born favoring any particular religion. So religion deserves less protection than race, correct?

Ink Asylum

06-19-2009, 09:42 AM

I'm sure you can not act on your gay or straight instincts, but that's like telling an African American to not "act black". Listen to country, shop at Gap, watch Seinfeld. You see how insulting that is to people? Telling a gay person to not be gay, to refrain from gay interaction, is completely ridiculous. Don't we learn from an early age to "be yourself"? People in this thread are basically telling other people not to be themselves, but create a facade and hide within it. That's stellar.

How about "Don't act Jewish" or "Don't act Christian"? Seems like that would be even easier than not acting gay. There's no biological impulse compelling people to worship a particular religion. So it should be perfectly acceptable to Rifter to discriminate against particular religions because they can just stop acting religious if they don't want to be discriminated against.

Bingley Joe

06-19-2009, 10:12 AM

As others have stated, homosexuality is a life choice. Much like heterosexuality is a life choice. Choice #3 would be neither. Priests choose to remain single in service to god. I have a few friends that have chosen to stay single. It is all a life choice. What color your skin is, is not. They are not equal arguments.

Don't be ridiculous.

Engaging in sexual activities (or not) is the choice those people are making. Hell, some people are just completely incapable of getting laid even though they want to, so celibacy or abstinence are completely irrelevant to the discussion of a person's sexual identity.

Celibate, abstinent, unlucky in love -- they all still have their proclivities completely intact.

MagGnome

06-19-2009, 11:14 AM

The definition of marriage has changed many times. The idea of romantic marriage, where one person chooses to marry another person because of love, is fairly new. For thousands of years marriage, particularly in Europe, was a business transaction between families, with parents selecting who their kids would marry. I guess we should go back to that "definition" of marriage because the worst thing you could possibly do is to change the definition of a state-granted institution to make it more inclusive.

This is a very important point that shouldn't be overlooked. I hear the silly argument about "tradition" all the time, yet it's only brought up when it's convenient. There are a LOT of traditions we don't follow at all, and marriage is a great example of this. Marriages today in the West look nothing like they did in the past. If we want to be so traditional, why don't we go back to arranged marriages, dowries, etc.? Hell, let's go even farther back and take away the woman's say in the matter entirely!

AniAko

06-19-2009, 11:24 AM

You talk so much about how important the bond of marriage is between you and your wife, and other couples as well. Have you ever stopped to think that gay people might want to feel that way too? You're essentially telling gay people that the rights of marriage without the name should be enough for them, and at the same time the term "marriage" is so special and wonderful that we can't risk having it sullied by allowing them to use it to. Do you have any idea how insulting and demeaning that is? Can you imagine for one second how you would feel if someone told you that you had all the same rights and privileges of marriage, but you couldn't call it a marriage anymore?

It's selfish, pure and simple. Gays aren't looking to take anything away from you and other married people. They want to share the same marriage you laud. There's enough marriage to go around, it's not a zero sum game. Giving gays marriage doesn't mean straight marriage is lessened in any way.

A cynical response could very well be "Marraige is the right to let penises touch vaginas" Homosexuals can't do that! ;) :p

MagGnome

06-19-2009, 11:39 AM

Religion is a lifestyle choice, probably moreso than sexuality. You aren't born favoring any particular religion. So religion deserves less protection than race, correct?

Now there is an intriguing idea. I always hear complaints that gay people "flaunt their lifestyle", but who flaunts their lifestyle in this country more than Christians? Maybe they should all go back into the Jesus-closet and not inflict their lifestyle choice on the rest of us.

:p

Edit-

A cynical response could very well be "Marraige is the right to let penises touch vaginas" Homosexuals can't do that! ;) :p

We can physically do so, we just don't want to. ;)

Generation ABXY

06-19-2009, 12:32 PM

Now there is an intriguing idea. I always hear complaints that gay people "flaunt their lifestyle", but who flaunts their lifestyle in this country more than Christians? Maybe they should all go back into the Jesus-closet and not inflict their lifestyle choice on the rest of us.

Honestly? I've never been caught in the midst of a Christian pride parade, and - apart from, say, a priest - I don't think I've ever been able to tell who is and is not a Christian based on outward appearances or mannerisms alone. Of course, I'm not saying that is always the case with gay people, but the same can't always be said for the above...

Ink Asylum

06-19-2009, 12:39 PM

Everyone always brings up the parades. Honestly, how many of the people who complain about them actually live in cities that regularly have gay pride parades?

Generation ABXY

06-19-2009, 12:51 PM

Everyone always brings up the parades. Honestly, how many of the people who complain about them actually live in cities that regularly have gay pride parades?

Well, hell, you could say that about anything if you wanted to! How many of you calling for more gun control have actually been involved in a school shooting or the like? How many calling for pot to be legalized have been thrown in jail for it? How many pro-choice advocates have actually had to make a choice?

However, to answer your question, I thankfully don't live in it, but I do live just outside of D.C. and frequent it quite a bit. I don't know how the scale compares to those on the west coast, but events themselves are quite numerous – it seems like I run into something every other time I have to go there.

AniAko

06-19-2009, 02:15 PM

Christians like holy wars and witch burnings. Parades are so, so, so.... civil.

Ink Asylum

06-19-2009, 02:19 PM

Don't forget protests. I'm sure that women going into Planned Parenthood don't appreciate having other peoples' religion shoved in their faces. The same goes for the families of dead soldiers when that whackjob and his flock use the funeral as a soap box for their anti-gay crusade.

Generation ABXY

06-19-2009, 02:36 PM

Christians like holy wars and witch burnings. Parades are so, so, so.... civil.

Well, at least we can have a serious debate, right? Oh...

miah

06-19-2009, 02:43 PM

Generation ABXY

06-19-2009, 03:18 PM

ShivaX

06-19-2009, 06:00 PM

Hmmm, perhaps I've just been more fortunate when it comes to my encounters with religious types.

Must be where you live, I don't go through a day without seeing countless Jesus Fishes on cars or similar displays. Around here most gays keep it very low key as well.

Ink Asylum

06-19-2009, 06:37 PM

I think Gay Pride and Religious Pride are usually inversely proportional. Places where you find a lot of the former you'll usually find little of the latter, and vice versa.

Matthias

06-19-2009, 06:55 PM

Must be where you live, I don't go through a day without seeing countless Jesus Fishes on cars or similar displays. Around here most gays keep it very low key as well.

I wasn't aware displaying a small religious on your personal property was considered "flaunting" your lifestyle. If that's the case, a very large of homosexuals "flaunt" their lifestyle in my area, and I live in the bible belt. Indeed, for every cross or fish I see, I see dozens of gay pride buttons and bumper stickers adorning the doorways within my dorm. I shall have to get upset every time I see one now, since apparently displaying nonintrusive symbols of your lifestyle is horribly offensive.

ShivaX

06-19-2009, 07:15 PM

I wasn't aware displaying a small religious on your personal property was considered "flaunting" your lifestyle. If that's the case, a very large of homosexuals "flaunt" their lifestyle in my area, and I live in the bible belt. Indeed, for every cross or fish I see, I see dozens of gay pride buttons and bumper stickers adorning the doorways within my dorm. I shall have to get upset every time I see one now, since apparently displaying nonintrusive symbols of your lifestyle is horribly offensive.

Did I say I was offended?

I could give a crap, but I have never seen a gay pride anything in my life outside of someones home. I see pro-Christianity stuff every single day. To say that the gays are "flaunting" their lifestyle everywhere and Christians aren't isn't at all true.

Matthias

06-19-2009, 07:31 PM

I'll bite.

Lets not generalize people based on outward appearance, and voice pitch. I've met plenty of religious people that try to shove their religion down my throat. I've met plenty of religious people that don't do that too. I've met people that wear shirts declaring their religion and sexual orientation.

I don't think I have to say much about the horrible things that religion has brought into the world. On the other hand, I don't know of anything that "gay people" have done to cause suffering on the world.

I don't understand the whole "us" "them" perspective. We're all people, and we all deserve Equal Rights. I don't care about peoples race, creed, social level, or sexual orientation.

I do fall into the GLBT spectrum and I'm just a person like everybody else here.

To be honest, I think it's debatable that religion is the root cause of much of the suffering man has inflicted on each other. People are legalistic and like to say their way of doing things is the only way, all others be damned. The Crusades weren't actually about religion. A bunch of European kings wanted what was "on the other side of the fence" and found some reason to say they were better and more deserving of it than the people in the middle east. If religion was nonexistent, they would have used some other difference as their main excuse. As it stood, the best way to get official sanction from the not-very-holy pope was to come up with a religious excuse and dangle muslim gold under his nose.

Christianity is at its core supposed to be anti-legalistic and loving- none of us have any right to judge anybody else based on their sins, because we've all sinned and all sin is equal. Indeed, it is rare for a person to go a whole day without sinning, and my losing my temper is just as bad as someone else's homosexual acts. The whole point of Christianity isn't to look around and step on the faces of people who slip up more often than you, or who don't realize/think/believe what they're doing is wrong. The point is to try each day to become more like Christ; Christ never sinned, and he loved sinners. It's the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

But the whole prospect of this flies in the face of human nature; we are legalistic and judgmental. We love pretending that because we slip up less than the neighbor, we are somehow better and more deserving. People like to pretend that having homosexual sex is any worse than heterosexual sex out of wedlock; it's not. They like to pretend that either of those sins is worse off than masturbating, which is obviously worse than having a passing fantasy about an attractive person that just walked by. The fact of the matter is that they're all equal, and they're all less than perfect, which is the definition of sin. There's no point system where you have to have below a certain number of "sin points" and still be allowed into heaven. All sin is equal, and sinning once is as bad as sinning 10 times. The goal of Christianity isn't "don't sin or you'll go to hell!" It's "hey, I acknowledge that I am less than perfect, and exhibit this each and every day. It's okay, though, because Jesus died for my sins, and asks that I strive to be more like him each day." Christ loved sinners, so we should love our fellow sinners- it's the easiest of the commandments in my opinion, but we all suck at it anyway.

Matthias

06-19-2009, 07:39 PM

Did I say I was offended?

I could give a crap, but I have never seen a gay pride anything in my life outside of someones home. I see pro-Christianity stuff every single day. To say that the gays are "flaunting" their lifestyle everywhere and Christians aren't isn't at all true.

What I'm saying is that I don't think displaying a cross is flaunting any more than displaying a GLBT pin is. So if you think Christians are flaunting their lifestyle, you're going to need to provide a better example than a car decal.

And before you use Phelps' church and their disgusting funeral displays as an example, you need to realize that he's not actually Christian, no matter what he calls himself. Most of his teachings go directly against the church's core beliefs, and I've yet to meet a christian who agrees with him any more than any other group does.

miah

06-19-2009, 07:41 PM

To be honest, I think it's debatable that religion is the root cause of much of the suffering man has inflicted on each other. People are legalistic and like to say their way of doing things is the only way, all others be damned. The Crusades weren't actually about religion. A bunch of European kings wanted what was "on the other side of the fence" and found some reason to say they were better and more deserving of it than the people in the middle east. If religion was nonexistent, they would have used some other difference as their main excuse. As it stood, the best way to get official sanction from the not-very-holy pope was to come up with a religious excuse and dangle muslim gold under his nose.

Christianity is at its core supposed to be anti-legalistic and loving- none of us have any right to judge anybody else based on their sins, because we've all sinned and all sin is equal. Indeed, it is rare for a person to go a whole day without sinning, and my losing my temper is just as bad as someone else's homosexual acts. The whole point of Christianity isn't to look around and step on the faces of people who slip up more often than you, or who don't realize/think/believe what they're doing is wrong. The point is to try each day to become more like Christ; Christ never sinned, and he loved sinners. It's the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

But the whole prospect of this flies in the face of human nature; we are legalistic and judgmental. We love pretending that because we slip up less than the neighbor, we are somehow better and more deserving. People like to pretend that having homosexual sex is any worse than heterosexual sex out of wedlock; it's not. They like to pretend that either of those sins is worse off than masturbating, which is obviously worse than having a passing fantasy about an attractive person that just walked by. The fact of the matter is that they're all equal, and they're all less than perfect, which is the definition of sin. There's no point system where you have to have below a certain number of "sin points" and still be allowed into heaven. All sin is equal, and sinning once is as bad as sinning 10 times. The goal of Christianity isn't "don't sin or you'll go to hell!" It's "hey, I acknowledge that I am less than perfect, and exhibit this each and every day. It's okay, though, because Jesus died for my sins, and asks that I strive to be more like him each day." Christ loved sinners, so we should love our fellow sinners- it's the easiest of the commandments in my opinion, but we all suck at it anyway.

I like everything you said here. I just wish more people understood this.

Generation ABXY

06-19-2009, 08:20 PM

To say that the gays are "flaunting" their lifestyle everywhere and Christians aren't isn't at all true.

Meh. Like I said, I know Christians do their fair share of flaunting; I was merely questioning the claim that they do it the most.

ShivaX

06-19-2009, 08:52 PM

Meh. Like I said, I know Christians do their fair share of flaunting; I was merely questioning the claim that they do it the most.

Yeah I don't think they do it more than any other group. For that matter most groups don't do it all that much, it always comes down to individuals. Some gay people flaunt their lifestyle and shove it in your face and a lot of Christians do the same thing, they can both be pretty annoying when they do it.

Matthias

06-19-2009, 09:49 PM

I like everything you said here. I just wish more people understood this.

Yeah, thankfully the younger generation understands this concept quite a bit more than our grandparents and parents have.

MagGnome

06-20-2009, 06:24 PM

Honestly? I've never been caught in the midst of a Christian pride parade, and - apart from, say, a priest - I don't think I've ever been able to tell who is and is not a Christian based on outward appearances or mannerisms alone. Of course, I'm not saying that is always the case with gay people, but the same can't always be said for the above...

All I was saying is that Christians can be just as obnoxious as a certain sect of the homosexual population, if not more so.

Speaking of gay pride, that's coming up this weekend! It's a fun time, regardless of a few embarrassing individuals. It's the largest parade of any kind in Minnesota, which is pretty cool when you think about it. There's also a huge festival in the park downtown and tons of events, so I'm looking forward to it. I'll be sure to post pictures of me in my pink thong, high heels, and makeup. :p

Well, hell, you could say that about anything if you wanted to! How many of you calling for more gun control have actually been involved in a school shooting or the like? How many calling for pot to be legalized have been thrown in jail for it? How many pro-choice advocates have actually had to make a choice?

I'll bite. I would argue that many of the people calling for pot to be legalized are smokers themselves, so they definitely have experience with it. They may not have gone to jail, but they still have to worry about being arrested and charged with something that they don't think should be a crime.

As for gun control, I haven't been shot myself thankfully, but I hear gun shots from time to time and it's always disconcerting. I'm sure that living near D.C. you've heard a few yourself, and if not then count yourself lucky.

As far as abortion goes, just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean that he or she is going to get an abortion. I'm obviously never going to get one, but I believe that the option should be there for those who want or possibly need to take it. That's all I'm saying about abortion, as we don't need to derail the thread with that whole argument.

However, to answer your question, I thankfully don't live in it, but I do live just outside of D.C. and frequent it quite a bit. I don't know how the scale compares to those on the west coast, but events themselves are quite numerous – it seems like I run into something every other time I have to go there.

Is it really that bad? You make gay pride sound like some horrendous thing that you are forced to deal with when you visit the city.

Generation ABXY

06-20-2009, 10:26 PM

Is it really that bad? You make gay pride sound like some horrendous thing that you are forced to deal with when you visit the city.

I don't want to say something terribly offensive, so I'll just put it this way: Yes, I think there can be certain elements involved that actually set the movement back. In fact, even beyond that, the entire concept itself seems like it can be counter-productive at times - if you want people to accept that you just are, then just be.

I'm not sure if that makes sense, but if I try to be more clear, I'm certain to ramble on for a bit (and probably regret some of it).

boratika

06-21-2009, 04:52 AM

Meh. Like I said, I know Christians do their fair share of flaunting; I was merely questioning the claim that they do it the most.

At least I've never had fags wake me up at ten o'clock in the morning banging at the door, trying to convert me to a fag.

MagGnome

06-21-2009, 08:53 AM

I don't want to say something terribly offensive, so I'll just put it this way: Yes, I think there can be certain elements involved that actually set the movement back. In fact, even beyond that, the entire concept itself seems like it can be counter-productive at times - if you want people to accept that you just are, then just be.

I'm not sure if that makes sense, but if I try to be more clear, I'm certain to ramble on for a bit (and probably regret some of it).

So it's okay for me to judge all Christians by the likes of Fred Phelps and the late Jerry Falwell?

Duly noted.

Matthias

06-21-2009, 12:06 PM

So it's okay for me to judge all Christians by the likes of Fred Phelps and the late Jerry Falwell?

Duly noted.

As I already said, Phelps doesn't teach anything resembling a christian message, and frankly it's an insult to even pretend he's christian. Try again. I'll not comment on Falwell because I haven't looked into him at all.

Also, Gen ABXY clearly stated there are "certain elements" that set the movement back. He's obviously not saying he's judging you based on the actions at gay pride parades, nor even any people- just the movement. And to be honest, when I see gay pride parades and rallies, I really wonder if they're actually trying to accomplish anything. Acting out to the degree they sometimes do only alienates people. When I see video of a crowd of homosexuals dressed as lewd versions of priests and nuns run into a catholic church during mass and harass a priest that has never said anything to provoke anyone, I don't exactly think "well shucks, those people are normal everyday folks just like me!"

But I also realize that they're not the only homosexual people in the world. Please don't make inflammatory straw men, Mags. You're better than that.

MagGnome

06-21-2009, 02:54 PM

Gen ABXY - You realize that those of us with e-mail notification saw your post, right? :p

As I already said, Phelps doesn't teach anything resembling a christian message, and frankly it's an insult to even pretend he's christian. Try again. I'll not comment on Falwell because I haven't looked into him at all.

Also, Gen ABXY clearly stated there are "certain elements" that set the movement back. He's obviously not saying he's judging you based on the actions at gay pride parades, nor even any people- just the movement. And to be honest, when I see gay pride parades and rallies, I really wonder if they're actually trying to accomplish anything. Acting out to the degree they sometimes do only alienates people. When I see video of a crowd of homosexuals dressed as lewd versions of priests and nuns run into a catholic church during mass and harass a priest that has never said anything to provoke anyone, I don't exactly think "well shucks, those people are normal everyday folks just like me!"

But I also realize that they're not the only homosexual people in the world. Please don't make inflammatory straw men, Mags. You're better than that.

That was my entire point. It's just as silly to judge gay people and the gay right's movement by a few flamboyant individuals as it is to judge all Christians by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, and the like.

Generation ABXY

06-21-2009, 03:13 PM

So it's okay for me to judge all Christians by the likes of Fred Phelps and the late Jerry Falwell?

Duly noted.

Sure, go ahead. That's your prerogative, of course.

Also, Gen ABXY clearly stated there are "certain elements" that set the movement back. He's obviously not saying he's judging you based on the actions at gay pride parades, nor even any people- just the movement. And to be honest, when I see gay pride parades and rallies, I really wonder if they're actually trying to accomplish anything. Acting out to the degree they sometimes do only alienates people. When I see video of a crowd of homosexuals dressed as lewd versions of priests and nuns run into a catholic church during mass and harass a priest that has never said anything to provoke anyone, I don't exactly think "well shucks, those people are normal everyday folks just like me!"

But I also realize that they're not the only homosexual people in the world. Please don't make inflammatory straw men, Mags. You're better than that.

I have to say, that is more or less how I probably would have responded. Most people around here clearly don't need my permission to start judging – how often do we hear “Stay classy, Republicans” around here? However, even though I may not be willing to damn every member for it, I can still recognize that certain things may damage the party.

EDIT: And, Mags, I wanted to respond more to Matthias' post, too.

Matthias

06-21-2009, 03:47 PM

Gen ABXY - You realize that those of us with e-mail notification saw your post, right? :p

That was my entire point. It's just as silly to judge gay people and the gay right's movement by a few flamboyant individuals as it is to judge all Christians by the likes of Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, and the like.

So you're saying the more flamboyant individuals in your community aren't actually gay? Because if not, it's not nearly as ridiculous as judging christians based on people who aren't actually christians. There's a reason Phelps' church is independent of any larger baptist convention, and the Calvinists he aligns himself with flat out reject him, and regard his church as a cult. His beliefs and actions don't align with basic Christian doctrine. Period. As such, no one outside of his church accepts him as part of the christian community. Any wacko can occupy a building and talk about Jesus and God but that doesn't make him a pastor. Please refrain from using him as an example any longer.

EDIT: I'd like to add that I don't judge anyone in the gay community. I'm perplexed by some individuals' public actions and don't understand why they do them, but I don't judge; as I said in a previous post, I'm not better than anyone else in this discussion or on the planet for that matter. I refrain from judging Phelps as well, though I will not accept people telling me that his beliefs are at all representative of me or my faith, because that is simply not true in the slightest.

MagGnome

06-21-2009, 03:54 PM

EDIT: And, Mags, I wanted to respond more to Matthias' post, too.

I know. I was just teasing you.

As for your other point, I already covered that in my previous post.

MagGnome

06-21-2009, 03:57 PM

So you're saying the more flamboyant individuals in your community aren't actually gay? Because if not, it's not nearly as ridiculous as judging christians based on people who aren't actually christians. There's a reason Phelps' church is independent of any larger baptist convention, and the Calvinists he aligns himself with flat out reject him, and regard his church as a cult. His beliefs and actions don't align with basic Christian doctrine. Period. As such, no one outside of his church accepts him as part of the christian community. Any wacko can occupy a building and call himself a pastor but that doesn't make him one. Please refrain from using him as an example any longer.

Are you even listening to me? I'm not saying those guys aren't gay, I'm saying that they DON'T REPRESENT ALL GAY MEN, so quit pointing to them as an example!

It's just as silly as me using Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell to paint all Christians in a bad light, which was my point. I don't care if Fred Phelps is a mainstream Christian or not. That's not the point of what I'm saying.

I'll stop bringing up Fred Phelps when you guys stop stereotyping gay men based on a few out there individuals at gay pride parades. 95% or more of the people are gay pride parades are perfectly "normal".

I put "normal" in parentheses because I hate using that term.

Matthias

06-21-2009, 04:11 PM

Are you even listening to me? I'm not saying those guys aren't gay, I'm saying that they DON'T REPRESENT ALL GAY MEN, so quit pointing to them as an example!

It's just as silly as me using Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell to paint all Christians in a bad light, which was my point. I don't care if Fred Phelps is a mainstream Christian or not. That's not the point of what I'm saying.

I'll stop bringing up Fred Phelps when you guys stop stereotyping gay men based on a few out there individuals at gay pride parades. 95% or more of the people are gay pride parades are perfectly "normal".

I put "normal" in parentheses because I hate using that term.

Apparently you are failing to listen to me. Phelps is NOT INDICATIVE OF ANY CHRISTIANS WHATSOEVER. It is not that he is not "mainstream". It is not that his beliefs differ from mine because he's a different denomination. HE IS NOT CHRISTIAN. He is the leader of a cult. It is the equivalent of me telling you a straight man is homosexual because he has a tenor voice.
EDIT: No, it's not even on that level. I cannot come up with a parallel that expresses how offensive it is to me that Phelps is placed anywhere near the christian community when his views are so disgusting and abhorrent to the core of my beliefs- not the extraneous dogma, the CORE. I will ask you again to NOT refer to him as a member of the christian community.

And when did I stereotype all gay men based on a few out there individuals? I'm pretty sure my posts distinctly mentioned "more flamboyant individuals in your community" which is the term you used in the post I quoted. I never said they were normal, or indicative of all gay men. said they were still members of the homosexual community. Phelps is NOT a member of the christian community. Therefore it is even more ridiculous to judge christians by Phelps' actions than it is to judge homosexuals based on flamboyant members. It's obvious you don't particularly like being associated with some of the more outrageous member of the homosexual community- imagine what it feels like for me to be associated with a cult leader who is NOT a member of my community.

EDIT: and in my previous post, I wasn't even saying it was right to judge the entire gay community based on the flamboyant few; indeed I was simply saying that it is simply MORE ridiculous and offensive to judge the christian community based on someone who does not belong in it. While you were writing your post, I had even gone back and said that I don't judge anyone because it's not my place- I just don't appreciate you or anyone else lumping Phelps in with me, and am attempting to make that clear.

mister slim

06-21-2009, 11:44 PM

Matthias

06-22-2009, 02:19 AM

Oh, cool. Now we are back to the Catholic Church as the definition of Christianity. I can live with that. Hopefully the other splinter churches will recognize their blasphemy and stop spreading heresy.

Since when did I limit my few of the christian community to only members of the Catholic Church? I've been a nondenominational christian for most of my life. There's a difference between denominations disagreeing on dogma and some interpretations, and a lone church spewing hatred that flies in the face of every christian belief. Phelps claims to be an "old school baptist" and a Calvinist (which is oxymoronic), but the Southern Baptist Convention and the prominent calvinists Phelps claims to align himself with have rejected him outright based on the fact that his teachings aren't christian.

Generation ABXY

06-22-2009, 08:13 AM

I don't know; maybe there's a miscommunication here, and we're really all on the same point. When it comes to the more radical elements, I'd love to see Rush retire, it sounds like Matthias wouldn't mind seeing Phelps fade into obscurity and Mags...well, I have no idea.

When it comes to the parades, though, I guess I still don't understand the need of it and, even if was 100% normal, it still seems counter-productive to me. I mean, as I said, you're constantly working to be seen and treated as equals, but then you throw a celebration to remind people you're different. I can't be the only one who sees why that might be a problem, can I?

I put "normal" in parentheses because I hate using that term.

In my day, we called those quotes; this is all part of the gay agenda. :p

Ink Asylum

06-22-2009, 09:20 AM

When it comes to the parades, though, I guess I still don't understand the need of it and, even if was 100% normal, it still seems counter-productive to me. I mean, as I said, you're constantly working to be seen and treated as equals, but then you throw a celebration to remind people you're different. I can't be the only one who sees why that might be a problem, can I?

You don't see the point of a group of people who, throughout most of history and most civilizations, have been forced to supress their true selves in order to blend in now celebrating their ability to express themselves freely?

Being seen as equals doesn't mean surrendering your individuality.

Generation ABXY

06-22-2009, 11:23 AM

You don't see the point of a group of people who, throughout most of history and most civilizations, have been forced to supress their true selves in order to blend in now celebrating their ability to express themselves freely?

Being seen as equals doesn't mean surrendering your individuality.

No. But, please, enlighten me since you clearly do see one...and, no, that isn't sarcasm.

Ink Asylum

06-22-2009, 12:23 PM

You really don't see how someone that spends 15-50 years or more of their life living a lie and hiding their true self out of fear, even from their friends and family, might find great joy in being able to fully express themselves?

Generation ABXY

06-22-2009, 12:40 PM

So the point is fun? To do it just because they can?

I guess , the way you were coming off, I was expecting something more...profound.

Doogie2K

06-22-2009, 12:47 PM

So the point is fun? To do it just because they can?

I guess , the way you were coming off, I was expecting something more...profound.

Isn't celebrating who you are part of why we have Canada Day/Independence Day parades every year? Different component of your identity, but the same thing at the end of the day.

Hell, you could even argue it's a component of the World Series/Super Bowl/Stanley Cup parades that the winning cities hold every year -- civic pride by way of sporting accomplishment.

Ink Asylum

06-22-2009, 01:02 PM

National Kato

06-22-2009, 01:19 PM

"Man, those gays would be a lot more tolerable if they started acting less...well, gay."

Am I getting the gist of it?

Generation ABXY

06-22-2009, 01:43 PM

Fun? No, "Joy" does not exclusively mean fun. Ask any gay person who has had to summon up the courage to come out to their friends and family, unsure if they will accept them or shun them. Afterwards there is joy and elation in being yourself, even if you are shunned by some or all, but no one would call the process fun.

Nor is it "just because they can." In many places, even in America, they can't, and gay people expressing themselves are still targets for retribution and discrimination or worse. So when they can do so without being attacked they do to show solidarity with their fellow gays who took a chance coming out and to inspire those who still haven't.

Think of all the things you do "because you can," like wearing the clothes you want, hanging out with your friends, kissing someone you love in public, even speaking in your own voice. Now imagine that doing those things used to, and still might, result in you getting beat up, discriminated against, or shunned. Those actions suddenly become a lot more "profound."

I suppose I can see where you're coming from with that, though I'm not sure I agree entirely. After all, as you said, they're still being discriminated against, even here, and a parade does nothing to change that. It seems more or less like they are celebrating the fact they've gotten over their own cowardice and decided to just be themselves, which is what they should (as I said before, “just be”). We'd get nowhere in life and affect no real change if we all ran away and hid every time we were faced with someone's disapproval. Now, I'm not going to claim I am discriminated against in the same way as a homosexual, but I will say that you are never going to be accepted by 100% of the people 100% of the time for 100% of the things you do. That's just life.

However, if you like, we can agree to disagree (I'm fine either way, though I don't want to derail the thread...even if it doesn't have a set direction, being a catch-all)?

"Man, those gays would be a lot more tolerable if they started acting less...well, gay."

Am I getting the gist of it?

No.

Ink Asylum

06-22-2009, 01:56 PM

I suppose I can see where you're coming from with that, though I'm not sure I agree entirely. After all, as you said, they're still being discriminated against, even here, and a parade does nothing to change that. It seems more or less like they are celebrating the fact they've gotten over their own cowardice and decided to just be themselves, which is what they should (as I said before, “just be”). We'd get nowhere in life and affect no real change if we all ran away and hid every time we were faced with someone's disapproval. Now, I'm not going to claim I am discriminated against in the same way as a homosexual, but I will say that you are never going to be accepted by 100% of the people 100% of the time for 100% of the things you do. That's just life.

Sorry, but you are dead wrong if you believe the parades do nothing for the gay cause. As I said before, it increases the solidarity of the local gay community and inspires closeted gays to come out. The more gays come out and the more public they are the more gays as a whole are accepted by people that know them. You say parades do nothing then you say that there would be no change if people ran away and hid. Isn't a parade pretty much the complete opposite of running away and hiding?

Generation ABXY

06-22-2009, 02:16 PM

Isn't a parade pretty much the complete opposite of running away and hiding?

In the same way that jumping out the window is the complete opposite of staying inside, sure. Yeah, it got you off the couch, but it probably isn't what your parents meant.

Again, however, it is clear you appreciate some benefit that I simply do not.

Ink Asylum

06-22-2009, 02:22 PM

If your goal is to get outside then it might be extreme but you've accomplished it. I've explained the reasons, but it's clear you don't understand how large scale public expressions by gays help the movement. If you're honestly interested in appreciating it more I would suggest seeing Milk.

Generation ABXY

06-22-2009, 02:46 PM

If you're honestly interested in appreciating it more I would suggest seeing Milk.

...Er, what?

Ink Asylum

06-22-2009, 02:53 PM

...Er, what?

Milk. A highly acclaimed movie that came out last fall starring Sean Penn about one of the first elected gay politicians during the 70s. I believe if you saw the movie you would have a greater understanding of how gays acting gay in public helps closeted gays.

Generation ABXY

06-22-2009, 02:58 PM

Milk. A highly acclaimed movie that came out last fall starring Sean Penn about one of the first elected gay politicians during the 70s. I believe if you saw the movie you would have a greater understanding of how gays acting gay in public helps closeted gays.

Ah, I thought you were going for some sort of Zen metaphor or something. -_-

I'll check out some trailers and perhaps give it a shot.

EDIT: And now for something completely different...

Apparently, musician Will.I.Am and company got in a bit kerfuffle with blogger Perez Hilton, which ended in the latter getting punched in the face. Normally I couldn't care less about this sort of thing (and, at the very least, wouldn't bother bringing it up in here), but I have to admit I got a laugh out of this last paragraph:

Hilton did admit calling Will.I.Am a "f**got," saying it was the worse thing he could think of to call the singer at the time. He went further in his video statement, calling the singer "a f***ing coward," and adding he would have had more respect if he would have punched him in the face himself.

mister slim

06-22-2009, 05:47 PM

MagGnome

06-22-2009, 09:56 PM

EDIT: and in my previous post, I wasn't even saying it was right to judge the entire gay community based on the flamboyant few; indeed I was simply saying that it is simply MORE ridiculous and offensive to judge the christian community based on someone who does not belong in it. While you were writing your post, I had even gone back and said that I don't judge anyone because it's not my place- I just don't appreciate you or anyone else lumping Phelps in with me, and am attempting to make that clear.

My initial post was in response to Gen ABXY and his comment about certain gay people and gay pride parades. You jumped in with the whole Phelps diatribe. After that I had to try to address both of you simultaneously. :p

In my day, we called those quotes; this is all part of the gay agenda. :p

Damn you! *shakes fist*

So the point is fun? To do it just because they can?

I guess , the way you were coming off, I was expecting something more...profound.

Gay Pride started as a result of the Stonewall Riots in 1969. You should look it up on Wikipedia or something. Obviously they are not all about that today - they've been commercialized and taken over to an extent by other things, but the Stonewall Riots and gay rights in general still play a big role in Gay Pride each year.

Most ethnic groups, religious groups, minorities, etc. have their cultural events, so why does the parade bother you so much? It's not like you have to go.

"Man, those gays would be a lot more tolerable if they started acting less...well, gay."

Am I getting the gist of it?

That's sort of how I read it as well, although I'm sure that's not what Gen ABXY meant. At least I hope not.

It might also be useful to look at how pride parades developed out of the Stonewall riots.

Exactly.

Generation ABXY

06-22-2009, 10:18 PM

Most ethnic groups, religious groups, minorities, etc. have their cultural events, so why does the parade bother you so much? It's not like you have to go.

While I read up on the Stonewall Riots and perhaps check out Milk, I'll refrain from jumping in any more. However, I did want to respond to the above. As I said earlier (and this is just in case you missed it, not to start the whole conversation all over again), no, I don't have to go to them, but events of various scale seem to pop up all the time in D.C. and it can be a nuisance...especially for something that seemed, if not counter-productive, at least pointless.

As for the various other cultural events you mentioned...well, I tend to be a very reserved person. That may color my perspective a little bit.

MagGnome

06-22-2009, 10:22 PM

Understood. I'm fairly reserved myself, although probably not in the same ways that you are. ;)

For example, I'm known as something of a prude among my friends, which may surprise everyone here.

Generation ABXY

06-22-2009, 10:24 PM

Understood. I'm fairly reserved myself, although probably not in the same ways that you are. ;)

For example, I'm known as something of a prude among my friends, which may surprise everyone here.

You have no idea.

MagGnome

06-22-2009, 10:32 PM

You have no idea.

I figured as much.

Matthias

06-23-2009, 12:42 AM

My initial post was in response to Gen ABXY and his comment about certain gay people and gay pride parades. You jumped in with the whole Phelps diatribe. After that I had to try to address both of you simultaneously. :p

Oh okay then. I just didn't want you/others thinking I was slamming homosexuals- I just dont' like being compared to Phelps.

Most ethnic groups, religious groups, minorities, etc. have their cultural events, so why does the parade bother you so much? It's not like you have to go.

As Gen ABXY said, it's not the idea of the parades that tends to upset people from all I've heard; it's just that they're fairly numerous and tend to block passage on a regular basis. It's the equivalent of being annoyed with all the train strikes in Italy.

That's sort of how I read it as well, although I'm sure that's not what Gen ABXY meant. At least I hope not.

In my opinion there's a line between being yourself and over-exaggerating your "flamboyancy" to rub your lifestyle in other people's faces, and the more vocal members of the homosexual community tend to long jump across it. That seems to put a bad taste in people's mouths more than anything, unless they were already sympathetic. I apologize if that's being a bit stereotypical, but I think that's what ABXY is trying to say. Two of my best friends in the dorm this year are gay, and neither has ever hidden it or been afraid to talk about it. They've also not rubbed their sexuality in the faces of the more-conservative kids you find at A&M.

And yeah, i always figured you were pretty reserved; you remind me of my friend Michael in conversation/writing style, and I remember that one dating thread back in the day.

National Kato

06-23-2009, 08:34 AM

That's sort of how I read it as well, although I'm sure that's not what Gen ABXY meant. At least I hope not.

I had hoped not. I've heard all too often the sentiment that homosexuals would be much more acceptable if they only didn't have their Pride parades or drag shows or any other sort of openly public behavior. Having lived in Atlanta's Midtown and experiencing the vast spectrum of homosexuality, it always rubbed me the wrong way. As if a subsection of homosexuals could be anything but themselves. The lives and behavior of gays and lesbians are as varied as those of heterosexuals.

MagGnome

06-23-2009, 09:40 AM

Oh okay then. I just didn't want you/others thinking I was slamming homosexuals- I just dont' like being compared to Phelps.

I don't blame you. I've known Phelps was a disgusting human being ever since the Matthew Shepherd funeral.

As Gen ABXY said, it's not the idea of the parades that tends to upset people from all I've heard; it's just that they're fairly numerous and tend to block passage on a regular basis. It's the equivalent of being annoyed with all the train strikes in Italy.

Each city has one parade a year - it's not like they are held on a weekly basis.

In my opinion there's a line between being yourself and over-exaggerating your "flamboyancy" to rub your lifestyle in other people's faces, and the more vocal members of the homosexual community tend to long jump across it. That seems to put a bad taste in people's mouths more than anything, unless they were already sympathetic. I apologize if that's being a bit stereotypical, but I think that's what ABXY is trying to say. Two of my best friends in the dorm this year are gay, and neither has ever hidden it or been afraid to talk about it. They've also not rubbed their sexuality in the faces of the more-conservative kids you find at A&M.

It's just not fair to stereotype the whole group based on a few individuals or perceptions. That's like saying that all black men are thugs, or all Jewish people are cheap and greedy, etc.

And yeah, i always figured you were pretty reserved; you remind me of my friend Michael in conversation/writing style, and I remember that one dating thread back in the day.

I definitely have my moments, but overall I'm pretty reserved as you said, especially compared to some of my friends.

I had hoped not. I've heard all too often the sentiment that homosexuals would be much more acceptable if they only didn't have their Pride parades or drag shows or any other sort of openly public behavior. Having lived in Atlanta's Midtown and experiencing the vast spectrum of homosexuality, it always rubbed me the wrong way. As if a subsection of homosexuals could be anything but themselves. The lives and behavior of gays and lesbians are as varied as those of heterosexuals.

Exactly. Gay men (and women) come in all shapes, sizes, and errr....styles. For example, one of my friends grew up as an Orthodox Jew, so he's a little more on the reserved side and definitely has a different perspective on the world than I do. On the other hand, my roommate will burst into song everywhere and anywhere, which leads to a lot of embarrassing situations on my part.

Generation ABXY

06-23-2009, 10:22 AM

Each city has one parade a year - it's not like they are held on a weekly basis.

Either our definition of "parade" differs, or you are talking about something official, because I can assure you these events are more numerous than that (at least, around here).

Also, I guess I just have trouble seeing how the more flamboyant aspects fit into the whole scheme of things, apart from getting attention. You like men - hurrah! - but why on earth would you cross-dress or break into song? And I mean you in a general term, not anyone specific.

Ink Asylum

06-23-2009, 10:54 AM

Because it's how they want to dress and what they enjoy doing? Why do straight men dress up like sports players or mockingly beat on each other?

Bingley Joe

06-23-2009, 10:54 AM

why on earth would you cross-dress or break into song? And I mean you in a general term, not anyone specific.

Well why the hell not? Singing songs and wearing clothes is hardly something that's going to cause anyone any harm.

People need to loosen up and enjoy life more in general, and if that's one means to that end for some folks, why on earth would anyone want to discourage it?

Generation ABXY

06-23-2009, 10:58 AM

Because it's how they want to dress and what they enjoy doing?

I suppose I was more trying to figure out where the want to do so comes from in the first place...but I'm probably overthinking the whole thing.

Well why the hell not? Singing songs and wearing clothes is hardly something that's going to cause anyone any harm.

People need to loosen up and enjoy life more in general, and if that's one means to that end for some folks, why on earth would anyone want to discourage it?

Without getting into what you define as harm, I'll just add that I wasn't discouraging it so much as trying to understand it. Off hand, the source of that doesn't seem to jive with the other aspects as much.

National Kato

06-23-2009, 11:05 AM

Let's not forget that plenty of heterosexuals cross-dress and break into song. As well, plenty of homosexuals do not.

Ink Asylum

06-23-2009, 11:16 AM

I suppose I was more trying to figure out where the want to do so comes from in the first place...but I'm probably overthinking the whole thing.

People enjoy different things for different reasons. No one here can speak for why other people do what they do. Their reasons are their own and they are different for everyone. One person that cross-dresses might do it for a completely different reason than another. One person might have a perfectly understandable reason, another might not except that they enjoy it. Can you explain why you enjoy every activity you engage in?

Bingley Joe

06-23-2009, 11:25 AM

What this WHOLE debate comes down to - from the legal issues, to the moral issues, to issues surrounding public displays of affection and/or exuberance (dear god NO not exuberance!) - is that people need to learn how to mind their own fucking business and stop worrying about what other people are doing when it has no bearing on their lives whatsoever.

Matthias

06-23-2009, 11:37 AM

heck I break into song on a regular basis! Of course I've been in choir for 12 years now, so I guess that's a little different.

And I agree that it's wrong to stereotype. I just don't get why some people purposefully play into the stereotype SO heavily and purposefully. I don't mean people dressing flashily or acting a little flamboyant in day to day life; I'm talking about the few that make spectacles of themsevles in highly public views. They say they're doing it in the name of the homosexual cause, but they seem to only perpetuate the stereotype...

Again I don't consider these individuals horrible people, nor do I even pretend that the whole community is like the highly visible few. I just don't get why the few intentionally perpetuate a stereotype.

EDIT: Whoops, I guess I hadn't refreshed the page in a while; i was replying to MagGnome, though it seems to apply to the interim posts as well

Bingley Joe

06-23-2009, 11:45 AM

I just don't get why some people purposefully play into the stereotype SO heavily and purposefully. I don't mean people dressing flashily or acting a little flamboyant in day to day life; I'm talking about the few that make spectacles of themsevles in highly public views. All that seems to do is perpetuate the stereotype.

But seriously, so fucking what?! What is the point of even being perplexed by something so utterly meaningless? I mean.. what group doesn't have some people that take their particular stereotypes and multiply them by 1000?

Rastas, skater kids, hipsters, librarians, politicians, actors, homosexuals, skinheads, punks, geeks, fundies, plumbers, priests, designers, monks, yoga people, yuppies, white people, black people, asians, natives, albinos, car salesmen, firemen, police, soldiers, cab drivers, receptionists, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc...

Who fucking cares?

MagGnome

06-23-2009, 11:51 AM

Either our definition of "parade" differs, or you are talking about something official, because I can assure you these events are more numerous than that (at least, around here).

Also, I guess I just have trouble seeing how the more flamboyant aspects fit into the whole scheme of things, apart from getting attention. You like men - hurrah! - but why on earth would you cross-dress or break into song? And I mean you in a general term, not anyone specific.

The parades are only held once a year, usually in June. I have no idea what the other "events" are that you are running into.

I don't know why some men like to cross-dress, but I will point out that heterosexual men cross dress as well. It isn't a "gay" thing.

People just have different things that they enjoy doing. I can't for the life of me understand why my roommate bursts into song at the grocery store, and he can't understand why I sit at the computer playing Sins of a Solar Empire. Different strokes for different folks, and all that.

Generation ABXY

06-23-2009, 12:14 PM

Man, I never thought a quest for knowledge could be so damning.

Normally, I don't concern myself with a lot of this stuff - if people leave me alone, I'm more than happy to leave them alone (and it doesn't matter whether you want to fuck a goat, marry another man or smoke a joint). Curiosity, however, is a very natural thing and, so long as there were parties involved who actually had some insight into it, I thought I might sate it. And, thanks to some here (such as Mags and Ink), I do actually have something of a better understanding of the anomaly.

MagGnome

06-23-2009, 12:59 PM

rifter

06-23-2009, 03:59 PM

I know here in Boise, which is very conservative, my girlfriend was invited to come down to the parade with some good friends. She declined, after they sent some pictures to her. Now, I am not saying every parade is like this, but it was not something my girlfriend would want to bring her daughter too, because of the guys and gals wearing almost nothing.

While the parades have had a noble birth, it seems like some, have become a farce... which doesn't help the cause.

Ink Asylum

06-23-2009, 04:54 PM

Does your girlfriend take her daughter to the beach?

nnanji

06-23-2009, 07:13 PM

And I agree that it's wrong to stereotype. I just don't get why some people purposefully play into the stereotype SO heavily and purposefully. I don't mean people dressing flashily or acting a little flamboyant in day to day life; I'm talking about the few that make spectacles of themsevles in highly public views. They say they're doing it in the name of the homosexual cause, but they seem to only perpetuate the stereotype...

There will be as many answers to this as there are people doing it. Some people just enjoy it, and enjoy celebrating loudly their lifestyle. Perhaps they are flamboyant and loud because for the first half of their life they felt they had to hide it away in shame. Perhaps the freedom of expression itself gives them a pleasurable feeling, or maybe they like it when others look disgusted or amazed. I also know that some of them act and dress specifically so that you can not ignore them. They believe it forces other people to take part in a discussion that they might otherwise ignore, like this one.

mister slim

06-23-2009, 07:39 PM

Does your girlfriend take her daughter to the beach?

Or let her watch television? Like a certain recent Super Bowl?

Bingley Joe

06-24-2009, 12:14 AM

Does your girlfriend take her daughter to the beach?

Or let her watch television? Like a certain recent Super Bowl?

Or let her play dress-up, and encourage her to express herself even when her opinion might not be completely popular?

Either you teach her to be afraid of 'the weirdos', or you show her that they're just a bunch of people out to have fun and that there's nothing to be afraid of. Kids love a parade, after all.

But parenting is all about decisions, I suppose, and it's true that not all of the pride celebrations are 100% kid-friendly.

Matthias

06-24-2009, 12:38 AM

Or let her play dress-up, and encourage her to express herself even when her opinion might not be completely popular?

Either you teach her to be afraid of 'the weirdos', or you show her that they're just a bunch of people out to have fun and that there's nothing to be afraid of. Kids love a parade, after all.

But parenting is all about decisions, I suppose, and it's true that not all of the pride celebrations are 100% kid-friendly.

Yeah, you should take to her to fetish parties too, so she won't be scared of the "weirdos" who are only out to have fun. They're expressing themselves even though their lifestyle choices aren't completely popular. Plus they wear really cool outfits!

Parenting *is* all about decisions, and depending on the age, it may not appropriate to allow your children to see certain things, much less put them in the car and take them there. There are a lot of beaches I'd hesitate to take young children too, and some that are more modest. The amount of skin being shown isn't the only factor, it's also the actions of the people on the beach. Depending on the event, there can be some pretty blatant displays of sexuality. Kids in a certain age range don't need to see that (in many parents' opinions anyway), whether it's between heterosexual or homosexual pairs (or groups for that matter).

Sorry Bingley, I'm not picking on you; I'm just emphasizing the difference between a kid expressing herself through dress-up and attending a parade based on sexuality.

An personal story follows in spoilers below to cut down on length:

The first time we went to Disney World, we accidentally went during Gay Pride Week (turns out they don't advertise it very much outside the GLBT community). I was in 6th grade I think, and my sister was in elementary school. To be honest I didn't even pick up on anything within the parks until I started noticing a lot of couples wearing matching clothes, and the occasional gay pun or term on t-shirts. My sister was completely clueless. Things got a little different at the hotel, however. There was a lot of behavior bordering on lewd in the pool, and several people were removed from the area, (and possibly the hotel, i don't remember). My sister has always been a bit behind the curve when it comes to emotional growth, and mom decided that even if it wasn't such a big deal for me, we should take my sister elsewhere. Later that night, my dad overheard one gay male couple complaining to the manager, basically accusing him of discrimination. He replied that several straight couples had been removed from the area that night as well, because the hotel was on Disney property and therefore family was the primary focus.

Bingley Joe

06-24-2009, 07:29 AM

Sorry Bingley, I'm not picking on you; I'm just emphasizing the difference between a kid expressing herself through dress-up and attending a parade based on sexuality.

I guess you missed the part where I said that not all of it is kid friendly.

However there are aspects of the celebrations that you could easily take a child to without giving it a second thought. At least that's the case around here. The media likes to play up the lewdness, but it's not always about that, all the time, everywhere.

There's also the fact that sexuality and nudity aren't evil. But like I said, parenting is about making decisions, so to each their own, I suppose. My goddaughter - who's 11 - has been going with her mothers for years now, and she's one of the most 'normal' kids you'll ever meet.

National Kato

06-24-2009, 07:45 AM

Matthias, your Disney World story sounds a lot like Spring Break in any number of cities across the country.

Bingley Joe

06-24-2009, 08:57 AM

Matthias, your Disney World story sounds a lot like Spring Break in any number of cities across the country.

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what the big deal there is (and I'm not picking on you, Matthias. Nor am I being facetious by saying that -- I'm really just making convo here):

- Parents take kids to Disney World during Pride Week
- Kids are unaffected
- Family goes to hotel where guests are misbehaving
- Hotel requires misbehaving guests to leave
- ???
- Mickey Mouse?

Matthias

06-24-2009, 02:56 PM

I guess you missed the part where I said that not all of it is kid friendly.

However there are aspects of the celebrations that you could easily take a child to without giving it a second thought. At least that's the case around here. The media likes to play up the lewdness, but it's not always about that, all the time, everywhere.

There's also the fact that sexuality and nudity aren't evil. But like I said, parenting is about making decisions, so to each their own, I suppose. My goddaughter - who's 11 - has been going with her mothers for years now, and she's one of the most 'normal' kids you'll ever meet.

No, I didn't miss it, I used your own wording in my post. I was simply driving the point home that just because a pride parade is an act of self-expression and its participants typically aren't malignant towards others doesn't mean it's a good idea to take kids there. Based on the replies to rifter's posts, some people on the board don't realize this. I stated that I wasn't picking on you because I'm responding to a number of posts in that chain.

And I'm not saying that sexuality and nudity are evil, simply that it's a parents right to decide when to introduce those topics to their children, and whether a gay pride parade is too blunt an introduction to said topics. Just because she decided not to take her kid to a parade doesn't mean she completely isolates her daughter from the world, though I'm sure she places reasonable safeguards on examples mentioned. There's a reason V-chips exist within TVs and a reason there are beaches that celebrate nudity and expression more than others.

And to counter your example, I'm 20 years old, have never been to a gay pride parade, and besides some very vague memories of bathing with my sister or parents when I was very little, never viewed nudity outside of an anatomy textbook until I was well into my teens. To be honest I still haven't seen a nude woman in person, and I'm okay with that. I'm not some prude who's scared of sex or self-expression. I like to think I'm pretty normal. So sure, you can argue that going to gay pride parades didn't turn your goddaughter into a pervert and I'm not saying it would anyway. I will say that *not* seeing some things at a young age doesn't mean you'll turn out to be emotionally repressed to Victorian levels.

In other words, her decision isn't a battle against free expression or homosexuals or showing ankles in public. She made a parenting decision, and a rather conventional one at that. Let her decide how to raise her kid.

Matthias

06-24-2009, 03:08 PM

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out what the big deal there is (and I'm not picking on you, Matthias. Nor am I being facetious by saying that -- I'm really just making convo here):

- Parents take kids to Disney World during Pride Week
- Kids are unaffected
- Family goes to hotel where guests are misbehaving
- Hotel requires misbehaving guests to leave
- ???
- Mickey Mouse?

There's a reason I put it in spoilers, it was more just a story this conversation reminds me of. But specifically: my parents didn't care about the blatant but acceptable signs of affection going on between homosexual couples at the park, because it didn't cross certain lines. My parents *were* concerned with romantic behavior when it did cross a certain line. That line is a bit subjective and depends on the age and emotional maturity of the child witness, but gay prides can (and I know not always) display things that cross over that line. Apparently rifter's girlfriend saw pictures she decided were over the line of things she was willing to let her daughter see at that time. Borrowing your timeline would look something like this.

-Parent takes kid to park during pride day
-Kid is unaffected by couples holding hands
-Parent goes to parade where groups are "misbehaving" (according to that subjective line)
-Parade encourages "misbehavior", parent doesn't remove kid from situation
-???
-Unintended consequences?

To sum it up, I'm not saying gay pride parades should be censored or something, just defending that parent's right to *not* introduce her kid to a situation she's not comfortable introducing her kid to. That's it. I'm sure she lets her kid watch TV but doesn't allow cinemax after 9pm. I'm sure she takes her daughters to beaches but probably not nudist colonies. I'm sure she doesn't mind her daughter playing dress-up but probably keeps her daughter away from the silk teddy. A lot of kids have grown up with reasonably set boundaries and censorship that fade away as they age.

MagGnome

06-25-2009, 05:06 PM

I didn't know where else to post this, and this seems like as good of a place as any.

Twin Cities Pride is this weekend, and I'm excited! I first went two years ago, and then again last summer, and it's a lot of fun. There's some weird some stuff, but overall it's just a big festival in the park followed by a parade on Sunday. It's amazing how many people attend - according to the organization that puts the whole thing together, more than 500,000 people attend, making ours the third largest pride in the country. I'm blown away by that!

Of course I'll be skipping the "Guess the Lube" contest that someone invited me to on Facebook. It's tamer than it sounds, but still...ugh. :p

Generation ABXY

06-25-2009, 08:58 PM

..."Guess the Lube" contest...

The only way I'll get to sleep tonight is pretending that's a joke; if I'm wrong, don't correct me. :(

...

On a side note, hope you enjoy the festivities.

MagGnome

06-26-2009, 04:15 AM

The only way I'll get to sleep tonight is pretending that's a joke; if I'm wrong, don't correct me. :(

...

On a side note, hope you enjoy the festivities.

When I saw the Facebook invite I did an eye-roll of epic proportions.

Now it is a booth in the park apparently, so it can't be too risque, but still....ugh.

Oh sorry, it was all a joke, I swear! ;)

Shieldmaiden

06-26-2009, 04:45 AM

That's awesome. And that's a lot of people. Have fun, Mags!

National Kato

07-09-2009, 03:03 PM

Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage, is now the first state to challenge the consitutionality of the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/mass_to_challen.html)

"Our familes, our communities, and even our economy have seen the many important benefits that have come from recognizing equal marriage rights and, frankly, no downside," Attorney General Martha Coakley said this afternoon at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. "However, we have also seen how many of our married residents and their families are being hurt by a discriminatory, unprecedented, and, we believe, unconstitutional law."The suit, filed in US District Court in Boston, claims Congress "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."

MagGnome

07-09-2009, 05:20 PM

Awesome! Let's see that stupid law repealed!

mister slim

07-09-2009, 07:55 PM

Go State's Rights!

Matthias

07-09-2009, 08:31 PM

Just to play devil's advocate to this- no one said Massachusetts had to take any federal money to begin with. If they feel that giving federal money to heterosexual couples but not to homosexual couples is discriminatory, just don't accept federal money for any kind of married couple. That, or the state can match what the amount the federal government would normally give to a married couple.

I'm not saying I believe this law is fair, but I also don't quite see how it's unconstitutional, at least any moreso than the federal government dangling money over the states and saying "if you want it, you have to lower the speed limit, raise the drinking age, and pass seatbelt laws." Indeed, in these other cases, the government required certain laws to be passed for federal money to flow. In this case, the feds aren't even forcing you to ban gay marriage in your state- they simply won't pay gay couples anything regardless.

The states have every right to turn down federal money. Go States' Rights!

mister slim

07-09-2009, 08:41 PM

I think the MA viewpoint is that married residents in their state should be treated equally and it's not the place of the US government to determine what counts as a marriage in Mass.

Matthias

07-09-2009, 08:47 PM

I think the MA viewpoint is that married residents in their state should be treated equally and it's not the place of the US government to determine what counts as a marriage in Mass.

And the devil's advocate response, which has already been stated by pundits, is that you are correct, and if MA wants to be fair to all the people it considers married in its state, then it can simply not give federal money to heterosexual couples. The states opt to use that federal money, and are in no way obligated to take federal money for heterosexuals.

Again, I don't think the law is fair, I'm just saying that the above argument is already being made by pundits, and will likely be made by supporters of DOMA when it goes to trial.

Of course, IANAL and have no idea what other precedents have been set in the past, so hopefully Ox or someone will come and enlighten us.

07-09-2009, 10:29 PM

Generally, Congress's Spending Power comes with almost no limitations at all: seatbelt laws and drinking laws are a good example. Unless Congress violates the Equal Protection Clause or a similar provision of the Constitution, it can spend its money however it likes. Thus, for example, although abortion is a constitutional right, Congress is under no obligation to subsidize abortions.

Here, Massachusetts doesn't seem to be claiming that Congress is violating the Equal Protection Clause. Instead, it claims Congress is violating the Spending Clause, which (according to Massachusetts) forbids Congress from "exercis[ing] its spending power in a manner that induces a state to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens."

Here's the problem: it doesn't say that. It doesn't say anything remotely like that. Indeed, the Spending Clause does not on its face impose any limitations on nonmilitary Congressional spending at all. While the Supreme Court has found that other provisions of the Constitution (e.g., the Establishment Clause) limit certain types of government spending, and there is a limited amount of restriction the Court has found springing from the Spending Clause itself, none of that gets Massachusetts within a country mile of winning.

Ultimately, Massachusetts is asking courts to upend a very well-settled doctrine (Congress can spend its money pretty much how it likes) to attain a specific goal. But even if judges are inclined to strike down DOMA, this is the wrong way and the wrong time to do it. If this suit had been filed 18 years ago, when the Rehnquist Court was hot-and-bothered about the Tenth Amendment, maybe they'd have had a chance. But now, after Gonzales v. Raich, the Tenth Amendment is dead. Liberals and conservatives united to kill it, because conservatives didn't want to strike down drug laws and liberals loved wanton government intervention in the economy.

As always, I stipulate I suck at predicting the behavior of the courts. But while it's conceivable the First Circuit might buy this argument, I can't imagine SCOTUS would.

As always, I defer to the much smarter fellows over at the Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/posts/1247197594.shtml), who seem to believe the Spending Clause isn't going to be the way DOMA dies.

Anybody remember that old West Wing episode when they wanted to nominate a flaming liberal to the Supreme Court,* and as a sort of Missouri Compromise they also nominated a very sharp conservative justice (played by William Fichtner, who is awesome and ought to be in everything)? In that episode, they had a debate over DOMA and his character claimed he'd strike down the statute based on Tenth Amendment grounds. Which is kind of a cool concept, but except for Thomas, there ain't nobody else on the Court who would agree with him.

* One of the things that made it politically difficult was that she had had an abortion, and Martin Sheen very sternly said that the exercise of her constitutionally protected rights should have no bearing on whether she got appointed. Right, I'm sure lots of people leapt to the defense of Clarence Thomas for renting porn or Mark Sanford for cheating on his wife with the line, "That's constitutionally protected conduct!" Fuck you, Aaron Sorkin, learn to fucking think for a goddamn change. "Constitutionally protected" is not synonymous with "Irrelevant on a job application."

mister slim

07-10-2009, 12:39 AM

Matthias

07-10-2009, 01:07 AM

The Spending Clause argument seemed pretty secondary, honestly. The lawsuit seemed to revolve more around who defines what a marriage is in Massachusetts.

Anyway, the important stuff: William Fichtner was badass in Go.

The Spending Clause argument is the basis of their ability to call the law unconstitutional, which in my opinion would be the strongest way to get the law stricken down.

No one is arguing that the state of Massachusetts defines what a marriage is within their state. They can also decide which married couples can get state money. From what I understand, the DOMA simply allows for federal funds to be given to heterosexual couples in addition to whatever money states give to couples of their own definition.

According to Wikipedia, DOMA states two things:

no state needs to recognize a relationship between two same-gendered individual, even if another state recognizes said relationship as a marriage.

The federal government recognizes a marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman.

This simply means that while Massachusetts is free to recognize whatever they want as a marriage within their own states, it is not allowed to force its definition on other states, which are all equally allowed to define marriage as they see fit.

This overrides the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, which states that states must respect "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of their fellow states. It simply recognizes gay marriage as a controversial issue, and allows each state to make their own choices within this controversy.

Telefrog

07-14-2009, 02:41 PM

Everyone's favorite powerless figurehead Michael Steele trying to convince people that gay marriage is bad for business (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/05/18/republican-chairman-steele-shoots-at-gay-marriage-hits-the-whole-institution.html):

Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.

Apparently, he's against all marriages.

digitalErich

07-17-2009, 12:18 AM

It shouldn't really surprise anyone that any argument against gay marriage is not sound. Whatever your beliefs, you can't argue that it's a discriminatory stance to take. If you try to refute that, you're just wrong.

Trying to justify it rationally (like the above), divorced from any religious context, will result in a flawed argument every time. It really just comes down to how much of an idiot you want to come across as when you try.

That is not to say in a religious context, the argument for discrimination is stronger, it's just more transparent.

Bingley Joe

12-03-2009, 11:03 AM

Resurrecting this thread to post what has to be one of THE best speeches on this topic I have heard to date. This woman is just so amazingly on the ball:

dCFFxidhcy0

Couple of choice quotes:

Turn on the television. We have a wedding channel on cable TV devoted to the behavior of people on the way to the altar. They spend billions of dollars, behave in the most appalling way, all in an effort to be princess for a day. You don't have cable television? Put on network TV. We're giving away husbands on a game show. You can watch The Bachelor, where thirty desperate women will compete to marry a 40-year-old man who has never been able to maintain a decent relationship in his life.

That's what we've done to marriage in America, where young women are socialized from the time they're five years old to think of being nothing but a bride. They plan every day what they'll wear, how they'll look, the invitations, the whole bit, they don't spend five minutes thinking about what it means to be a wife. People stand up there before god and man even in Senator Diaz's church, they swear to love honor and obey, they don't mean a word of it. So if there's anything wrong with the sanctity of marriage in America, it comes from those of us who have the privilege and the right and have abused it for decades.

So badass. Not that it managed to get the stupid jackasses to pass the bill, mind you, but that's still one hell of a speech.

In other news, does anyone else think it's completely hilarious that Texas was so hell-bent on fighting the scourge of same sex marriage that they said fuckit and decided they wouldn't be recognizing any marriages at all? Now that's how to git 'er done!

Generation ABXY

12-03-2009, 11:10 AM

In other news, does anyone else think it's completely hilarious that Texas was so hell-bent on fighting the scourge of same sex marriage that they said fuckit and decided they wouldn't be recognizing any marriages at all? Now that's how to git 'er done!

So, you're saying Texas achieved equality before California and New York? ;)

EDIT: And she didn't even need to go as far reality TV to criticize the "sanctity of marriage" - no-fault divorces, for one, have already shot that idea to hell and back, in my opinion (though she kind of touched on it in the second quote).

Ink Asylum

12-03-2009, 11:16 AM

Although it was depressing that the vote failed, it was telling that only one No voter got up to publicly explain why they were voting against equality, while many of the Yes voters expressed their reasoning. As with most forms of bigotry it is becoming increasingly uncomfortable to express such feelings in public.

Bingley Joe

12-03-2009, 11:21 AM

So, you're saying Texas achieved equality before California and New York? ;)

LMAO! Who knew they had such a creative and pioneering spirit :p

EDIT: And she didn't even need to go as far reality TV to criticize the "sanctity of marriage" - no-fault divorces, for one, have already shot that idea to hell and back, in my opinion (though she kind of touched on it in the second quote).

I thought her story about the guy stopping her in the street was a brilliant illustration of just how stupid the whole thing is, but she tells it so much better than I could quote it ;)

Generation ABXY

12-03-2009, 11:24 AM

Do you guys have referendum, Ink? Or, if this had passed, would there have been no chance that voters could shoot it down later (like they have in other states).

I thought her story about the guy stopping her in the street was a brilliant illustration of just how stupid the whole thing is, but she tells it so much better than I could quote it ;)

Yeah, I just saw that now (the embedded player wasn't working for me), and that was a good story.

Ink Asylum

12-03-2009, 11:34 AM

Do you guys have referendum, Ink? Or, if this had passed, would there have been no chance that voters could shoot it down later (like they have in other states).

It's my understanding that if this had passed the legislature there would have been no way for someone to get a measure on a ballot to undo it, as has often been done.

At least one recent poll of New Yorkers has shown a slim majority was in favor of the legislation, so it would have been less likely for such a measure to work even if it were possible.

Generation ABXY

12-03-2009, 11:39 AM

It's my understanding that if this had passed the legislature there would have been no way for someone to get a measure on a ballot to undo it, as has often been done.

Ah, that's what I thought, but I'm not too familiar with your politics. Now it seems even more of a shame it didn't pass.

At least one recent poll of New Yorkers has shown a slim majority was in favor of the legislation, so it would have been less likely for such a measure to work even if it were possible.

No offense to you guys at all, but after seeing what's happened elsewhere in the country, I take nothing for granted. Well, that and I just assume all Democrats lie through their teeth. :p

Ink Asylum

12-03-2009, 11:49 AM

No offense to you guys at all, but after seeing what's happened elsewhere in the country, I take nothing for granted. Well, that and I just assume all Democrats lie through their teeth. :p

Ironically, one of the reasons this was brought to the floor was because numerous Republicans in the state Senate had told the Democratic leadership that they would vote for the bill. This would've made up for the Democratic Senators who said they were going to vote against it. When the votes were cast, though, not a single Republican voted Yes. So, in this case, they were the ones lying through their teeth.

Generation ABXY

12-03-2009, 12:20 PM

I meant the voters (as in the ones polled) - all politicians lie through their teeth. ;)

civil

12-03-2009, 01:15 PM

Oh man, what a nice set of cans.

EDIT: And she's single, too. Yum.

Zero

12-03-2009, 01:33 PM

Oh man, what a nice set of cans.

EDIT: And she's single, too. Yum.

Really glad I'm not the only person that had this thought.

civil

12-03-2009, 01:37 PM

Let the white people argue about their "rights" and "equality" bullshit. We'll take their women!

LordDon

12-03-2009, 01:39 PM

Oh man, what a nice set of cans.

EDIT: And she's single, too. Yum.

:) Stay classy Civil!

Blue

12-03-2009, 01:44 PM

That was a fantastic speech. Much thanks for linking it.

Generation ABXY

12-03-2009, 03:18 PM

Oh man, what a nice set of cans.

EDIT: And she's single, too. Yum.

Honestly, that was my first thought, too. But I didn't get much out of the rest of her, so have at, civil! :p

MagGnome

12-03-2009, 09:13 PM

Oh man, what a nice set of cans.

EDIT: And she's single, too. Yum.

Yeah, because that's what's important. :(

Generation ABXY

12-03-2009, 09:24 PM

It's called multitasking, Mags. That's why we've got two hands - so one can pump the air, and the other...

MagGnome

12-03-2009, 09:37 PM

I know, I know. This whole thing just makes me kind of sad sometimes.

Still, if it had been an attractive man I definitely would have noticed. Her speech was incredible though.

Generation ABXY

12-03-2009, 10:03 PM

Well, if anyone has a right to be disheartened by this, it's you. As you said, though, her speech was brilliant, and there's only so long you can ignore something like that.

Slack3r78

12-04-2009, 03:03 AM

In fairness, even my straight female friend that I sent that video to noticed and commented on Sen. Savino's endowment.

MagGnome

12-04-2009, 05:39 AM

In fairness, I noticed as well. Still, I wasn't going to comment on it. :p

civil

12-04-2009, 07:05 AM

In fairness, I noticed as well. Still, I wasn't going to comment on it. :p
In fairness, I commented on your behalf.

Bingley Joe

12-04-2009, 07:32 AM

I didn't think it would be fair to post the video in the panties thread, so it wound up in here. :p

Prolly would have got more views in there though :/

AniAko

12-04-2009, 08:58 AM

Still, if it had been an attractive man I definitely would have noticed. Her speech was incredible though.

Wait, if it was a man with a nice set of cans you would have noticed? I think we ALL would have noticed... but have a slightly different reaction ;)

But her speech was very true. It's only a matter of time until the ebb & flow of bigots in power diminishes again.

MagGnome

12-04-2009, 07:12 PM

In fairness, I commented on your behalf.

I would hope so, since you already have an amazing, beautiful girlfriend.

Wait, if it was a man with a nice set of cans you would have noticed? I think we ALL would have noticed... but have a slightly different reaction ;)

That would have been odd indeed.

civil

12-05-2009, 12:18 AM

I would hope so, since you already have an amazing, beautiful girlfriend.
Man Jacob, if I didn't know you were gay I'd swear you had a thing for her. :p

DoctorFinger

12-05-2009, 01:28 PM

Man Jacob, if I didn't know you were gay I'd swear you had a thing for her. :p
Hey, just because he's gay doesn't mean he doesn't want to bone your girlfriend. :eek:

Shieldmaiden

12-05-2009, 03:01 PM

Hey, just because he's gay doesn't mean he doesn't want to bone your girlfriend. :eek:

Mags needs to sig this. :D

civil

12-05-2009, 04:08 PM

Hey, just because he's gay doesn't mean he doesn't want to bone your girlfriend. :eek:
Hmm. True. I wonder if I would give her a "pass". ;)

MagGnome

12-05-2009, 09:33 PM

Man Jacob, if I didn't know you were gay I'd swear you had a thing for her. :p

I can't be impressed by a woman without wanting to have sex with her?

Hey, just because he's gay doesn't mean he doesn't want to bone your girlfriend. :eek:

No more so than I want to bone any other woman. :p

Mags needs to sig this. :D

Done!

Hmm. True. I wonder if I would give her a "pass". ;)

No offense, but ewww....

Generation ABXY

12-16-2009, 03:05 PM

So, it looks like gay marriage may be on the road to legalization in our nation's capital (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gftV6RnfBC8iPPWGM0SGQeNLiC6QD9CK02S00)...

National Kato

12-16-2009, 03:24 PM

Yes, I was excited to hear that the mayor has promised to sign the bill. Now, Congress gets to destroy it. ;)

Generation ABXY

12-16-2009, 06:31 PM

Well, according to that story, they are "reluctant to get involved" (and have avoided doing so in the past), so who knows, maybe it'll make it through just fine.

MagGnome

12-16-2009, 09:16 PM

Generation ABXY

12-16-2009, 09:23 PM

I wish these people had something better to do, like jumping off a cliff or taking a bath in acid. :p

Well, that's not very Christi--oh, right. Nevermind...

Slack3r78

12-16-2009, 09:44 PM

"The problem with this country is that old fucks vote. We got shit to do, old folks don't, the only thing they have to do is judge you and vote."
-Doug Stanhope

MagGnome

12-16-2009, 09:57 PM

"The problem with this country is that old fucks vote. We got shit to do, old folks don't, the only thing they have to do is judge you and vote."
-Doug Stanhope

It's scary, and it's true. :eek:

Kelegacy

12-17-2009, 05:08 AM

The hate groups are gearing up their hate-machine in order to get the bill either shot down or overturned. I wish these people had something better to do, like jumping off a cliff or taking a bath in acid. :p

The ironic thing is that the hate groups are filled with homophobic homosexuals that haven't come out yet. I think a good percentage of homopobes are secret homosexuals that are just afraid to give in.

Look at Ted Haggard, for example.

MagGnome

12-17-2009, 06:17 AM

That's very true. It's pathetic.

boratika

12-17-2009, 06:56 AM

That's very true. It's pathetic.

Hey, they just have a "wide stance" ;)

Generation ABXY

12-17-2009, 01:15 PM

Speaking of pathetic hate machines, it seems some people may be planning to boycott CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, unless GOProud (an organization for gay conservatives) is dropped as a sponsor. Now, I've only heard of J. Matt Barber in passing, but part of his plea making the rounds got a chuckle from me:

Among other things, GOProud advocates in favor of both “gay marriage” and “civil unions;” against pro-marriage constitutional amendments; is pushing for the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell;” and advocates in favor of federal “partnership benefits” for homosexuals. This group is pushing a radical leftist agenda that is an affront to the GOP platform, conservatism and, most importantly, the Word of God.

Yes, among other things, such as support for the Second Amendment, fiscally conservative government spending, tax reform, social security reform, free market health care reform, school vouchers, etc. Now, I may not be as "big tent" as some (I have issues with amnesty, for example), but turning away potential allies and branding them as covert liberal activists may not be the best way to secure...well, any of your goals.

ShivaX

12-17-2009, 03:05 PM

Yes, among other things, such as support for the Second Amendment, fiscally conservative government spending, tax reform, social security reform, free market health care reform, school vouchers, etc. Now, I may not be as "big tent" as some (I have issues with amnesty, for example), but turning away potential allies and branding them as covert liberal activists may not be the best way to secure...well, any of your goals.

Thats pretty much the Republican MO for the last few years though.

Slack3r78

12-17-2009, 03:55 PM

but turning away potential allies and branding them as covert liberal activists may not be the best way to secure...well, any of your goals.
That's a problem with a lot of people that support 'right leaning' issues. I'm relatively left leaning in most of my views, but I'm also a very, very big 2A advocate. Guns rights advocates are very bad about dismissively labeling anyone who disagrees with them as 'liberal' regardless of their other views. They're their own worst enemy when it comes to finding common ground with people who might otherwise be persuaded to agree with them.

MagGnome

12-17-2009, 08:41 PM

Yes, among other things, such as support for the Second Amendment, fiscally conservative government spending, tax reform, social security reform, free market health care reform, school vouchers, etc. Now, I may not be as "big tent" as some (I have issues with amnesty, for example), but turning away potential allies and branding them as covert liberal activists may not be the best way to secure...well, any of your goals.

They should be kicked out of the Gay Club, if anything. :p

Seriously though, Republicans turning against their own? It's hardly surprising. I keep waiting for that party to implode. Maybe then we can get some good choices on the ballot.

Generation ABXY

12-17-2009, 08:51 PM

They should be kicked out of the Gay Club, if anything. :p

Hey, keep talking like that, and I may have to renege my support! ;)

Seriously though, Republicans turning against their own? It's hardly surprising. I keep waiting for that party to implode. Maybe then we can get some good choices on the ballot.

The in-fighting on both sides of the aisle puzzles me - I mean, in the grand scheme of things, some of the differences are insignificant. I wonder if I can stay above the fray, if I run as an independent. :D

MagGnome

12-17-2009, 09:21 PM

The in-fighting on both sides of the aisle puzzles me - I mean, in the grand scheme of things, some of the differences are insignificant. I wonder if I can stay above the fray, if I run as an independent. :D

I've already decided that in the next election I'm going to vote mostly for third-party candidates, likelihood of winning be damned. At least I won't feel like I gave my consent for all the bullshit that goes on in Washington, D.C.

civil

12-18-2009, 05:03 AM

I personally know five - yes five - gay Republicans (though two are a married couple). For them both Democrats and Republicans are fucking up any and all social issues equally so they align themselves with traditional Republican ideals (though all agree that the party has been hijacked by the right end of the spectrum).

MagGnome

12-18-2009, 06:22 AM

Slack3r78

12-18-2009, 10:29 AM

I have one gay friend who SHOULD be a Republican. He's always going on about how great capitalism and big business are, and how everything should be run by corporations.

All the while I'm trying not to be sick in the car.

Sure, but I mean, isn't the point that there's no reason one should have to prefer a collectivist philosophy over an individualistic one just because they love teh cawk?

Ink Asylum

12-18-2009, 10:37 AM

Generation ABXY

12-18-2009, 10:46 AM

Oh, bother, it seems my brother is one of those for kicking them (GOProud) out of CPAC. I don't remember his exact phrasing, but it was something along the lines of, "if we make concessions for them, we'll start making concessions for other people."

Now, ordinarily, I might say he'd have a point...if there were any reason for it in the first place. Once you take out the God aspect, I don't see how being gay in any way conflicts with other conservative tenets. :(

Slack3r78

12-18-2009, 10:47 AM

There's nothing that says being gay means you should be philosophically liberal. However, it's baffling to me that someone would be a member of the GOP or other conservative groups that routinely demonize and seek to deny rights a group of people you belong to.
It's totally not the same thing, but just to play devil's advocate: I'm a gun owner. I'm a stauncher supporter of second amendment rights than many Republicans. I still identify stronger with the Democrats as a party than the Republicans despite the fact that the DNC platform is completely antithetical to that belief.

Again, to be absolutely clear, I'm not saying that's in any way the same thing as the kind of persecution gays put up with from the GOP. I'm just saying that on the whole I could see somebody making the rational decision to support the party that better represents their views on the whole. It sucks that they have to make that decision, but that's the consequence of our form of government and the fact that it's impossible to have anything more representative than two big parties under it.

ShivaX

12-18-2009, 10:48 AM

Now, ordinarily, I might say he'd have a point...if there were any reason for it in the first place. Once you take out the God aspect, I don't see how being gay in any way conflicts with other conservative tenets. :(

Thats their only tenant anymore I thought.

He probably listens to Limbaugh who basically makes that exact case for all conservatives. Basically if you don't agree with the GOP platform 100% we don't want you in the party because everything about conservatism is perfect and if you don't think that you're just a pinko-commie liberal out to undermine us.

Ink Asylum

12-18-2009, 10:53 AM

It's totally not the same thing, but just to play devil's advocate: I'm a gun owner. I'm a stauncher supporter of second amendment rights than many Republicans. I still identify stronger with the Democrats as a party than the Republicans despite the fact that the DNC platform is completely antithetical to that belief.

I understand what you're saying, but the Democratic is far more accepting of people who aren't 100% with the party line than the Republicans are, by a long shot. They have a much bigger tent than the GOP, especially now that they're in full on purge mode.

Generation ABXY

12-18-2009, 10:56 AM

Thats their only tenant anymore I thought.

He probably listens to Limbaugh who basically makes that exact case for all conservatives. Basically if you don't agree with the GOP platform 100% we don't want you in the party because everything about conservatism is perfect and if you don't think that you're just a pinko-commie liberal out to undermine us.

Nope, no Limbaugh and, hell, I'm not even sure if he's registered as Republican.

It wouldn't be so bad if they could point to one way in which being homosexual conflicts with their (I think) otherwise reasonable ideology, without bringing in religion. Then I could at least entertain the notion, and we could have some sort of intelligent debate on the subject. Unfortunately, I haven't met one who could yet, apart from saying their belief in god is what gives them their moral compass...

Slack3r78

12-18-2009, 11:01 AM

I understand what you're saying, but the Democratic is far more accepting of people who aren't 100% with the party line than the Republicans are, by a long shot. They have a much bigger tent than the GOP, especially now that they're in full on purge mode.

Sure, but the point is, to paraphrase the words of the late Ronald Reagan, they didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left them.

MagGnome

12-18-2009, 11:31 PM

Generation ABXY

12-19-2009, 11:22 AM

It's too bad you can't kick Jesus out of CPAC. :p

Honestly, I have no problem with religion as whole, except when it so openly intrudes in areas where it's should not, like this. (Mind you, if you ask my brother what he believes in, he'll tell you he doesn't know.)

Of course, I'm also not going to push the issue - it doesn't mean that much to me either way - I just find it a little...disheartening.

MagGnome

12-19-2009, 11:42 AM

Honestly, I have no problem with religion as whole, except when it so openly intrudes in areas where it's should not, like this. (Mind you, if you ask my brother what he believes in, he'll tell you he doesn't know.)

Of course, I'm also not going to push the issue - it doesn't mean that much to me either way - I just find it a little...disheartening.

I try not to have a problem with religion in general, but hearing that I'm a "sinner"/abomination/deviant/pervert/etc. because of some nutcases interpretation of a 2,000+ year old book gets old.

Obviously I don't lump all religions and all religious people into the above. It's definitely an outspoken minority, but that minority wields a lot of power and influence.

Matthias

12-19-2009, 12:25 PM

I try not to have a problem with religion in general, but hearing that I'm a "sinner"/abomination/deviant/pervert/etc. because of some nutcases interpretation of a 2,000+ year old book gets old.

Obviously I don't lump all religions and all religious people into the above. It's definitely an outspoken minority, but that minority wields a lot of power and influence.

So stop complaining about being a poor minority and figure out how to wield power and influence like they do! :D

</facetious>

But seriously, thanks for acknowledging that for the most part we Christians are not as cruel as these people are. Nobody's sinless, and either way, Christ taught that we need to be able to acknowledge civil law on its own terms. There are civil benefits inherent in uniting two people, and there is no civic reason to prevent two same-gendered people from entering that union. Churches need reserve their right to not recognize that union as a marriage in the eyes of God, but other than that it's irrelevant to them. The apparently don't have a problem with heterosexual atheists getting married outside of the church, so what's the difference?

MagGnome

12-19-2009, 01:08 PM

You bring up several good points Matthias, and I agree wholeheartedly. :)

AniAko

12-19-2009, 03:20 PM

...

Obviously I don't lump all religions and all religious people into the above. It's definitely an outspoken minority, but that minority wields a lot of power and influence.

That's is historically the primary point of organized religion. Rallying the troops, getting people on the same thought & belief page because that helps maintain order and civility. It shows in theories like the Divine right of Kings. Spirituality is sadly a primer and side effect.

National Kato

12-22-2009, 02:46 PM

Mexico City legalizes same-sex marriage, changes definition of marriage to 'free uniting of two people.' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/mexico-city-legalises-samesex-marriage)

The change will permit same-sex couples to adopt children, apply for joint bank loans, inherit wealth and share insurance policies. It is a significant expansion of rights granted under a 2006 law allowing same-sex civil unions.Good work, Latinos, in working to move away from the outdated macho ideal. Discrimination is still widespread (http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/2299), but progress is positive.

Not surprisingly, those against the change still seem to be missing something:

"They have given Mexicans the most bitter Christmas," Armando Martínez, the president of the College of Catholic Attorneys, told reporters. "They are permitting adoption [by gay couples] and in one stroke of the pen have erased the term 'mother' and 'father'. "

Really? No more mothers or fathers? I'd love to hear the logic behind that.

TheEpicOfTyler

12-22-2009, 03:12 PM

Conservative's will use this to add another bullet point to their illegal immigration efforts.

johnperkins21

12-22-2009, 03:44 PM

Mexico City legalizes same-sex marriage, changes definition of marriage to 'free uniting of two people.' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/mexico-city-legalises-samesex-marriage)

Good work, Latinos, in working to move away from the outdated macho ideal. Discrimination is still widespread (http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/2299), but progress is positive.

So we're now behind both Mexico and Canada in terms of treating gays and lesbians like human beings? Woo hoo! Last place in North America.

MagGnome

12-22-2009, 06:43 PM

Congratulations to the residents of Mexico City!

I would now have more rights in Mexico City than I do in the majority of the United States. Unbelievable.

At least we're still ahead of Iran. That has to count for something, right?

Generation ABXY

12-22-2009, 09:11 PM

At least we're still ahead of Iran. That has to count for something, right?

Yes, it does, at least in my book.

Zero

12-23-2009, 11:01 AM

Wow. I never would have expected that of Mexico. I still remember a family member telling me that some family friends were in danger of being homosexual because their father had turned out to be. This was less than ten years ago. Regardless, I'm very pleased this happened. Now to turn our attention to that pesky white people problem just north of the border. :)

Suave Peanut

12-23-2009, 11:10 AM

Q: Would it be in poor taste to make a joke about a gays-for-laborers exchange program?
A: Yeah, it probably would be.

Dorkandproudofit

12-23-2009, 11:25 AM

Q: Would it be in poor taste to make a joke about a gays-for-laborers exchange program?
A: Yeah, it probably would be.

Since when has anyone on this site cared about good taste? :p

boratika

12-23-2009, 11:26 AM

Since when has anyone on this site cared about good taste? :p

After banging your mother?

While banging your mother?

Generation ABXY

01-07-2010, 05:33 PM

And, 20 to 14, another one bites the dust... (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/nyregion/08trenton.html)

TRENTON — The State Senate on Thursday rejected a proposal that would have made New Jersey the sixth state in the nation to allow marriages involving same sex-couples, the latest in a succession of setbacks for advocates of gay marriage across the country.

ShivaX

01-07-2010, 07:37 PM

And it comes full circle

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100107/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

SAN FRANCISCO – The national debate over same-sex marriage will take center stage in a California courtroom next week at a closely watched federal trial that could ultimately become the landmark case that determines whether gay Americans have a right to marry.

The case will decide a challenge to California's gay marriage ban that was approved by voters in 2008, and the ruling will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. How the high court rules in the case could set the precedent for whether gay marriage becomes legal nationwide.

01-07-2010, 08:04 PM

torrefaction

01-07-2010, 09:35 PM

johnperkins21

01-07-2010, 10:04 PM

I strongly oppose TV cameras in courtrooms as a general matter, and I'm really wary about letting them into this trial. But I suppose we'll get to see for ourselves.

I'm curious to know why. I can see not allowing them in a civil matter, but anything that happens in the court is a matter of public record anyway. If someone is really interested in seeing the proceedings they could just go into the courtroom as well. Why not allow cameras, especially when it's something that has the potential to change the law.

I do see Torrefaction's point as well though. In some of these cases there could be a safety factor for those involved, but again, all that information is part of public record and fairly easily obtainable anyway, unless the judge has sealed it for some reason.

01-07-2010, 10:45 PM

You know, I have to side with Ox on this. There's too much danger to those present in the courtroom, in my opinion, to allow news cameras to broadcast the proceedings. And, I may be wrong about this, but generally aren't the transcripts available via the FOIA?
Well, the press is entitled (under the First Amendment) to attend the court proceedings and record them electronically; the issue is visual, not audio, recording. You usually don't need a FOIA request to get transcripts; instead, they're pretty freely available (assuming the case isn't sealed) provided you're willing to cough up to dough to have them transcribed.

I'm curious to know why. I can see not allowing them in a civil matter, but anything that happens in the court is a matter of public record anyway. If someone is really interested in seeing the proceedings they could just go into the courtroom as well. Why not allow cameras, especially when it's something that has the potential to change the law.
As I said, people show off for the cameras much worse than they do for the stenographer. This may be something that's tough to appreciate if you don't spend day after day in court, but plenty of lawyers already think they're Johnny Cochran, shouting and screaming over, say, whether the court should recess for the night and take up the matter in the morning. Imagine the most annoyingly histrionic members of your high school drama class, then stick them in front of TV cameras with the knowledge that millions of people will be watching them perform. Or, if you prefer, imagine the Balloon Boy parents in power suits.

I really want to emphasize, this isn't about hiding sensitive information, because the press and public still have access. I just want the access to be audio, sketch artists, and maybe still photography, not video.

ShivaX

01-07-2010, 11:05 PM

I really want to emphasize, this isn't about hiding sensitive information, because the press and public still have access. I just want the access to be audio, sketch artists, and maybe still photography, not video.

After OJ this is pretty much what I want for all court proceedings.

johnperkins21

01-07-2010, 11:19 PM

As I said, people show off for the cameras much worse than they do for the stenographer. This may be something that's tough to appreciate if you don't spend day after day in court, but plenty of lawyers already think they're Johnny Cochran, shouting and screaming over, say, whether the court should recess for the night and take up the matter in the morning. Imagine the most annoyingly histrionic members of your high school drama class, then stick them in front of TV cameras with the knowledge that millions of people will be watching them perform. Or, if you prefer, imagine the Balloon Boy parents in power suits.

This makes sense to me. You're presuming (possibly rightly so) that the level of maturity in a courtroom might drop to that of a daytime talk show if cameras are allowed. I've been in enough courtrooms and deal with enough attorneys on a daily basis to understand that point. Hell, anyone who's seen C-SPAN recently can attest to how far devolved our legal process has become. There are many more Johnny Cochrans out there than Atticus Finchs at this point.

Though I would have to put at least some of the blame for that case getting out of hand on Ito. It was his court, and he let Johnny get away with too much, as he seemed to be quite interested in the fame as well. I think a good judge could at least partially abate some of your fears.

I'm probably more pro-open government than I am anti-jackass. But that's definitely a valid reason for being against cameras in the courtroom.

01-07-2010, 11:36 PM

Though I would have to put at least some of the blame for that case getting out of hand on Ito. It was his court, and he let Johnny get away with too much, as he seemed to be quite interested in the fame as well. I think a good judge could at least partially abate some of your fears.
I put 99% of the blame on Ito. First, he could at any point prior to or during the trial expelled the cameras, but he didn't. Second, he himself engaged in ridiculous antics: the jury field trip was only the most egregious. Third, he should have put teeth in his reprimands against the lawyers for showboating; as it was, he occasionally meekly suggested they knock it off but didn't use his sweeping powers to control his courtroom. Fourth, most commentators agree he permitted the cameras in large part because he liked being famous.

I'm willing to consider cameras for relatively quotidian or obscure cases -- I've been on TV, and while I think my performance suffered and there may have been some showboating, it wasn't outside the normal range -- but for a major hot-button case? It's asking for trouble.

Shrinn

01-08-2010, 09:18 AM

Rundown of the votes for the New Jersey Bill.

How they voted (http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100107/UPDATES01/100107001/NJ-Senate-defeats-gay-marriage-bill)

The measure had 14 yes votes, far short of the 21 needed for passage, and 20 votes against it. Three Democratic senators who were present for the vote -- James Beach of Camden County, Paul Sarlo of Bergen County and Stephen Sweeney of Gloucester County -- didn't vote, two senators were absent, and one Senate seat is currently vacant.

Among the 22 Democrats, 13 voted yes and six voted no -- John Girgenti of Passaic County, Fred Madden of Gloucester County, Ronald Rice of Essex County, Nicholas Sacco of Hudson County, Shirley Turner of Mercer County and Jeff Van Drew of Cape May County. Three skipped the vote, and the 23rd Democratic seat is currently vacant due to the resignation of Dana Redd, who became Camden mayor on Friday.

Among the 17 Republicans, only Sen. Bill Baroni Jr. of Mercer County voted for the bill. Sen. Diane Allen, R-Burlington, was absent due to illness, and Sen. Andrew Ciesla, R-Ocean, was also absent.

Notable are the six Dems who voted against, the three who abstained, and the one Republican that voted for the bill.

I'm saddened but not surprised by this outcome. There's a lot of rural, Republican, heavily stereotypical redneck in New Jersey. (EDIT: Not that those are the only ones that oppose it. But I'm surrounded by them.)

johnperkins21

01-08-2010, 10:33 AM

Rundown of the votes for the New Jersey Bill.

Notable are the six Dems who voted against, the three who abstained, and the one Republican that voted for the bill.

I'm saddened but not surprised by this outcome. There's a lot of rural, Republican, heavily stereotypical redneck in New Jersey. (EDIT: Not that those are the only ones that oppose it. But I'm surrounded by them.)

I've still never heard a single valid argument against the legalization of gay marriage. I'm consistently saddened by the lack of intelligence and rationality in our government.

It's one thing for people to be personally against gay marriage, it's something else entirely to come up with a valid, rational, legal argument against it, which is what our legislators should have to do to be able to vote against it.

Dukefrukem

01-08-2010, 10:35 AM

I've still never heard a single valid argument against the legalization of gay marriage. I'm consistently saddened by the lack of intelligence and rationality in our government.

It's one thing for people to be personally against gay marriage, it's something else entirely to come up with a valid, rational, legal argument against it, which is what our legislators should have to do to be able to vote against it.

There's a perfectly good reason for it. I just happen to disagree with it. It's a religious definition that is stopping this from being legalized. As long as the Bible Belt exists in our country, those states will continue to have close minded views.

johnperkins21

01-08-2010, 11:03 AM

There's a perfectly good reason for it. I just happen to disagree with it. It's a religious definition that is stopping this from being legalized. As long as the Bible Belt exists in our country, those states will continue to have close minded views.

That's almost a valid reason to be personally against it, but it's not a valid argument for not legalizing it.

I do have to question the argument that being the way God made you is a sin. So God created homosexuals knowing full well they'd be homosexual, persecuted for it, and go straight to hell upon their death? That's not very benevolent of him.

Kelegacy

01-08-2010, 11:14 AM

That's almost a valid reason to be personally against it, but it's not a valid argument for not legalizing it.

I do have to question the argument that being the way God made you is a sin. So God created homosexuals knowing full well they'd be homosexual, persecuted for it, and go straight to hell upon their death? That's not very benevolent of him.

God made them straight, they are just acting gay via Free Will. Sexuality is a choice, remember?

johnperkins21

01-08-2010, 11:23 AM

God made them straight, they are just acting gay via Free Will. Sexuality is a choice, remember?

But God is omniscient, meaning even though we have free will, God already knows what we'll do with that free will before we're born. He created them knowing full well what they'd choose and how they'd end up. He cursed them to hell before they were even born.

txshurricane

01-08-2010, 11:29 AM

But God is omniscient, meaning even though we have free will, God already knows what we'll do with that free will before we're born. He created them knowing full well what they'd choose and how they'd end up. He cursed them to hell before they were even born.
Had this exact debate with a fellow Christian yesterday. 1. This scenario makes God's vain efforts that much more valuable. 2. That's, of course, assuming He's operating within the constraints of logic that the human mind can understand.

Pretty impressive that He knows I'll screw up, and still knocks on the door of my heart. :)

txshurricane

01-08-2010, 11:31 AM

I would now have more rights in Mexico City than I do in the majority of the United States. Unbelievable.
Actually, in most of the U.S., you still have the right to shoot back at the drug dealers. Oh, and - if you illegally migrate to Mexico City, you don't get free healthcare, amnesty, or frivolous lawsuits against the local police.

Zero

01-08-2010, 11:35 AM

Actually, in most of the U.S., you still have the right to shoot back at the drug dealers. Oh, and - if you illegally migrate to Mexico City, you don't get free healthcare, amnesty, or frivolous lawsuits against the local police.

You can shoot back at drug dealers. It's just not advisable.

Kelegacy

01-08-2010, 11:36 AM

But God is omniscient, meaning even though we have free will, God already knows what we'll do with that free will before we're born. He created them knowing full well what they'd choose and how they'd end up. He cursed them to hell before they were even born.

Basically, he's like a father watching his toddler inch closer and closer to the pool and doing nothing, even as he falls in and drowns. He knows the outcome before the event happens, and does nothing to stop it. I'm a more loving father than God, apparently.

And I was actually kidding earlier. Sexuality is not free will. Engaging in sexual acts is, but a miserable life is that of a man punishing and hating himself for being himself.

johnperkins21

01-08-2010, 11:48 AM

Had this exact debate with a fellow Christian yesterday. 1. This scenario makes God's vain efforts that much more valuable. 2. That's, of course, assuming He's operating within the constraints of logic that the human mind can understand.

Pretty impressive that He knows I'll screw up, and still knocks on the door of my heart. :)

It's not that he knows you'll screw up, it's that he created you for the sole purpose of watching you screw up, and spend eternity in hell, so that he can laugh at it. He already knows his efforts will do no good, that's what makes him so incredibly evil. Well that and the constant slaughter of innocent life. The story of the great flood comes to mind.

Basically, he's like a father watching his toddler inch closer and closer to the pool and doing nothing, even as he falls in and drowns. He knows the outcome before the event happens, and does nothing to stop it. I'm a more loving father than God, apparently.

And I was actually kidding earlier. Sexuality is not free will. Engaging in sexual acts is, but a miserable life is that of a man punishing and hating himself for being himself.

That's a great analogy. And I know you don't believe homosexuality is a choice, I've seen your arguments against that idea.

Voodoo

01-08-2010, 11:49 AM

Basically, he's like a father watching his toddler inch closer and closer to the pool and doing nothing, even as he falls in and drowns. He knows the outcome before the event happens, and does nothing to stop it. I'm a more loving father than God, apparently.

...and this is where I had a problem when I was enrolled in Theology classes. God is described as being omniscient. So I would ask, if that's the case then wouldn't he not care what happened to anybody? Then I would be reminded that God is good to which I would also answer that God is evil as well. I went further to explain that it isn't the Devil that watches over Hell, it is God. He watches over Hell just as he watches over Heaven and everything else - according to you (my teachers at the time). I didn't last very long at all in those classes.

Doogie2K

01-08-2010, 11:51 AM

Interesting note, ShivaX: the district in which the trial will be held changed its policy on TV cameras a few days ago (http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/CAND/FAQ.nsf/60126b66e42d004888256d4e007bce29/1922d32e34847a5588257695007f5f75/$FILE/Notice-12-09A.pdf), now permitting them if the judge says it's OK. Most American courts (including this one, until very recently) prohibit TV cameras on the grounds that they will supposedly encourage mugging by witnesses and lawyers and otherwise disturb the proceedings; they cite the first OJ trial as evidence.

I strongly oppose TV cameras in courtrooms as a general matter, and I'm really wary about letting them into this trial. But I suppose we'll get to see for ourselves.

I agree 100%. Save the "courtroom drama" for Law & Order or Judge Judy. Real courts are for getting shit done, and having cameras in there are guaranteed to be a distraction, conscious or not. (I'm sure a short line can be drawn from here to the current state political TV programming, but let's leave this on topic.)

However it's decided, let it be decided clean and fair, without accusations from either side of grandstanding or pandering -- above what already takes place normally, of course.

txshurricane

01-08-2010, 11:52 AM

I'm a more loving father than God, apparently.
Well, if your son were an adult human with the arrogance to claim that the pool isn't there and that you don't exist, all while ignoring your recommendation not to go further...then, yes, you are. Assuming that you would physically force said son from stepping into the pool. Which you wouldn't.

txshurricane

01-08-2010, 11:54 AM

It's not that he knows you'll screw up, it's that he created you for the sole purpose of watching you screw up, and spend eternity in hell, so that he can laugh at it. He already knows his efforts will do no good, that's what makes him so incredibly evil. Well that and the constant slaughter of innocent life. The story of the great flood comes to mind.
So you believe that there is a God and that the bible is truth, but He's evil, so that's your reason for shunning those who have a more positive perspective about Him?

01-08-2010, 11:56 AM

It's one thing for people to be personally against gay marriage, it's something else entirely to come up with a valid, rational, legal argument against it, which is what our legislators should have to do to be able to vote against it.

I'm going to ignore the 'I don't agree with banning gay marriage' point, because Christ, that horse is dead. But this is an interesting theory of electoral politics. Simply believing a particular policy is good or bad is insufficient basis for legislators to cast votes on it? They have articulate a 'valid' 'legal' basis for their vote, or else they are not 'able' to vote on the legislation? How would this prohibition work in practice?

Moreover, can you give me an example of a 'legal' 'valid' argument for a policy you strongly oppose?

johnperkins21

01-08-2010, 11:57 AM

I agree 100%. Save the "courtroom drama" for Law & Order or Judge Judy. Real courts are for getting shit done, and having cameras in there are guaranteed to be a distraction, conscious or not. (I'm sure a short line can be drawn from here to the current state political TV programming, but let's leave this on topic.)

However it's decided, let it be decided clean and fair, without accusations from either side of grandstanding or pandering -- above what already takes place normally, of course.

I would think that if cameras were installed in courtrooms, after a while they would simply become a fixture of the process like the stenographer. I would much prefer a webcam type setup that is a permanent fixture of the courtroom than a whole production environment. I do believe that there would be some growing pains, but after a decade or so of having the cameras in there and viewable online for virtually all cases, people would get back to just doing their jobs and ignore the cameras. I'm probably wrong though. :(

Dorkandproudofit

01-08-2010, 12:00 PM

In terms of God and explaining the presence of evil, one could argue that, if there is a sentience to the universe, it would more likely be in favor of balance rather than for one side or the other. There's also the philosophical argument that without evil, good would not have the same meaning, and there would be no real incentive to be good as opposed to mere neutrality. I personally buy the latter much more than the former, but neither one really explains everything.

Voodoo

01-08-2010, 12:00 PM

The story of the great flood comes to mind.

I really prefer the great flood story in the original Sumerian. Though, I have to say that I enjoyed Noah from Gilgamesh a lot more. That little plant of immortality, where can I get one of those?

Dorkandproudofit

01-08-2010, 12:01 PM

I really prefer the great flood story in the original Sumerian. Though, I have to say that I enjoyed Noah from Gilgamesh a lot more. That little plant of immortality, where can I get one of those?

I know a guy. Go behind Joey's Quik-e-Mart after midnight, knock on the door three times, and ask for Charlie.

txshurricane

01-08-2010, 12:05 PM

There's also the philosophical argument that without evil, good would not have the same meaning, and there would be no real incentive to be good as opposed to mere neutrality.
Without opposition, there is no victory. Amen, brother Dork!

Kelegacy

01-08-2010, 12:07 PM

johnperkins21

01-08-2010, 12:08 PM

I'm going to ignore the 'I don't agree with banning gay marriage' point, because Christ, that horse is dead. But this is an interesting theory of electoral politics. Simply believing a particular policy is good or bad is insufficient basis for legislators to cast votes on it? They have articulate a 'valid' 'legal' basis for their vote, or else they are not 'able' to vote on the legislation? How would this prohibition work in practice?

Moreover, can you give me an example of a 'legal' 'valid' argument for a policy you strongly oppose?

Yes, that's my belief, but I lean libertarian. I'm a supporter of government when they don't meddle in the lives of people. I do not think that the government should be able to legislate behavior they simply consider to be wrong. There should be a very strong rational argument to deny a person the right to be who they are.

Well, I believe there are quite a few good arguments for allowing people to own guns even though I am vehemently against gun ownership. I've also heard very good arguments against illegal immigration, which is an issue I'm incredibly torn on. Oh, and non-smoking laws. I don't think the government should be allowed to tell bar owners whether or not they can allow smoking in their establishment, but I can certainly see valid arguments for it.

Denying a person the right to do something with their own body, or to have consenting adults participate in an action? I can't think of any valid arguments to the criminalization of any drug use, prostitution, gay marriage, or polygamy. Well, the polygamy one has some tax issues that might be tough to work out, but I think we need a major overhaul of our current tax code anyway.

txshurricane

01-08-2010, 12:09 PM

Isn't that exactly what being a father to a teenager is like? In the not too distant future, we'll know for sure. :)
Oh, goodness, don't remind me! :p

Doogie2K

01-08-2010, 12:13 PM

Well, the polygamy one has some tax issues that might be tough to work out, but I think we need a major overhaul of our current tax code anyway.

Kill two birds with one stone!

Me, I just think polygamy is impractical. When each man has three wives and each woman has three husbands, how the hell do you work out who spends time with whom and when? And that's to say nothing of sex, parentage, custody, transfers or career changes, and all kinds of other issues that are much simpler with a one-on-one coupling. Seems like such a thing would be much better suited to a self-contained community than Western society.

johnperkins21

01-08-2010, 12:15 PM

Well, if your son were an adult human with the arrogance to claim that the pool isn't there and that you don't exist, all while ignoring your recommendation not to go further...then, yes, you are. Assuming that you would physically force said son from stepping into the pool. Which you wouldn't.

This just doesn't hold up, as most fathers are not ethereal.

So you believe that there is a God and that the bible is truth, but He's evil, so that's your reason for shunning those who have a more positive perspective about Him?

No. I'm certain that the biblical God is a myth. I'm just arguing that the fictional character of the bible, God, is evil based on what is said of him in that book.

Dukefrukem

01-08-2010, 12:17 PM

That's almost a valid reason to be personally against it, but it's not a valid argument for not legalizing it.

I do have to question the argument that being the way God made you is a sin. So God created homosexuals knowing full well they'd be homosexual, persecuted for it, and go straight to hell upon their death? That's not very benevolent of him.

Well since most of the Repubs (red states) are deeply immersed into religion, there ya go.

johnperkins21

01-08-2010, 12:18 PM

Kill two birds with one stone!

Me, I just think polygamy is impractical. When each man has three wives and each woman has three husbands, how the hell do you work out who spends time with whom and when? And that's to say nothing of sex, parentage, custody, transfers or career changes, and all kinds of other issues that are much simpler with a one-on-one coupling. Seems like such a thing would be much better suited to a self-contained community than Western society.

I understand, but it's not our place to say that consenting adults who choose that burden shouldn't have the right. It doesn't interest me in the least. Neither does a monogamous relationship with a man, but that doesn't mean I should deny someone else their right to do what makes them happy.

johnperkins21

01-08-2010, 12:25 PM

There's also the philosophical argument that without evil, good would not have the same meaning, and there would be no real incentive to be good as opposed to mere neutrality.

I don't really buy that argument. When I am happy, it's not because I'm comparing my happiness to my sadness and realizing the difference. I'm simply happy. I don't need the sadness to realize what happiness is. At least I don't think I do, which is impossible to tell since sadness is already there. Stupid philosophy. :mad:

And I'd give up good and evil for neutrality any day. You take away all the evil in the world, and I'd give up the good as well to reach the middle.

txshurricane

01-08-2010, 12:44 PM

This just doesn't hold up, as most fathers are not ethereal.

No. I'm certain that the biblical God is a myth. I'm just arguing that the fictional character of the bible, God, is evil based on what is said of him in that book.

You really need to work on your skills of condescension. In one half of the post, you imply that ethereal fathers exist, and in the other you deny it.

I know what you're getting at, but you're so wrapped up in making others feel inadequate in their beliefs that you've contradicted yourself.

Welcome to your very own religion. :) Congratulations...here's your tax exemption.

Doogie2K

01-08-2010, 12:58 PM

I understand, but it's not our place to say that consenting adults who choose that burden shouldn't have the right. It doesn't interest me in the least. Neither does a monogamous relationship with a man, but that doesn't mean I should deny someone else their right to do what makes them happy.

Oh, I'm not arguing that at all; truthfully, I wasn't seriously arguing anything, just exploring a thought experiment. I figure it'd be more of a pain in the ass than it's worth.

johnperkins21

01-08-2010, 02:39 PM

You really need to work on your skills of condescension. In one half of the post, you imply that ethereal fathers exist, and in the other you deny it.

I know what you're getting at, but you're so wrapped up in making others feel inadequate in their beliefs that you've contradicted yourself.

Welcome to your very own religion. :) Congratulations...here's your tax exemption.

I'm not sure what was condescending about my comments. The first being an inference that God is ethereal seems to be the common consensus among believers. And the second was answering your question of my belief in God. I'm sure you believe that Zeus is a myth. Is saying so condescending to people who still believe that he exists and is the king of gods?

And I don't believe I contradicted myself. Saying that most fathers are not ethereal is not even close to the same thing as saying some fathers are ethereal. I can't rule out the existence of ethereal beings, but I am highly skeptical of their existence.

Kelegacy

01-08-2010, 02:43 PM

I'm sure you believe that Zeus is a myth.

That's actually a pretty interesting point. I'm sure they would find it silly to believe in the old gods. Hmm.

Matthias

01-08-2010, 05:07 PM

That's actually a pretty interesting point. I'm sure they would find it silly to believe in the old gods. Hmm.

Aren't there still pagans or wiccans or some group in that vein that do consider the Greco Roman pantheon to exist, along with several others?

Shrinn

01-08-2010, 08:08 PM

ShivaX

01-08-2010, 08:37 PM

I've heard that some of the argument against gay marriage has to do with tax breaks which were instituted only to encourage and support child birth and child rearing, which gay couples obviously cannot do. I don't know enough about taxes and their intentions to know if that's true or not, nor do I agree that we need to encourage more childbirth, nowadays.

Thats likely horseshit like most of arguments in that vein.

You still get a tax break if you're married and infertile. If the intent was to increase child birth, then having children would be what gets you the tax break/whatever not marriage. Of course having kids does get you tax breaks, but thats more a matter of the fact that kids are fucking expensive.

Also its not like we have a shortage of kids in need of families. Provided people aren't stopping them, homosexuals are fairly likely to have kids. They might be adopted or invitro or whatever, but they're still kids.

So basically that line of logic fails at every turn.

Shrinn

01-08-2010, 09:00 PM

That was similar to my reply back, but it didn't really matter.

johnperkins21

01-08-2010, 09:20 PM

I've heard that some of the argument against gay marriage has to do with tax breaks which were instituted only to encourage and support child birth and child rearing, which gay couples obviously cannot do. I don't know enough about taxes and their intentions to know if that's true or not, nor do I agree that we need to encourage more childbirth, nowadays.

My aunt is gay and has a daughter. Before admitting to herself, her friends, and family, she was in a heterosexual marriage and had a kid. Her and her partner raised her daughter from the time she was around 10, until she finally got married and started a family of her own.

My wife and I will never have kids. I hate them, and she's ambivalent towards them. So this doesn't make any sense. My aunt can't get married to her partner (well technically they did get married when California had it available for a few years, but for example) and take advantage of the tax benefits that were specifically designed for families? And yet my wife and I, with no intention whatsoever of having a "traditional" family can? If this were the true reason for marriage and the tax breaks, then my wife and I shouldn't be allowed to get married, but my aunt and her partner should.

01-08-2010, 11:12 PM

Thats likely horseshit like most of arguments in that vein.

You still get a tax break if you're married and infertile.
Um, no. Actually, marriage gets you a tax hike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty).

Provided people aren't stopping them, homosexuals are fairly likely to have kids. They might be adopted or invitro or whatever, but they're still kids.
Huh? First, I would LOVE to see some stats as to how common it is for homosexual couples to raise children in their homes.

I did find this (http://www.colage.org/resources/facts.htm), which estimates that somewhere between 6 and 14 million children had at least one homosexual parent in 1990 (this counts all children who have a biological parent who conceived the child naturally, came out, and who may no longer live with or even have contact with the child).* Okay, obviously a pretty sizeable chunk of these kids weren't conceived or raised by homosexual couples, but let's assume that all 14 million such kids were conceived and raised by homosexual couples through in vitro or else stranger-adopted by those couples.

How likely are homosexual couples to have kids? Well, there were777,000 (http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/SameSexCouplesandGLBpopACS.pdf) homosexual couples in 2005. So it sounds like each homosexual couple in America has an average of 18 children -- quite impressive!

But let's see if we can get better numbers.

I'm going to confess right now that this report (http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/USReport.pdf) surprised me. It suggests that 250,000 children were being raised by same-sex couples in 2005, although it pegs the number of same-sex couples much lower at 297,000 (I think it used a different data set). Even using the smaller number of couples, though, the average same-sex couple is raising only 0.84 children -- far, far lower than U.S. average of 2.1 births per couple. What's more, same-sex couples are statistically much poorer, less educated, and less likely to own their own home than straight couples. If the goal is to encourage births (and I'm deliberately putting this in the subjunctive mood), encouraging gay marriage seems wildly ill-thought-out.

* Incidentally, this figure comes from some pretty shaky social science: a researcher looked at the percentage of Americans who are homosexual, then calculated how likely it was for any child to have a homosexual parent assuming both heterosexuals and homosexuals were equally willing to breed. She also adopted a fairly high assumed percentage of homosexuality, namely 10%, which is a figure which is now generally regarded as a severe overestimate (modern estimates put it closer to 1.5-2%). It's more than a little circular to then take this assumed even distribution and use it to argue that homosexual couples are "fairly likely" to breed, but who's counting?

So basically that line of logic fails at every turn.
This is exactly the sort of line I love to say, and that's precisely why I try to remember to cite sources -- because sometimes I find out I was about to look silly. ;)