Prop 8, tyranny of the majority?

[Ox]

Anyone else ever wonder if this sudden big push to repeal the 14th Amendment in the name of illegal immigration has the intended side effect of killing Equal Protection and Due Process and allowing states to bring back segregation and the like?
Nope. Anyway, there's no push to repeal the 14th Amendment. At most, Senators Kyl and Graham advocated an additional constitutional amendment regarding the first of the nine sentences of the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The Supreme Court has interpreted this sentence to mean people born in the United States cannot be denied citizenship. Even if Kyl and Graham got their way, the Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment, Voting Age, Public Debt, Confederate Disability, and Legislative Enforcement Clauses would remain intact.

It's interesting to me, however, you think there's a serious groundswell of support for reintroducing segregation. Is there any evidence that state legislatures are champing at the bit to do this? Or is this just an instance of assuming that people who disagree with you on one issue disagree with you on every issue?

[Generation ABXY]

Oh, I hope you didn't take my response as an assumption of your beliefs. I know you support same-sex marriage. I just think it helps - at least, for me - to read some of the past rulings and opinions to see how 'fundamental freedoms' might include who you want to legally marry.

Ah, I see. Between your and Shiva's responses, I was afraid that part might have come off wrong, but no worries, then. :)

[Ox]

An interesting point about the "fundamental freedom" of marriage: it's kind of turned back on itself weirdly. The discussion in Loving was rather cursory, but it cites the 1942 case of Skinner v. Oklahoma for the proposition that marriage is a fundamental right. Here's the Skinner court's logic for that:
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear.
I trust I'm not alone in seeing a certain irony in this logic being used to argue for same-sex marriage.

[J Arcane]

Genetically engineered crops have had a flash of propaganda against them by people who don't understand science or politics. It's amazing that so many are so easily convinced to be against genetically engineered crops.
I have nothing against GMO foods on the reactionary "Frankenfood" health and safety grounds.

I do have an issue with what Civil somewhat crudely pointed out: The relentless abuse of gene patents to monopolize seed and essentially give Monsanto total control over agricultural prices, squeezing farmers in countries that can barely afford to eat and grow as it is.

The US has made some important first steps in repudiating the practice of gene patents, and if the trend continues, and spreads worldwide, I will praise it to highest Heaven. Until then, Monsanto continues to treat farmers in a manner more than akin to organized crime and extortion schemes.

[ShivaX]

That's true, but there are lots of statuses that confer a panoply of legal rights or privileges. Some examples are being a Member of Congress, being a member of the bar, and being a US citizen. All these statuses grant a boggling array of legal privileges or rights, yet it does not necessarily follow that everyone is entitled to claim these statuses if he wishes.

And none of those things can be denied to you based on race or sexuality.

You're comparing apples to handgrenades here.

Unless you're suggesting marriage is somehow the same as being a Member of Congress or a lawyer. And even if you were then you'd seem to be supporting the idea of denial of homosexuals to hold an office or be members of the bar, which I'm pretty sure would never fly.

[MagGnome]

Basically the whole video was watching the Fox guy argue that we should be able to vote out people's rights with a majority vote while the lawyer was pointing out how terrible that was. Then again I think the entire conservative movement has been geared towards trying to take the country back to the 1950's lately, so it really shouldn't suprise me.

My uncle is very conservative, and he's said many times over the years that the 50s were the "best" time in America. You know, back when gay people were all in the closet, black Americans had few rights, and women had to do what their husbands told them to do. That was such a great time! He wasn't even a teenager during the 50s, so this idea must have either come from his parents or Leave it to Beaver. I don't dare ask which.

Sadly he runs his house like it is the 50s. My aunt is an amazing woman, but when her husband is around she turns into a Stepford wife. It's disgusting.

[Doogie2K]

Forcing people to gay marry could result in extinction. Allowing it won't. However to help prevent this theoretical disaster, I will make myself available to any hot-ish lesbians who want kids. Because I'm a giver.

You're assuming people would stay faithful to their forced gay marriage.

[Shieldmaiden]

My uncle is very conservative, and he's said many times over the years that the 50s were the "best" time in America. You know, back when gay people were all in the closet, black Americans had few rights, and women had to do what their husbands told them to do. That was such a great time! He wasn't even a teenager during the 50s, so this idea must have either come from his parents or Leave it to Beaver. I don't dare ask which.

Sadly he runs his house like it is the 50s. My aunt is an amazing woman, but when her husband is around she turns into a Stepford wife. It's disgusting.

I've met more than a few people around my age who were rabidly anti-Thatcher, despite still being in single figures during her time as PM. I find it highly amusing, especially when the "Milk Snatcher" nickname is used and the person is too young to ever have had milk at school.

[AversionFX]

Anyone else ever wonder if this sudden big push to repeal the 14th Amendment in the name of illegal immigration has the intended side effect of killing Equal Protection and Due Process and allowing states to bring back segregation and the like?

I'm not particularly fond of giving rights to illegal immigrants. I don't think it would bring back segregation, but the idea of, essentially sanctioning illegal immigration, is ridiculous. I don't think the idea is racist, either. There is a large number of people coming into the country illegally - they should be treated like criminals, and not be allowed to drain more resources out of our already economically fragile country.

It never ceases to amaze me that, when things of this nature involve African Americans or Hispanics, that it's "racist." Yet, if it's ever some other demographic, it's perfectly acceptable. People play the race card way too quickly.

[J Arcane]

Your "economically fragile country" would fucking collapse without those evil criminal aliens.

You want a fucking scapegoat for the country's problems, how about lazy white people who can't hold down a fucking job?

[ShivaX]

I'm not particularly fond of giving rights to illegal immigrants. I don't think it would bring back segregation, but the idea of, essentially sanctioning illegal immigration, is ridiculous. I don't think the idea is racist, either. There is a large number of people coming into the country illegally - they should be treated like criminals, and not be allowed to drain more resources out of our already economically fragile country.

It never ceases to amaze me that, when things of this nature involve African Americans or Hispanics, that it's "racist." Yet, if it's ever some other demographic, it's perfectly acceptable. People play the race card way too quickly.

Its not a matter of giving rights to illegals. Its a matter of protecting citizens. I say deport the parents and the kid. Tough shit. The kid is still a citizen and they're welcome to come back. Hell they're welcome to stay in foster care or whatever while we send the parents back for that matter.

As far as "draining resources" thats pretty much a myth. They add more to the system than they take away. But they look different and speak a different language so when things get bad its pretty easy to point at the foreigners and just blame them. If you want to crack down on illegal immigration how about we crack down on employers and make the penalties for hiring them actually worse than the profits for doing it and getting caught?

[J Arcane]

Also, there's a lot more illegal aliens in this country than the Mexicans and Hispanics, but it's awful convenient how you don't hear nearly so many people complaining about them fuckin' Russians ...

[AversionFX]

If you want to crack down on illegal immigration how about we crack down on employers and make the penalties for hiring them actually worse than the profits for doing it and getting caught?

Which is exactly what Arizona did, yes?

Also, there's a lot more illegal aliens in this country than the Mexicans and Hispanics, but it's awful convenient how you don't hear nearly so many people complaining about them fuckin' Russians ..

Are the majority of Russian illegals unskilled, uneducated, and unable to speak English?

Honest question.

[Shieldmaiden]

Are the majority of Russian illegals unskilled, uneducated, and unable to speak English?

If they're anything like the majority of the Russian and Eastern Europeans ones in the UK, yes, yes and yes.

[J Arcane]

If they're anything like the majority of the Russian and Eastern Europeans ones in the UK, yes, yes and yes.
You are correct, sir!

At least, they are no more or less likely to be so than those from south of our border.

And God bless them too.

[Ox]

And none of those things can be denied to you based on race or sexuality.
Perhaps (I kind of think you're wrong on the Member of Congress bit, but whatever). Discrimination may be illegal even for things which are clearly not "rights": it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in hiring, although I doubt most courts would say you have a fundamental right to a job.

You're comparing apples to handgrenades here.
I'm not comparing anything to anything else. I'm merely pointing out that a status can have legal significance without it being obtainable as of right.

And even if you were then you'd seem to be supporting the idea of denial of homosexuals to hold an office or be members of the bar, which I'm pretty sure would never fly.
I'm not supporting anything. Again, just because I point out you are wrong about a specific and technical issue, that doesn't mean I want to enslave the darkies. It amazes me that you think your ideas are so perfect that any criticism must necessarily mean I'm in favor of invidious discrimination.

Also, there's a lot more illegal aliens in this country than the Mexicans and Hispanics, but it's awful convenient how you don't hear nearly so many people complaining about them fuckin' Russians ...
Do you think that might have something to do with the relative numbers of each group? There are fewer than 500,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_American) Russian-born residents of the United States, compared to over 6 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Present-day_countries_of_origin) illegal immigrants from Mexico. Most illegal immigrants are specifically from Mexico, and the number of Mexican citizens living here illegally rose by 40% (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ill_pe_2006.pdf) between 2000 and 2006. Russia doesn't even make the top ten list of countries of origin for immigrants, legal or illegal.

Frankly, if people harped on Russian immigrants even a fraction as much as Mexican immigrants, that would be prima facie evidence of bigotry.

[evilgoodwin]

Also, there's a lot more illegal aliens in this country than the Mexicans and Hispanics, but it's awful convenient how you don't hear nearly so many people complaining about them fuckin' Russians ...

One of them stole my car so him and his cousin could go see "BEEG AMERICAN TITTIES!"

[Ink Asylum]

Perhaps (I kind of think you're wrong on the Member of Congress bit, but whatever). Discrimination may be illegal even for things which are clearly not "rights": it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in hiring, although I doubt most courts would say you have a fundamental right to a job.

It may not be a given that someone has a "right" to a marriage any more than they have a "right" to a job, to being President, or to dinner at a restaurant. There are barriers to entry for the latter three. Someone might not hire you because you don't have the right skills. You might not become President because you're really unpleasant. You might not get dinner because you can't afford to pay. What is a strongly supported right in America is that you can't be refused any of those because of race, gender, religion, etc.

That is, however, a barrier of entry for marriage in most states and federally. So while people may be technically wrong when they say they have a "right to marriage," they would be more correct to say "I and my partner have a right not to be denied a marriage because of our gender," just like you can't be denied a job, public office, or service in a public restaurant for the same.

[CES]

If they're anything like the majority of the Russian and Eastern Europeans ones in the UK, yes, yes and yes.

Which is odd because I've noticed that as you progress further north, the amount of eastern europeans that speak fluent English rises quite impressively. Maybe the illegal ones just like the weather better down south?

[Shieldmaiden]

Which is odd because I've noticed that as you progress further north, the amount of eastern europeans that speak fluent English rises quite impressively. Maybe the illegal ones just like the weather better down south?

It was certainly a problem in Peterborough, much to the dismay of the well-established Polish community there. Not sure what it's like in London, I'm still getting used to a completely different mix of people, more specifically going from an area with a virtually non-existent Afro-Caribbean population to one with what I believe is an Afro-Caribbean majority.

[Ox]

So while people may be technically wrong when they say they have a "right to marriage," they would be more correct to say "I and my partner have a right not to be denied a marriage because of our gender," just like you can't be denied a job, public office, or service in a public restaurant for the same.
Fair enough. But this is a general anti-discrimination right, not a right pertaining to the marriage (or job, or whatever) per se. In more legalistic terms, it's a claim under the Equal Protection Clause rather than the Due Process Clause. In more practical terms, the importance of marriage is irrelevant: the anti-discrimination argument would be just as effective if civil unions were legally equivalent, or if marriage was no more important than being a Mummer.

[johnperkins21]

In case anyone is interested, The Friendly Atheist has a three-part blog post going on right now where two atheists got into the Americans for Truth About Homosexuality "Truth Academy." The Academy is basically a series of lectures about how evil homosexuality is.

Part 1 (http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/08/10/the-aftah-anti-gay-rights-academy-from-the-perspective-of-two-who-attended-day-1-of-3/)
Part 2 (http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/08/11/the-aftah-anti-gay-rights-academy-from-the-perspective-of-two-who-attended-day-2-of-3/)
Part 3 should be posted tomorrow.

[Ink Asylum]

Fair enough. But this is a general anti-discrimination right, not a right pertaining to the marriage (or job, or whatever) per se. In more legalistic terms, it's a claim under the Equal Protection Clause rather than the Due Process Clause. In more practical terms, the importance of marriage is irrelevant: the anti-discrimination argument would be just as effective if civil unions were legally equivalent, or if marriage was no more important than being a Mummer.

And the Equal Protection Clause is probably how Gay Marriage will win out in the end. If government is providing marriage rights it has to provide them to everyone, regardless of gender.

I say gender instead of sexuality because gay marriage opponents love saying "Gay people can marry, they just have to marry someone of the opposite gender!" Which is still discrimination, just based on gender. If the government is giving out marriages how can they limit the gender of who I enter one with?

I still don't understand how civil unions are defensible on a legal level. Haven't we done away with "separate but equal"? I'd love to see how people would react if governments tried to separate between religious and non-religious people, with only couples officially married by a leader in a major religion allowed to have a "marriage," while everyone else could only get a "civil union"?

[Ox]

I still don't understand how civil unions are defensible on a legal level. Haven't we done away with "separate but equal"?
I dunno. Do we still have single-sex bathrooms? Do women have to register for the draft? Are school which have male football squads also required to have female football squads? Gender discrimination is not per se illegal.

[aVaKus]

The Stay has been lifted, marriages can resume August 18th. (http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/08/wedding-bells-to-ring-proposition-8.html) :D:D:D

Edit: Wonder if the 9th Circuit will step in before then....

[National Kato]

Awesome. That is all.

[MagGnome]

So who wants to me to California with me and get married? :p

[Generation ABXY]

So who wants to me to California with me and get married? :p

You can be a bit self-absorbed at times, you know that? ;)

[Kelegacy]

So who wants to me to California with me and get married? :p

You aren't my type.

Actually, depends on what your nipples look like. I'm oddly particular.

[OldJadedGamer]

So who wants to me to California with me and get married? :p

If they ever had the draft come back, you could skip out of it by getting married to your buddy then divorced. Back in the 70's you had to skip out of the country, now you can just use the nation's homophobia to your advantage.

[MagGnome]

You can be a bit self-absorbed at times, you know that? ;)

Me? ;)


You aren't my type.

Actually, depends on what your nipples look like. I'm oddly particular.

They are perky.


If they ever had the draft come back, you could skip out of it by getting married to your buddy then divorced. Back in the 70's you had to skip out of the country, now you can just use the nation's homophobia to your advantage.

If I ever got drafted (hopefully won't happen) I always planned on walking in and screaming from the rooftops that I am gay, gay, GAY. :p

[Generation ABXY]

It's not a pill that's hard. ;)

On the other hand, with the end of DADT on the horizon, I guess there goes that excuse.

[MagGnome]

Hell, if I got drafted I'd tell them I was gay. It wouldn't be a hard pill to swallow.

Wow, there are at least two easy jokes here. I'll refrain from making either one of them. :p

Gen ABXY already got one!

[Ink Asylum]

A very comforting chart, from the king of stats, Nate Silver. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-appears-to.html)

http://www.538host.com/ssm8810.png

It's really only a matter of time. Within a few years, perhaps even next year, a majority will support same-sex marriage. Within a decade a large majority will, and all resistance to it today will seem ridiculous in retrospect.

[Generation ABXY]

...okay, I can't be the only one who had to do a double take at that chart.

I think I need to spend less time in these Off Colony sections. :D

[Blue]

I don't believe that chart's been circumcised yet.

[Bone]

Once the lines start diverging, the chart is going to become a statistical money shot.

[MagGnome]

Thanks for sharing that chart, Ink.

[Ink Asylum]

No problem. It's nice to know that it's a matter of when, not if.

[Ox]

Interesting. Glenn Beck (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008110048) does not oppose gay marriage. He's now further to the left on this issue than President Obama is.

[ShivaX]

Interesting. Glenn Beck (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008110048) does not oppose gay marriage. He's now further to the left on this issue than President Obama is.

That is kinda interesting, though I came away with it more being "I oppose it, but don't think its the end of the world." Then again he claims to be a libertarian so that should be his position.

[Ox]

What makes you think he opposes it?

[Voodoo]

That is kinda interesting, though I came away with it more being "I oppose it, but don't think its the end of the world." Then again he claims to be a libertarian so that should be his position.
You read it wrong. Glenn's position is that the government should not be involved at all except in the enforcement of the binding contract between two people. He's also said multiple (other) times that he doesn't care if the two people both men, women or a mix. He goes further to say that why should he be concerned anyway when it doesn't effect his personal life. Finally, he says that religious entities are free to agree or disagree with it and shouldn't be squelched for either opinion as long as it doesn't incite violence.

Also, I don't believe Glenn is a libertarian, he comes off to me as a constitutionalist. You may be getting him mixed up with Neal Boortz, whom also has the same position on marriage as Glenn and is a libertarian. I have seen as recent as 2009 Glenn saying he is a libertarian... So maybe so? Perhaps a fine line between the two?

[ShivaX]

What makes you think he opposes it?

This exchange:

BECK: As long as we -- as long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech. If they can still say, hey, we --

O'REILLY: Oppose it --

BECK: -- we oppose it --


I think Glenn doesn't like it. Oppose was probably too strong a word, though he more or less said it himself. His big thing is being able to say he doesn't like it. I dunno its a wierd phrasing and then you have O'Reilly being himself and not letting the other person finish, so its hard to say.

[ShivaX]

You read it wrong. Glenn's position is that the government should not be involved at all except in the enforcement of the binding contract between two people. He's also said multiple (other) times that he doesn't care if the two people both men, women or a mix. He goes further to say that why should he be concerned anyway when it doesn't effect his personal life. Finally, he says that religious entities are free to agree or disagree with it and shouldn't be squelched for either opinion as long as it doesn't incite violence.
Fair enough and I don't disagree with it.

Also, I don't believe Glenn is a libertarian, he comes off to me as a constitutionalist. You may be getting him mixed up with Neal Boortz, whom also has the same position on marriage as Glenn and is a libertarian. I have seen as recent as 2009 Glenn saying he is a libertarian... So maybe so? Perhaps a fine line between the two?

As far as libertarian, thats Glenn's claim, not mine. I think hes full of shit cause hes not remotely libertarian, but thats what he calls himself.

[Voodoo]

I think Glenn doesn't like it. Oppose was probably too strong a word, though he more or less said it himself. His big thing is being able to say he doesn't like it. I dunno its a wierd phrasing and then you have O'Reilly being himself and not letting the other person finish, so its hard to say.
You even read what you quoted wrong. He is saying that religious organizations that oppose it should not be squelched by the Government and used Canada as an example. I have no idea if that's accurate though about Canada shutting down free speech of religious organizations that speak out against gay marriage.

[Voodoo]

As far as libertarian, thats Glenn's claim, not mine. I think hes full of shit cause hes not remotely libertarian, but thats what he calls himself.
Yup, as I said, I am aware that he calls himself a libertarian but it doesn't appear to be accurate.

[Ink Asylum]

For a right wing whackjob, Beck knows how to pick his battles. Attacking Obama's policies, his appointees, and progressive organizations can do real damage to Democrats. Attacking on social issues bears little fruit, for him at least.

[Ox]

I think Glenn doesn't like it. Oppose was probably too strong a word, though he more or less said it himself.
I think you misread the passage. I will edit out O'Reilly's comments and some false starts by Beck to show you how I read it:
As long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech. they can still say, "Hey, we oppose it."

I think Beck is stating he has no objection to gay marriage, but he wants churches to still have the right to openly oppose gay marriage. I think you missed the "they" I put in bold.

EDIT: Voodoo, I'm not sure about Canada, but criticizing homosexuality is a crime in Britain. Examples here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html) and here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html).

[ShivaX]

You even read what you quoted wrong. He is saying that religious organizations that oppose it should not be squelched by the Government and used Canada as an example. I have no idea if that's accurate though about Canada shutting down free speech of religious organizations that speak out against gay marriage.

I didn't read it wrong. He used "we" quite a bit in that, not "they", hence the impression. If you're saying Neo-Nazi's should have the right to say whatever they want you say "they" not "we". Again O'Reilly is mucking it up by not letting him finish, so it could just be the way it come out.

And as far as Canada, I think he meant the UK.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100518/case-against-homosexuality-is-sin-preacher-dropped/index.html

But then again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_contr oversies

In December 2008, the Commission refused to look at the case of Imam Abou Hammad Sulaiman al-Hayiti. Al-Hayiti is a Montreal Salafist Muslim who was accused of inciting hatred against homosexuals, Western women and Jews in a book he published on the Internet. Al-Hayiti has written that Allah has taught that "If the Jews, Christians, and [Zoroastrians] refuse to answer the call of Islam, and will not pay the jizyah [tax], then it is obligatory for Muslims to fight them if they are able." Christianity, in particular, is denounced as a "religion of lies," which is responsible for the West's "perversity, corruption and adultery." Al-Hayiti book refers to "the incredible number of gays and lesbians (may Allah curse and destroy them in this life and the next) who sow disorder upon the Earth and who desire to increase their numbers."[29]

In declining to hear the case, the Commission stated that Al-Hayiti was free to make comments against "infidels" because they are not an identifiable group. Regarding Al-Hayiti statements against groups established as "identifiable," such as homosexuals and Jews, the commission simply stated that these "do not seem" to meet the criteria for promoting hatred.[29]


So its hard to say really. Canada isn't quite Europe, but its a lot closer to it than the US is. Glenn should've dropped a European nation in there, but its cool to hate on Canada cause they're dirty liberals who share a border and people can find on a map.

[ShivaX]

I think you misread the passage. I will edit out O'Reilly's comments and some false starts by Beck to show you how I read it:
As long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech. they can still say, "Hey, we oppose it."

I think Beck is stating he has no objection to gay marriage, but he wants churches to still have the right to openly oppose gay marriage. I think you missed the "they" I put in bold.

EDIT: Voodoo, I'm not sure about Canada, but criticizing homosexuality is a crime in Britain. Examples here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html) and here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html).

Ah you're right, I misread it.

[Voodoo]

I didn't read it wrong. He used "we" quite a bit in that, not "they", hence the impression. If you're saying Neo-Nazi's should have the right to say whatever they want you say "they" not "we". Again O'Reilly is mucking it up by not letting him finish, so it could just be the way it come out.
Does it make better sense if we remove O'Reilly?

BECK: As long as we -- as long as we are not going down the road of Canada, where it now is a problem for churches to have free speech. If they can still say, hey, we oppose it but we're not trying to kill anybody or trying to --- (cut off by O'Reilly)

Pretty clear. Also, thanks for the information that it is the UK and not Canada. :)

[Ox]

Woohoo! I won an argument on the Internet! And now I can retire.

[ShivaX]

Does it make better sense if we remove O'Reilly?



Pretty clear. Also, thanks for the information that it is the UK and not Canada. :)

Yeah was much clearer without Bill trying to dominate the conversation.

[Voodoo]

Yeah was much clearer without Bill trying to dominate the conversation.
Agreed and it is something he always wants to do in interviews. I'm aware he does this to try to get people off of their toes but it is also incredibly rude. I doubt that Billy cares about being rude or not.

[Hemalin]

Looks like that may be it for appeals.
The defendants in that case were Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/arnold-schwarzenegger-PEPLT007379.topic) and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/jerry-brown-PEPLT007547.topic), but they declined to defend the law. As the losing parties, they have authority to appeal Walker's ruling. But both Brown and Schwarzenegger hailed Walker's decision and said they would not appeal.

"The governor supports the judge's ruling," spokesman Aaron McLear said Thursday.

A private group that opposes same-sex marriage, ProtectMarriage.com, defended Proposition 8 during the trial Walker held earlier this year. The group wants to appeal but may lack legal standing to do so.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0813-gay-marriage-california-20100813,0,5087660.story

[MagGnome]

That's great! Part of me hopes this goes to the Supreme Court, but another part of me is terrified of the possible outcome, so no appeal is probably for the best.

[Ox]

I'm not so sure I like the notion that politicians can simply decline to litigate a politically sensitive issue and the standing doctrine will preclude the courts from considering the case. Mag, I understand why you like this outcome, but presumably you can imagine how the tables might turn. If, say, a Republican took office in 2012 and decided not to defend the constitutionality of ObamaCare, I suspect you'd suddenly have qualms about this novel use of standing.

[Matthias]

I'm not so sure I like the notion that politicians can simply decline to litigate a politically sensitive issue and the standing doctrine will preclude the courts from considering the case. Mag, I understand why you like this outcome, but presumably you can imagine how the tables might turn. If, say, a Republican took office in 2012 and decided not to defend the constitutionality of ObamaCare, I suspect you'd suddenly have qualms about this novel use of standing.

A large part of me agrees with this sentiment, but at the same time, I'm not sure what they could or should be required to do in this case- should they fight to take it to the highest court possible? I'm not sure I like the idea of requiring that a state or local government waste their resources and the courts' resources fighting a decision that's not likely to be overturned; I'm not saying this particular ruling is extremely unlikely to be overturned, but there are many cases where a ruling may have zero chance of changing.

[Doogie2K]

I'm not entirely up on the news here, but I'm not familiar with anyone trying to squelch the free speech of churches opposed to homosexuality, or else my sisters' church would be in deep shit right now. I'm pretty sure it's a case of, if your religious doctrine opposes it, you're not obligated to perform the marriage.

[Ox]

A large part of me agrees with this sentiment, but at the same time, I'm not sure what they could or should be required to do in this case- should they fight to take it to the highest court possible?
One solution would be the way this is handled in the Supreme Court: the Solicitor General is legally obligated to defend challenges to the constitutionality of federal law, and in its discretion, the Court will "invite" the Solicitor General to file a brief in a case. These "invitations" could, I suppose, be ignored, and they aren't issued unless the Court really wants to hear the Government's view... but they do reduce the chance that litigation will be foreclosed for partisan purposes.

Another way would simply be to relax the standing doctrine. That way, the government doesn't have to do anything. If private citizens want to defend the law, they can do so out of their own pockets.

[MagGnome]

I'm not so sure I like the notion that politicians can simply decline to litigate a politically sensitive issue and the standing doctrine will preclude the courts from considering the case. Mag, I understand why you like this outcome, but presumably you can imagine how the tables might turn. If, say, a Republican took office in 2012 and decided not to defend the constitutionality of ObamaCare, I suspect you'd suddenly have qualms about this novel use of standing.

Do you really think this is partisan though? Arnold isn't a Democrat. I can see what you are saying, but I don't see how the governor or Attorney General are supposed to defend a law that they don't agree with or don't think is even Constitutional.

As for your example, what makes you think that I would be upset if ObamaCare were done away with? I thought the entire bill (with few exceptions) was a giant mess. Probably for different reasons that you or others do, but I'm not a fan of "ObamaCare" as it stands.

[Ox]

Do you really think this is partisan though? Arnold isn't a Democrat.
Fair enough. I think it's a political decision that has little to do with whether there are legal arguments in favor of Prop 8. Do you disagree?

As for your example, what makes you think that I would be upset if ObamaCare were done away with? I thought the entire bill (with few exceptions) was a giant mess. Probably for different reasons that you or others do, but I'm not a fan of "ObamaCare" as it stands.
Okay, bad example (although I doubt you think that ObamaCare is unconstitutional). What about campaign finance laws? I think you've said you agree with those. What would be your response if a politicians refused to defend their constitutionality?

[MagGnome]

Fair enough. I think it's a political decision that has little to do with whether there are legal arguments in favor of Prop 8. Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree. I would add, however, that it's likely something of a personal decision as well. Arnold has always been supportive of gay marriage, as far as I know. But I would agree that it's mainly political, yes.


Okay, bad example (although I doubt you think that ObamaCare is unconstitutional). What about campaign finance laws? I think you've said you agree with those. What would be your response if a politicians refused to defend their constitutionality?

I would be upset. Like I said in my last post, I can definitely see what you're saying. I suppose I'd like it if the government defended laws I agreed with and didn't defend ones that I didn't agree with. Then again that's really not doable, is it? :p

[johnperkins21]

Fair enough. I think it's a political decision that has little to do with whether there are legal arguments in favor of Prop 8. Do you disagree?

I agree and disagree. I do believe that it's a somewhat political decision, but I don't believe there are legal arguments in favor of Prop 8 that could hold up. I think it's more an issue of them seeing the writing on the wall, and not pursuing a losing battle. I doubt they want to end up like Virginia, forever linked to fighting against equal rights.

[Ox]

Yeah, thank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talley_v._California) fucking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California) Christ (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1925/1925_3) California respects (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-8120.pdf) rights (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?id=957).

[johnperkins21]

Yeah, thank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talley_v._California) fucking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California) Christ (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1925/1925_3) California respects (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-8120.pdf) rights (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?id=957).

Other than the Brendlin one from 2007, the most recent is 1973, and none of them are arguing for discrimination. You can find similar cases for virtually all states, but my point is that I don't think Arnold really wants California to be the state that fights all the way to the top, an eventual losing battle, to keep discrimination and bigotry alive and well.

[Ox]

Interesting you don't think criminalizing being a Communist constitutes "discrimination".

If your point is that Governor Schwarzenegger has decided for political reasons he doesn't want to litigate this case, congratulations: you've restated exactly what Mag and I said already. The question is whether it's a good idea to let politicians' oft-idiosyncratic notions of which laws are odious govern whether we litigate the constitutionality of those laws.

As an aside, I think you underestimate the potential constitutional arguments available to the Prop 8 supporters. Since gays aren't a protected class, California needs only a 'rational basis' to discriminate against them. This is an extremely deferential standard that usually is not subject to judicial factfinding (which is why the Prop 8 supporters didn't put on much evidence). If the legislation has a goal which is plausibly connected to a valid state interest, that's almost always adequate to survive rational basis review.

What rational basis might California have in discriminating against same-sex couples? One answer might be to prevent corrosion of opposite-sex marriage. I know, I know, SSM doesn't affect opposite-sex marriage. Or at least, none of us think so. Whether SSM corrodes opposite-sex marriage is an inherently factual question that can't be answered a priori. And under rational basis review, such factual questions are for the democratic branches, not the judiciary, to resolve. And since there aren't that many American jurisdictions that have legalized SSM, and those haven't done so for very long, the Prop 8 supporters can argue that California is simply waiting for more evidence of the harmlessness of SSM before legalizing it.

Do I think this argument would ultimately succeed? Probably not, but that's mainly because I'm a legal realist and don't think stuff like "rational basis review" really exists. Even if the policy argument against SSM is stupid, however, doesn't mean the constitutional argument is stupid. I certainly wouldn't call the constitutional position of the Prop 8 supporters frivolous.

[J Arcane]

Doesn't anyone think that it might be a GOOD thing to see it taken to the Supreme Court?

A federal appeal on the level Prop 8 has gone through so far doesn't set much precedent for other states, but if it got appealed straight to the top and still shot down? I can't think of a greater victory for gay rights imaginable short of an actual constitutional amendment, which is never going to bloody happen for either side.

Yes, there's a chance the anti-gay faction might win, but that still leaves it open for the legislature to change the federal laws to make it a protected right anyway. And theoretically, the same could be said if the anti-Prop8 people like us win.

It just seems like it's maybe the left who's being shortsighted about this, and furthermore, not allowing a further appeal also means that the right won't suffer such a defeat as a SCOTUS decision. If victory is assured for the gay rights side in such a legal battle, then letting it go to appeal would be the last thing the right would want anyway, if they're smart.

Maybe Ahhnold ain't so far from his party on this after all? ;)

[johnperkins21]

congratulations

Thanks! :D

[Ox]

Yes, there's a chance the anti-gay faction might win, but that still leaves it open for the legislature to change the federal laws to make it a protected right anyway. And theoretically, the same could be said if the anti-Prop8 people like us win.
I agree with the first sentence, but I'm not sure I understand the second one.

If victory is assured for the gay rights side in such a legal battle, then letting it go to appeal would be the last thing the right would want anyway, if they're smart.
I think that's the sticking point: "if victory is assured." If the side which ought to win always did, why would lawyers exist? I don't mean that in a snarky way, either: lawyers exist precisely because courts are not guided by a perfect understanding of the demands of law and justice. I know my own career is founded on the principle that judges will sometimes do mind-bogglingly wrong things. Like, "not remembering the first week of law school" wrong.

[J Arcane]

I agree with the first sentence, but I'm not sure I understand the second one.

I muddled it up pretty good there, didn't I? Got my subjects all mixed up. What I was intending to say there was just that depending on the nature of the decision, regardless of who wins, there's still the chance on either side of being able to change the laws on a federal level.

I think that's the sticking point: "if victory is assured." If the side which ought to win always did, why would lawyers exist? I don't mean that in a snarky way, either: lawyers exist precisely because courts are not guided by a perfect understanding of the demands of law and justice. I know my own career is founded on the principle that judges will sometimes do mind-bogglingly wrong things. Like, "not remembering the first week of law school" wrong.

It was more a statement in response to the argument I saw being tossed around that the state of California shouldn't appeal because "it's going to lose anyway". If it's going to lose anyway, and you want gay marriage, then damnit, take it all the way! A loss in some state-level court is no where near as great a victory as Prop8 losing at the Supreme Court.

I guess it's just the way I think on these things, put it to the proper test, that's what the system's there for. It bothered me too, people applauding the state just letting the bill die, because it seemed like a missed opportunity.

[DoctorFinger]

The hold is back on (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38730183), apparently until the full en banc appeals court hears the appeal.

[johnperkins21]

Interesting you don't think criminalizing being a Communist constitutes "discrimination".
Actually, yes, I do. I was wrong. I didn't fully read that case (or comprehend it, whichever makes me sound less dumb). However, that was back in 1927, when being a Communist was similar to what being part of Al-Qaeda would be now. They would have equated any Communist ties to terrorism. Not that that makes it ok, but it was over 80 years ago, and I think California has become slightly more progressive since then, at least from a PR standpoint.

If your point is that Governor Schwarzenegger has decided for political reasons he doesn't want to litigate this case, congratulations: you've restated exactly what Mag and I said already. The question is whether it's a good idea to let politicians' oft-idiosyncratic notions of which laws are odious govern whether we litigate the constitutionality of those laws.
Well, I'd imagine that everything a politician does is for political reasons. However, I think given his party and that apparently a majority of people in California favor the ban on SSM (I'm stealing your cool acronym), taking it to appeals would strike me as more political posturing than not.

As an aside, I think you underestimate the potential constitutional arguments available to the Prop 8 supporters. Since gays aren't a protected class, California needs only a 'rational basis' to discriminate against them. This is an extremely deferential standard that usually is not subject to judicial factfinding (which is why the Prop 8 supporters didn't put on much evidence). If the legislation has a goal which is plausibly connected to a valid state interest, that's almost always adequate to survive rational basis review.

What rational basis might California have in discriminating against same-sex couples? One answer might be to prevent corrosion of opposite-sex marriage. I know, I know, SSM doesn't affect opposite-sex marriage. Or at least, none of us think so. Whether SSM corrodes opposite-sex marriage is an inherently factual question that can't be answered a priori. And under rational basis review, such factual questions are for the democratic branches, not the judiciary, to resolve. And since there aren't that many American jurisdictions that have legalized SSM, and those haven't done so for very long, the Prop 8 supporters can argue that California is simply waiting for more evidence of the harmlessness of SSM before legalizing it.

Do I think this argument would ultimately succeed? Probably not, but that's mainly because I'm a legal realist and don't think stuff like "rational basis review" really exists. Even if the policy argument against SSM is stupid, however, doesn't mean the constitutional argument is stupid. I certainly wouldn't call the constitutional position of the Prop 8 supporters frivolous.
You've got me there. I've seen a few arguments that I thought held absolutely no weight turn a court's decision. As you've pointed out to me before, what I consider to be a rational argument is not universally accepted.

Though to your point, I would hope that the courts would favor not discriminating against a class while waiting for evidence, rather than imposing the discrimination while waiting. And I would think that a cursory glance at some marriage and divorce rates among heterosexual couples during the period in which gays were allowed to marry could give us a guide as to what the eventual evidence might show. I'd bet that neither increased or decreased significantly during that time, but it would be interesting to see some stats (a quick Google search failed me).

[Ox]

Though to your point, I would hope that the courts would favor not discriminating against a class while waiting for evidence, rather than imposing the discrimination while waiting. And I would think that a cursory glance at some marriage and divorce rates among heterosexual couples during the period in which gays were allowed to marry could give us a guide as to what the eventual evidence might show. I'd bet that neither increased or decreased significantly during that time, but it would be interesting to see some stats (a quick Google search failed me).
Again, I think you're missing the point: the courts don't second-guess even stupid and obviously wrong legislative judgments. "A cursory glance" is more than rational basis review permits. Frankly, conservatives would probably like it if courts made rational basis review more muscular: a very large proportion of federal economic regulation, for example, would probably fail any genuine evidentiary test. For a while it looked like rational-basis review was actually going to acquire some testicles under the Rehnquist court, thanks to stuff like United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, but I think everyone agrees that Gonzales v. Raich demonstrated this was just a brief hiccup in the ongoing trend of "rational basis" being synonymous with "fuck you, plaintiff."

Ultimately we're getting into broader questions about the proper relationship between the democratic and undemocratic branches of government. I think people on both sides tend to ignore this issue and just demand whichever branch is more favorable to them at the moment be the one in charge. Hence why liberals demand weak judicial review on economic issues but robust review on criminal issues, and conservatives do the opposite. Liberals want courts to be forgiving of sloppy draftsmanship when reviewing the Lily Ledbetter case but crack down hard on the Arizona immigration statute, and vice versa. I'll give the liberals credit for being marginally more honest: just about everyone recognizes that "living constitution" is code for "I just want courts to uphold liberal laws and strike down conservative ones".

[MagGnome]

However, I think given his party and that apparently a majority of people in California favor the ban on SSM (I'm stealing your cool acronym), taking it to appeals would strike me as more political posturing than not.

Correction - A small majority of the people in California who voted favored the ban on SSM.


I'll give the liberals credit for being marginally more honest: just about everyone recognizes that "living constitution" is code for "I just want courts to uphold liberal laws and strike down conservative ones".

Yes, and when conservatives shout about "activist judges" (yes, some libs do it to), many of us know it is slang for "judges who don't agree with us". :p

[Generation ABXY]

The hold is back on (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38730183), apparently until the full en banc appeals court hears the appeal.

Well, this is some fun back and forth. -_-

This is one reason I'm happy to have no vested in this... debate (and, consequently, why I won't really do anything more than vote, if you throw the issue at me).

[Karmakin]

Yes, and when conservatives shout about "activist judges" (yes, some libs do it to), many of us know it is slang for "judges who don't agree with us". :p

Yeah, both sides are "guilty" of it. Although I put guilty in quotes because I don't think there's anything wrong with it per se, I just think we should be honest that it's not about tradition, it's about our qualitative views of things, and that's where the discussion should be.

[Ox]

Yeah, both sides are "guilty" of it. Although I put guilty in quotes because I don't think there's anything wrong with it per se, I just think we should be honest that it's not about tradition, it's about our qualitative views of things, and that's where the discussion should be.
The irony, of course, is that Mag didn't even realize I was agreeing about the hollowness of the 'activist judge' moniker.

But if we're just going to talk about our qualitative views of things, then why bother having a Constitution at all? I don't think the fealty people pay the written Constitution is purely lip service: they genuinely believe there is or ought to be some special deference to the document. Few people engage in the sort of intellectual hard work that's involved in coming up with a theory of constitutional interpretation, and even fewer are willing to stick to a theory that might generate policy results they don't like; but I don't think our collective laziness demonstrates the project is worthless.

[Karmakin]

Well, I think that some sort of basic layout of guaranteed rights is necessary for a democracy. The problem with constitutions as a whole, is that they tend to be a bit twisted at times, that is, they can have multiple rights colliding against one another and it's a matter of sorting out which one takes priority. That's qualitative. Or at least it should be. (I tend to follow the asshole rule. Whoever is being less of an asshole gets my support)

I'm not a fan of "interpretation". I think it misses the point entirely. I don't like ruleslawyering (nothing personal, that's the term) in gaming. Why would I like it in the rest of my society? A constitution should be about values and ideals, not about haggling over words in order to avoid productive debate entirely.

[Ox]

The problem with constitutions as a whole, is that they tend to be a bit twisted at times, that is, they can have multiple rights colliding against one another and it's a matter of sorting out which one takes priority.
Value pluralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_pluralism) is a function of ethical systems, not constitutions. It is a problem, but I don't know why you blame constitutions for its existence.

I'm not a fan of "interpretation". I think it misses the point entirely. I don't like ruleslawyering (nothing personal, that's the term) in gaming. Why would I like it in the rest of my society? A constitution should be about values and ideals, not about haggling over words in order to avoid productive debate entirely.
Sure, a constitution should be about values and ideals. Here's a value: if we expect people to follow the law, the law ought to be clear enough so people know what it says before they act. I submit that it is not fair to punish people for breaking a rule that's so vague they didn't even know what it demands.

Sounds like a perfectly good value to me. Problem is, upholding that value means we have to insist on clear laws... and if there's ambiguity in a law, we should give defendants the benefit of any reasonable interpretation that would have excused his conduct. Either that, or we have to spend a lot of time arguing very precisely what is and is not permitted. Congratulations, this perfectly reasonable value demands ruleslawyering.

How about considering two values now: first, the value that everyone should have to play by the same rules, and second, that the law ought to take into consideration different circumstances? These two values are pretty obviously in tension, since no two cases are ever exactly alike. There's always a degree of analogy being drawn in any comparison. So where's the line between "this is basically the same as that" and "this is totally different from that"? Again, even acknowledging that this tension exists puts you firmly in the realm of lawyering.

I know that ruleslawyering is the term in games, and I don't take it personally. But the reason ruleslawyering is bad in games is because the rules don't fucking matter: they are entirely arbitrary and exist solely to help people have fun, and every second spent arguing about the rules is not fun, so of course everyone hates ruleslawyering in games. In real life, however, the purpose of the law is not for everyone to have fun. Law is not entirely arbitrary. Getting something we accept as "the right answer" is the entire point of the enterprise.

[Bone]

I think where many of us laymen are frustrated is that lawyers can seem to create a right answer that doesn't make sense. I suppose we feel there is room to be dishonest within the letter of the law as long as you make a good legal argument. I'm sure not all lawyers do this but I have to assume it's why there's a negative stereotype associated. Sort of like when I did home computer repairs- there were some people who knew so little about computers that they were instantly suspicious, as if I were creating more problems so I could then charge more. Also how I feel about my auto mechanic.

Anyway, I come to bring mirth.

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/same-sex-marriage-judge-comic.jpg

[Ox]

I think where many of us laymen are frustrated is that lawyers can seem to create a right answer that doesn't make sense. I suppose we feel there is room to be dishonest within the letter of the law as long as you make a good legal argument. I'm sure not all lawyers do this but I have to assume it's why there's a negative stereotype associated.
Don't get me wrong: I absolutely agree with the general hatred of lawyers. The only major difference between me and the rest of the public is that my hatred is informed and carefully thought out.

I think what you're saying is that often the legal result is not what strikes you as the just result. I certainly agree with the sentiment, but you'll notice I didn't mention lawyers in that sentence. It's not possible to write a system of legal rules that's always going to perfectly satisfy all our ethical values in every case; that's what value pluralism means. Therefore, any set of legal rules is necessarily going to give results in some cases that strike some (maybe most) people as unfair. The lawyer who represented the side that won looks like a tricky dick. In reality, it's the fault of the people who idiotically insist that a set of laws written by men always give perfectly just results.

You say this is a negative stereotype and that not all lawyers do this. But I actually think all good lawyers (at least all good litigators) do this all the time. You analogize lawyers to auto mechanics and computer repairmen, but I don't really understand what you mean by it.

Let's take a very real example that cropped up in my practice. My client wanted me to sue a guy. I won't get into the nitty-gritty, but suffice to say I thought the guy was a real asshole and I was happy to take the case. Now, the law I wanted to use was written by some really liberal people and reflects their ideological preferences. Personally, I think the law is profoundly stupid and unjust and I'd be happy to lead the call for its reform. Even unjust laws can sometimes be put to good use, however, and this guy's actions would be illegal even if Rush Limbaugh had written the law. In any event, it's not my place to say to my client, "I'll take the case, but I won't make valid arguments I happen to dislike."

But now look at it from the other side: this defendant got sued and lost based on a technicality which even the other side's lawyer freely admits is stupid and unjust! I'm sure he'd put me in the "bad lawyers" category.

Alexis de Tocqueville said that an American lawyer "resembles the hierophants in Egypt, for like them he is the sole interpreter of an occult science." I think that's right. American law is complicated. Most people don't understand it. When lawyers explain it, people get angry and blame the messenger. You shouldn't be angry at the lawyers who make valid arguments for results you don't like. You should be angry with the ones who make invalid arguments but rely upon others' ignorance. You'd be amazed how often judges themselves don't know the most elementary principles of the law they're charged with interpreting, and how often I've seen lawyers confidently assert that such-and-such a case says something when in reality it says the exact opposite. But if you insist and people are under time pressure and the other side doesn't have a copy of the case in its sweaty hand to refute you, you'd be amazed what you can convince people of.

[National Kato]

Thread necro as I seemed to have missed this little piece of good news from yesterday:

Hawaii lawmakers approve civil unions for gay couples. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2011/02/hawaii_lawmakers_approve_civil_unions_for_gay_coup .php?ref=fpa)

It would make the Aloha State the seventh state to grant essentially the same rights of marriage to same-sex couples through civil unions or similar laws.

Five U.S. states and the District of Columbia issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. New Jersey allows civil unions.

"I have always believed that civil unions respect our diversity, protect people's privacy, and reinforce our core values of equality and aloha," Gov. Abercrombie said in a statement after the vote. "For me this bill represents equal rights for all the people of Hawaii."

[MagGnome]

That's certainly a step in the right direction. Thanks for sharing.

[aVaKus]

There has been a lot going on in the Prop 8 case too. Apparently the 9th Circuit has asked the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the proponents of Prop 8 actually have the right to defend it in court after the California Government refused to do so.

The Supreme Court will start hearing that on 3/14.

[Generation ABXY]

Hawaii lawmakers approve civil unions for gay couples. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2011/02/hawaii_lawmakers_approve_civil_unions_for_gay_coup .php?ref=fpa)

So... what's the over/under on how long it takes to get overturned?

[National Kato]

So... what's the over/under on how long it takes to get overturned?

I'm not sure what is needed to overturn it, but the House approved it, the Senate approved it 18-5, and Governor Abercrombie's going to sign it into law. Maybe our friends in paradise want it?

[MagGnome]

Hawaii is pretty liberal. It's Iowa that I'm worried about.

[J Arcane]

I'm not sure what is needed to overturn it, but the House approved it, the Senate approved it 18-5, and Governor Abercrombie's going to sign it into law. Maybe our friends in paradise want it?
God forbid.

[ShivaX]

Hawaii is pretty liberal. It's Iowa that I'm worried about.

I wouldn't worry too much. Iowa's Constitution isn't some fly-by-night California affair. Amending it is an extremely involved and long process. Not to mention most people forgot about it within a month of it happening.

I'm sure theres people out there trying to "fix" it, but they're under the radar. I'm also sure Zombie Brandstad would approve, but since its a Constitutional issue his influence doesn't mean shit.

[biosc1]

Interesting commentary in the paper today from 2 people who fought for the legal right to get married in our province. Ten years ago, it was a story if 2 men got married. Now you don't hear about it at all because it's a non-story. This was in response to some transgendered individuals seeking the right to use the ladies restroom (which I have no idea was even a big deal).

http://www.theprovince.com/opinion/letters/them+live+peace/4300085/story.html

Unfortunately, the critics have targeted another minority, the trans community, who only want to live as other Canadians, free to be the person they are.

[MagGnome]

I'm glad to hear that, ShivaX. I know a lot of Minnesotans that have gone down to Iowa to get married.

[Ink Asylum]

Support for gay marriage continues to grow, now a majority in another poll. (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/03/18/A_Majority_for_Marriage_Equality/)

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that a majority of Americans support marriage rights for gay couples.

According to the poll, 53% of respondents said that it should be legal for gay couples to marry. The majority support marks a double-digit shift from five years ago in the same poll, when 36% supported marriage equality.

The speed of the shift has really been remarkable. What it reflects is a tremendous number of people actually changing their feelings toward gay people. I predict that support will continue to grow at this rate until it stalls out around 60%, with a stubborn minority of older or conservative people remaining. Support will continue to grow but at a slower rate, as conservative opponents are gradually replaced by younger social liberals.

I look forward to a domino effect as many of the gay marriage bans in the states get overturned in the next decade or two.

[MagGnome]

The old and bigoted die, replaced by younger, more open-minded individuals. Gay marriage will likely be legal nationwide within my lifetime. Hopefully within the next five years, although it will likely take longer than that barring a major victory in the Supreme Court.

It's amusing watching the opposition become ever more shrill as they see their support on this issue eroding. Mike Huckabee's crazy rant about single mothers and gay marriage was both sad and hilarious.

[Ox]

Mags, exactly how many people do you think die in America each year? If public opinion is shifting this rapidly due to mortality, then we have bigger problems than the gay marriage issue.

[VerseD]

Old Baby Boomers die, young people of the lettered generations come of voting age, and statistics would agree with Mags that this makes a difference on the issue of gay marriage. Here's a graph of support for same-sex marriage by state and age, from 2008:

http://baselinescenario.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/age1.jpg

That's a 25% to 40% difference. Here's another interesting graph, showing how the commonly held cause of homosexuality has changed over time, with more people coming to realize that this is something you are born with, not something that you adopt by hearing about it in public schools.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2010/06/o2h-2pvhdk-in3-lwinf0g.gif

More education, open-mindedness, and exposure to homosexuality among young people means they are more likely support same-sex marriage than someone older, who may be less educated or aware of it. The numbers are not shifting rapidly enough to worry about a flux of dead senior citizens, or that anyone has suddenly changed an opinion. The rise in support has been a very gradual movement -- as gradual as a life, you might say.

[burger]

open-mindedness,.

I support gay marriage but I still laughed at this...news flash..not everyone who disagrees with you does so because they are "close minded"

[VerseD]

Someone who is straight who nevertheless can empathize with a different sexual orientation, see past differences, and will advocate for gay and lesbian couples to enjoy the same rights as straight couples -- that someone strikes me as more open-minded, more "inclined to respect views and beliefs that differ from your own," than the one who would deprive a minority of marriage for being different, wrong, or sinful. In one case there is understanding, in the other prejudice.

But you're right: I might use another word if I had another opinion.

[Superman's Dead]

I support gay marriage but I still laughed at this...news flash..not everyone who disagrees with you does so because they are "close minded"

But is there anyone who agrees with him that IS close-minded, and therefore isn't the other side more close-minded by definition (at least about this particular issue)?

I know I shouldn't post this, but I'm legitimately curious because this feels a little like a logic puzzle and I like words.

[J Arcane]

Boy am I tired of the "you're intolerant of intolerance" canard.

Can we just not go down that road?

[burger]

But you're right: I might use another word if I had another opinion.

How open minded of you :p

I once had a vegan tell me I was close minded for not realizing that it was the correct dietary lifestyle for humans.

I laughed then...I'm laughing now.

Like I said...I'm 100% in favor of gay marriage or practically any lifestyle that doesn't involve underage people...I believe I'm as socially liberal as they come but I've seen enough religious people and left wingers attempt to bolster their beliefs by accusing others of being "close minded", "racist", bigoted", "scared"....

Those are just argumentative crutches...I've had people accuse me of being close minded because I support the 2nd Amendment...yeah...that's clearly the only POSSIBLE reason. (coincidentally they were from Portland as well...I digress). Like I said before...just because someone else's opinion is different than yours doesn't mean they're close minded.

I guess the irony is that YOU'RE not open minded enough to realize that given the same facts others have come to a different conclusion and it isn't because they are closet nazis.

Boy am I tired of the "you're intolerant of intolerance" canard.

Substituting "intolerance" for "close mindedness" doesn't change the fact that it's a baseless and cheap dismissal of someone else's opinion.

[VerseD]

Open-minded is a word, and it has a meaning; sometimes it is used incorrectly, but we shouldn't be afraid to use it when the definition fits. In this case I explained how I meant it and how it applies to a population that is statistically more likely to oppose same-sex marriage. That doesn't mean I endorse the word's use in every argument, and it is a label overused in rhetoric.

You bring to bear an interesting point: all of us commonly criticize the psychology of our opponents in an argument ("bigoted," "prejudiced," "closed-minded," "frightened"), when it would be a cleaner dialog if we stuck to the facts. However, I think the tendency is more out of a need to understand our place among fellow humans, as strange a race as they are, rather than a tendency for the specious argument. We all come to our opinions through reasoning, and we wonder how anyone could disagree. But the argument is just as fallacious, no matter the intent, and I see what you mean.

[MagGnome]

Mags, exactly how many people do you think die in America each year? If public opinion is shifting this rapidly due to mortality, then we have bigger problems than the gay marriage issue.

Not enough. I for one am disappointed that the "Death Panels" that Palin and others claimed were a part of ObamaCare didn't become a reality. I would have liked a provision in the bill that ordered the immediate termination of everyone over the age of 45 as well as anyone who owns a gun, drives a Hummer, and/or shops at Wal-Mart.

[Ox]

Old Baby Boomers die, young people of the lettered generations come of voting age, and statistics would agree with Mags that this makes a difference on the issue of gay marriage.
I agree it may make a difference in the future, but little of the existing shift is due to generational changes. Fewer than 1% of Americans die every year. Even if you assume that only elderly, anti-gay-marriage people die and everyone who comes of age supports gay marriage -- which is untrue -- five years would see less than a 5% improvement in support for gay marriage. Instead, we see a 17% increase. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to comprehend that people don't die that quickly.

Not enough. I for one am disappointed that the "Death Panels" that Palin and others claimed were a part of ObamaCare didn't become a reality. I would have liked a provision in the bill that ordered the immediate termination of everyone over the age of 45 as well as anyone who owns a gun, drives a Hummer, and/or shops at Wal-Mart.
I recognize this is a joke. But you have to have some serious problems if you think it was a funny joke.

[MagGnome]

I recognize this is a joke. But you have to have some serious problems if you think it was a funny joke.

It was extremely sarcastic. It wasn't meant to be laugh out loud funny.

[VerseD]

I agree it may make a difference in the future, but little of the existing shift is due to generational changes. Fewer than 1% of Americans die every year. Even if you assume that only elderly, anti-gay-marriage people die and everyone who comes of age supports gay marriage -- which is untrue -- five years would see less than a 5% improvement in support for gay marriage. Instead, we see a 17% increase. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to comprehend that people don't die that quickly.

That's a good point. Other polls show a different gradient in the changing opinion -- less than two percent per year in the Pew Research polls -- but it is still more than the death rate. An analysis of the demographics of same-sex marriage politics from Columbia University (the source of the graph above (http://www.columbia.edu/~jrl2124/Lax_Phillips_Gay_Policy_Responsiveness_2009.pdf)) suggests that support for same-sex marriage increases at a faster rate once that support becomes more public and popular: a sort of snowball effect that catches and converts people within and beyond the usual age ranges.

The Columbia study also concluded, rather darkly, that these recent poll results will not mean actual, immediate policy change: "representative institutions do a poor job protecting minority rights even when the public supports the pro-minority position. . . . Responsiveness and congruence are high for salient [prominent] policies, but when policies are less salient, voters are less likely to get their way." Their analysis showed that for a less prominent issue, only a seventy percent majority of support would incite actual policy change. It is important to keep talking about this and not let it slide into the to-do pile.

[Ink Asylum]

A great blog post describing the complete 180 a conservative took from full-throated gay marriage opponent (he was behind the 2010 Summer for Marriage Tour which the National Organization for Marriage sponsored) to a gay civil marriage supporter. (http://louisjmarinelli.com/politics/i-now-support-full-marriage-equality)

Lastly, I came to understand the difference between civil marriage and holy marriage as in the sacrament of the Catholic Church. Let me rephrase. I understood that but either willingly chose not to accept it or just didn’t see it. Regardless, I see it now and the significance of that is as follows:

Once you understand the great difference between civil marriage and holy marriage, there is not one valid reason to forbid the former from same-sex couples, and all that is left to protect is the latter.

Indeed Christians and Catholics alike are well within their right to demand that holy matrimony, a sacrament and service performed by the Church and recognized by the Church, remains between a man and a woman as their faith would dictate. However, that has nothing to do with civil marriage, performed and recognized by the State in accordance with state law.

My name is Louis J. Marinelli, a conservative-Republican and I now support full civil marriage equality. The constitution calls for nothing less.

[Bone]

Good read, thanks Ink.

[MagGnome]

Common sense prevails. Thanks for sharing, Ink.

[Deadend]

That was a great read, it made me a bit sad that it took so long for the guy to really GET it, but glad that he did.

[National Kato]

Minnesota State Rep. Steve Simon's comment during discussion prior to a vote on a constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as between a aman and a woman.

hXpOA3jPC04

[Kelegacy]

Nice. But they aren't born that way remember? They are corrupted by the media and Satan.

I had an eerie discussion this past week at work. My department is only a small handful of people and half hate liberals and gays, think they are one in the same. I don't know how to respond when they start doing so. So I really don't.

There is no real solution to voluntary ignorance. Using religion as a crutch is pathetic. My coworkers say they are christian but then they talk about hate for other people and judge them. That isn't Christian is it? Being a Christian isn't a business card you carry in your wallet, it isn't a name tag on your shirt. Its a way of life. I can't imagine people LESS Christian than people that hate others they don't even know, on he grounds of something foolish as sexual preference.

Its sad I am more Christian than these people and I don't even go to church and I am agnostic.

The irony is both funny and sad.

[Ox]

Specifics of the matter aside, it's a little odd to declare yourself "more Christian" than someone else because you supposedly don't judge people. Evaluating someone else's Christianity is a judgment, too.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Minnesota State Rep. Steve Simon's comment during discussion prior to a vote on a constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as between a aman and a woman.

hXpOA3jPC04

His argument is really full of holes.

First off, I don't buy "born that way". This has nothing to do with the morality of the situation, but my super-amateur reviews of the science haven't led me to feel that this is justified by real scientific evidence. Obviously, there are biological factors that make someone predisposed to homosexuality (and tons of other things), but the little research I've done has shown a very poor case for this position. I think that homosexuality is largely "nurture", but in extremely complex ways that cannot be simply controlled, much as how I dare you to control the variables I was exposed to throughout my childhood and adolescence that made me like redheads.

This, however, in no way shape or form implies "choice" to feel a way. I did not chose to like redheads or big girls, only to marry one. :) Roughly, there's a false dichotomy of "genetic" vs. "chosen" at work here. Preference can easily be genetic without being chosen, and I really think that it would be odd for something as specific as finding certain types of complex interpersonal relationships appealing could never be fully explained without a large helping of "nurture".

Secondly, even were it an inborn trait, the presence of a behavior in a large percentage of the population in no way proves that this behavior should not be considered a sin in the Christian worldview. Being a drunkard is usually considered sinful, but having a predisposition towards alcholism isn't.

[Bone]

First off, I don't buy "born that way".How many gay people have you really known? I grew up with some people who knew (and we knew) before sex was even an issue. Like 3rd grade. Buy it or not... it's a pretty obvious truth when you have been exposed to it enough.


Secondly, even were it an inborn trait, the presence of a behavior in a large percentage of the population in no way proves that this behavior should not be considered a sin in the Christian worldview. Being a drunkard is usually considered sinful, but having a predisposition towards alcholism isn't.And what exactly proves that this behavior should be considered a sin in the Christian worldview? Excluding Leviticus, where even eating shrimp or not working out is considered sinful.

[OUX]

Wow, Orc. I didn't realize you were kind of dumb.

[Panthera]

Wow, Orc. I didn't realize you were kind of dumb.

The signs were all there, but we didn't heed them!

[TheFlyingOrc]

How many gay people have you really known? I grew up with some people who knew (and we knew) before sex was even an issue. Like 3rd grade. Buy it or not... it's a pretty obvious truth when you have been exposed to it enough.

Oh, OK. It's obvious. I had no idea.

First off, that's not even slightly an argument against nurture. 8 years is a logn time. Secondly, I believe that the correlation runs the other way - one of the most powerful social forces is "you become what people expect you to be". If you do not feel that you conform to social norms, you assume that you are unable to fill traditionally masculine social roles. This literally changes your psychology to be more likely to become homosexuality. Again, not a choice, but not genetic.

And what exactly proves that this behavior should be considered a sin in the Christian worldview? Excluding Leviticus, where even eating shrimp or not working out is considered sinful.
Various writings of Paul, specifically Romans, but I'm not putting forth a proposition here. I have read and understood the arguments that Paul's statements were within a specific cultural context, but I do not find them persuasive in the context of the Romans 1(or 2, I'm not remembering) passage, though I think they have great explanatory power for the other mentions of homosexuality in the New Testament.

This is the last I'm going to discuss this part of the issue, it's completely outside of my point and I have no desire to prove that homosexuality is a sin.

[TheFlyingOrc]

While biological determinism is a common mistake made by laymen, I wouldn't discount genetics having a majority effect on determining sexual preference -- at least on the very general scope of male vs female, not minuta like hair color. However, the jury is out on this one. It could all turn out to be like allergies, a largely environmental product during development.

Honestly, the jury really doesn't seem to be out. The studies seem to find somewhere between 15-35% of homosexuality being gene influenced with a high consistency.

edit: It's pretty funny that being familiar with the science, rather than the rhetoric, makes me "kind of dumb"! Hooray!

double edit: Wikipedia on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation) It's nowhere near a cut-and-dried case for genetics, and running unbiased studies is actually hard as hell for this subject due to things like self-selection and inconsistent self-identification, plus almost all studies are funded by groups with one of two opinions, I'll let you guess what those two opinions are.

[Panthera]

If you do not feel that you conform to social norms, you assume that you are unable to fill traditionally masculine social roles. This literally changes your psychology to be more likely to become homosexuality. Again, not a choice, but not genetic.

This is so far from 'being familiar with the science' that it's sucking vacuum somewhere near Pluto.

[TheFlyingOrc]

This is so far from 'being familiar with the science' that it's sucking vacuum somewhere near Pluto.

It's the "Exotic Becomes Erotic" theory from Dr. Daryl Bem, and it's in the article I just linked. What part of the science am I unfamiliar with?

edit: Clarification: It's a slight personal re-interpretation of Dr. Bem's theory. His theory is more "you become attracted to that which is different", whereas my spitballing theory is more about this happening due to feeling unable to fulfill a current role. My view isn't exactly in the science, but it's not outside of it, either.

[OUX]

No. Being familiar with science doesn't make you kind of dumb. Saying dumb things makes you kind of dumb. Maybe just dumb sounding, though I hesitate in getting into the philosophical ramifications of whether a person can be smart but say dumb things.

Like quibbling about "being born with it," when the discussion has only ever been about if it was a choice. It isn't. The causation is a point of trivia at best. Since it has been established that it isn't a choice, attacking someone's use of a generalized euphemism to represent that lack of choice via "they were born with it," as a logical hole in their argument is dumb. It is dumb because you attack the grammar of the statement rather than the conclusion or the spirit. The man sat there and dropped some humanity and common sense but he is wrong because scientist have categorical proven: We don't know yet.

To address your second statement, if it were an inborn trait blah, blah, blah. It would have to exclude homosexuality from being a sin if they are to keep the notions that God is infallible and/or benevolent. Both kind of big deals to the Christian mythos. If homosexuality is a sin and God doesn't want them, but there is a gay gene, he either made a mistake in the creation of their souls (which he can't do), or he created then specifically to burn in hell (which he wouldn't do).

[aVaKus]

Secondly, I believe that the correlation runs the other way - one of the most powerful social forces is "you become what people expect you to be". If you do not feel that you conform to social norms, you assume that you are unable to fill traditionally masculine social roles. This literally changes your psychology to be more likely to become homosexuality. Again, not a choice, but not genetic.

So....psychologically I'm a woman? Gotcha. Good to know.

[Bone]

Oh, OK. It's obvious. I had no idea.
When you've grown up knowing people who clearly do not fit the pattern you suggest, then yes, it's obvious. Some of these people I've known were traumatized by parents, teachers, peers all trying to "fix" them by modifying behaviors, trying to stamp the "gay" out of kids who didn't even know what sex was. But yeah, clearly it's all nurture.

[Blue]

So....psychologically I'm a woman? Gotcha. Good to know.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm 99% sure I am too. My wife stole my pants long ago.

[aVaKus]

If it makes you feel any better, I'm 99% sure I am too. My wife stole my pants long ago.

Lol

I lost

[J Arcane]

Oh, OK. It's obvious. I had no idea.

First off, that's not even slightly an argument against nurture. 8 years is a logn time. Secondly, I believe that the correlation runs the other way - one of the most powerful social forces is "you become what people expect you to be". If you do not feel that you conform to social norms, you assume that you are unable to fill traditionally masculine social roles. This literally changes your psychology to be more likely to become homosexuality. Again, not a choice, but not genetic.


Hello. My name is J Arcane. And I'm not gay, despite actually having tried fairly hard in my youth to the contrary, for precisely the reasons you specify.

Just because some kid's raised by his mommy, kind of effeminate, and the kids at school call him gay doesn't mean he's gonna grow up to suck cocks.

That you would suggest such a thing as a mechanism for homosexuality, and mask it in pseudoscience, is so utterly fucking bigoted I don't even know how to respond to it.

[Bone]

Listen, I was a wimpy, blond-haired, artistic, very sensitive kid growing up in Texas- and THAT didn't make me gay, despite the sometimes insistence of people around me. The power of suggestion (or expectation) is not a factor in what you become attracted to later. Orc's argument holds no water for me.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Like quibbling about "being born with it," when the discussion has only ever been about if it was a choice. It isn't. The causation is a point of trivia at best. Since it has been established that it isn't a choice, attacking someone's use of a generalized euphemism to represent that lack of choice via "they were born with it," as a logical hole in their argument is dumb. It is dumb because you attack the grammar of the statement rather than the conclusion or the spirit. The man sat there and dropped some humanity and common sense but he is wrong because scientist have categorical proven: We don't know yet.

It's the spirit of the statement I was addressing, as he specifically mentioned "I think that sexuality is something that is innate, and something that somebody is born with."

Perhaps I did examine the specific sentences more than the general point, but my intention was to point out how poor a job his arguments would do in dissuading his opponents. I may have accidentally expressed it so that it looked as if I was saying "A-HA! I have BEATEN THIS GUY!" Sorry. My intention was to point out that his argument could be a lot stronger.

Believe it or not, I agree with the guy Ink posted on the previous page that the government shouldn't be meddling with it.


To address your second statement, if it were an inborn trait blah, blah, blah. It would have to exclude homosexuality from being a sin if they are to keep the notions that God is infallible and/or benevolent. Both kind of big deals to the Christian mythos. If homosexuality is a sin and God doesn't want them, but there is a gay gene, he either made a mistake in the creation of their souls (which he can't do), or he created then specifically to burn in hell (which he wouldn't do).
Not really, as the presence of any sinful behavior-genetic linkage would imply the same thing, and nobody has ever proposed that alcoholism disproves God. It contradicts homosexual desire being considered sinful, but the belief from most theologians would be that the acts themselves are sinful, not the drive to commit them.

Furthermore, Calvinists would say that God created people specifically to burn in hell. I do not hang out with Calvinists.

@J Arcane - Read the Wikipedia I linked, at least:

A meta-analysis of 48 studies showed childhood gender nonconformity to be the strongest predictor of a homosexual orientation for both men and women.[35]

[Panthera]

It's unmitigated, unscientific bullshit that has a truthy feeling to him. I doubt we'll convince him otherwise.

edit: Do you know what 'predictor' means?

[J Arcane]

Listen, I was a wimpy, blond-haired, artistic, very sensitive kid growing up in Texas- and THAT didn't make me gay, despite the sometimes insistence of people around me. The power of suggestion (or expectation) is not a factor in what you become attracted to later. Orc's argument holds no water for me.
Exactly.

It's nothing more than taking a stereotype as fact and dressing it up in pseudo-scientific bullshit.

[TheFlyingOrc]

It's unmitigated, unscientific bullshit that has a truthy feeling to him. I doubt we'll convince him otherwise.

Can you provide some peer reviewed research, please? And again, Dr. Bem is a published scientist, several other studies support Exotic-becomes-erotic, and there's apparently 7 ongoing studies looking for gender-non-conformity triggering homosexuality. The studies sited were all meta-analysis of earlier studies, so obviously you'd want to have better ones that were actually asking the questions you want answered, but it takes a long time for little boys to grow up, so they're taking a while.

edit: Here's the abstract (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/31/1/43/) from the scientific journal I'm talking about.

And again, I've specifically said that the "failure to live up to expectations" bit is my own speculation as to mechanism, but the correlation is very strong. Are you suggesting that being attracted to men causes non-gender-conforming behavior?

double edit: At this point, Panthera, I think you're arguing against things I haven't said. I am attempting to clarify my stance better, but I am not claiming that being gender-abnormal is an instant gay pill.

[Panthera]

Can you provide some peer reviewed research, please? And again, Dr. Bem is a published scientist, several other studies support Exotic-becomes-erotic, and there's apparently 7 ongoing studies looking for gender-non-conformity triggering homosexuality. The studies sited were all meta-analysis of earlier studies, so obviously you'd want to have better ones that were actually asking the questions you want answered, but it takes a long time for little boys to grow up, so they're taking a while.

edit: Here's the abstract (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/31/1/43/) from the scientific journal I'm talking about.

And again, I've specifically said that the "failure to live up to expectations" bit is my own speculation as to mechanism, but the correlation is very strong. Are you suggesting that being attracted to men causes non-gender-conforming behavior?

double edit: At this point, Panthera, I think you're arguing against things I haven't said. I am attempting to clarify my stance better, but I am not claiming that being gender-abnormal is an instant gay pill.

You'd better outline your argument a bit more clearly, then, because it sure sounded like you were implying a direct causal relationship, all while citing studies that only showed a correlation.

You're going to have to do a lot better to explain how only a fraction (63%, according to Zucker) of homosexuals reported cross sex-type behavior if that was the primary cause.

[AniAko]

Can you provide some peer reviewed research, please? And again, Dr. Bem is a published scientist, several other studies support Exotic-becomes-erotic, and there's apparently 7 ongoing studies looking for gender-non-conformity triggering homosexuality. The studies sited were all meta-analysis of earlier studies, so obviously you'd want to have better ones that were actually asking the questions you want answered, but it takes a long time for little boys to grow up, so they're taking a while.

edit: Here's the abstract (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/31/1/43/) from the scientific journal I'm talking about.

And again, I've specifically said that the "failure to live up to expectations" bit is my own speculation as to mechanism, but the correlation is very strong. Are you suggesting that being attracted to men causes non-gender-conforming behavior?

You don't get it, this isn't a debate to discover the causes of homosexuality. The important question is DOES IT MATTER? Homosexuality isn't some new "disease" modern scientists need to set out to war with, discover its origin's and eradicate it. Homosexuality is nothing more than a scientific term some bigots turned into a buzz word to say "these people are different I don't approve of what they do and I want to make sure I can differentiate myself from them."

Does an "afflicted" homosexual brain experience love, devotion, security, commitment and loyalty? Those are the foundations of my marriage and I have the ability to express them in a legal and spiritual bond, a contract saying I am willing to share a life with someone, and my government puts laws honoring my marriage in place so I can exercise sharing the life with my wife with ease and liberties that should be granted to those making that kind of commitment. Why shouldn't the same be extended to anyone who shares those same emotions?

[Kelegacy]

I can't explain why I like girls. Because my parents taught me? They also taught religion to me but I now don't believe in any of that. Does that mean someday COULD become gay? Unlearning what mom taught me?

I think it's the same for gay folks. You can't explain it. We teach gender roles but there is a more basic sexuality thing going on we can't control. You can decide not to act on it (just like I COULD choose not to have sex with girls) but when you boil it all down, you can't escape what you really are.

[Bone]

Exactly.

It's nothing more than taking a stereotype as fact and dressing it up in pseudo-scientific bullshit.Did I mention I also hate football and pretty much all organized sports?

[Kelegacy]

Did I mention I also hate football and pretty much all organized sports?I don't mind shopping and I like my wife to drive instead of I. I wish we had enough money with her job that I could stay home and be a house husband with the kids.

[TheFlyingOrc]

You'd better outline your argument a bit more clearly, then, because it sure sounded like you were implying a direct causal relationship, all while citing studies that only showed a correlation.

When it comes to psychology, you've almost always only got correlation, not causation, due to the abstract nature of the science.

So, there's really 5 possibilities when there's correlation:
1. False correlation - complete happenstance. We'll assume this isn't the case with a well-run meta-analysis of 14 studies.

2. A phantom variable - Something that impacts both of them that hasn't been thought of. Obviously this could exist, but it would be difficult to say

3. A influences B - roughly, what I'm proposing - gender non-conformity greatly influences one to develop homosexual feelings

4. B influences A - homosexuality strongly influences gender non-conformity. This is the only one that I feel you could argue on, but I just don't see it. Homosexual desires, which a person doesn't develop really until they hit puberty, causes non-gender conforming behavior in 7 and 8 year olds?

5. Both 3 and 4 - They add to each other, much like obesity and despression "cause" each other. This is possible, but if you rule out either of the other ones, there's no need to consider this one any more.

Now, 63% is really, really high number for psychology, given that Obesity and Depression, one of the better-known correlations, says that:

obese persons had a 55% increased risk of developing depression over time, whereas depressed persons had a 58% increased risk of becoming obese.

So I think we can call the correlation VERY statistically significant. Any way you'd like to poke a hole in my logic (by attacking possibility 3, arguing for possibility 1,2, or 4, or suggesting a possibility I missed) would be appreciated.


You're going to have to do a lot better to explain how only a fraction (63%, according to Zucker) of homosexuals reported cross sex-type behavior if that was the primary cause.
I overstated, because this is the internet and I post quickly. I would appreciate a little bit of slack. I do believe that it's the speaker's responsibility to be understood on the internet, but it's pretty exhausting to try and post carefully enough to not make any communication errors. Also, I'd have to speak in Lojban.

[Panthera]

When it comes to psychology, you've almost always only got correlation, not causation, due to the abstract nature of the science.

So, there's really 5 possibilities when there's correlation:
1. False correlation - complete happenstance. We'll assume this isn't the case with a well-run meta-analysis of 14 studies.

2. A phantom variable - Something that impacts both of them that hasn't been thought of. Obviously this could exist, but it would be difficult to say

3. A influences B - roughly, what I'm proposing - gender non-conformity greatly influences one to develop homosexual feelings

4. B influences A - homosexuality strongly influences gender non-conformity. This is the only one that I feel you could argue on, but I just don't see it. Homosexual desires, which a person doesn't develop really until they hit puberty, causes non-gender conforming behavior in 7 and 8 year olds?

5. Both 3 and 4 - They add to each other, much like obesity and despression "cause" each other. This is possible, but if you rule out either of the other ones, there's no need to consider this one any more.

Now, 63% is really, really high number for psychology, given that Obesity and Depression, one of the better-known correlations, says that:



So I think we can call the correlation VERY statistically significant. Any way you'd like to poke a hole in my logic (by attacking possibility 3, arguing for possibility 1,2, or 4, or suggesting a possibility I missed) would be appreciated.

I think this summary of the possibilities is very poor. I find it very, very strange that you went through that much effort to state that there's a correlation there, which isn't in dispute. I wouldn't have given the 63% figure if I didn't believe that there was - the 63% is much higher than in the non-homosexual population. I'm kind of baffled by how you think the comparison to figures for obesity is remotely relevant.

Genes and the fetal environment have complex interactions and their effects often must be expressed as probabilities. There's no need to require that one must cause the other. Your 'phantom variable' is far from phantom. Just for example. (http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000262525)

I overstated, because this is the internet and I post quickly. I would appreciate a little bit of slack. I do believe that it's the speaker's responsibility to be understood on the internet, but it's pretty exhausting to try and post carefully enough to not make any communication errors. Also, I'd have to speak in Lojban.

Rather than chase moving goalposts, I think it's safe to say that your original statements were fairly stupid and move on.

[MagGnome]

Minnesota State Rep. Steve Simon's comment during discussion prior to a vote on a constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as between a aman and a woman.

A great video, thanks for sharing. I had friends who personally attended that vote, and suffice it to say that all of the gay men and women I know are very disappointed that the proposal passed.

I always hear talk of Minnesota being a friendly, progressive place where all kinds of people are welcome, and while that it sometimes true, there is a large number of conservative people in this state who continue to hold us liberals in the Cities back. There are many times where I wish Minneapolis could just split off and ditch the crazies. The crazies being people like Michelle Bachmann, of course.

It will be a sad day in Minnesota if this amendment lands on the ballot and passes. I foresee a lot of protests in the next few years. Several of my friends are already talking about leaving if it passes. I have friends who have gotten "married" in the last few years, but sadly it's not recognized by the state and they still have to fight for equal treatment under the law. It's not right.

[Hemalin]

4. B influences A - homosexuality strongly influences gender non-conformity. This is the only one that I feel you could argue on, but I just don't see it. Homosexual desires, which a person doesn't develop really until they hit puberty, causes non-gender conforming behavior in 7 and 8 year olds?

I'm not sure why you depend it on desires. I knew I liked girls when I was in kindergarten, even though I didn't know how this penis-vagina thing worked yet.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Genes and the fetal environment have complex interactions and their effects often must be expressed as probabilities. There's no need to require that one must cause the other. Your 'phantom variable' is far from phantom. Just for example. (http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000262525)

So, roughly, the idea behind this paper is that the same thing that causes gender-non conformity and homosexuality is something that occurs in the womb? It's unfortunate that the paper is behind a login.

It also seems somewhat contradictory to say that gender conformity and homosexuality have a strong correlation, environmental factors have almost no influence, and homosexuality and gender identity are divorced from each other, which appears to be the current advocate position.


Rather than chase moving goalposts, I think it's safe to say that your original statements were fairly stupid and move on.
I won't really accept that. I admit to the possibility of being incorrect, but you consistently attack my arguments with insult without providing actual data points to contradict them, and have had a pattern of doing so for a long time. Saying "he'll never change" without making even a token attempt to educate me, if I am ignorant, is flagrantly disrespectful, and I really wish you would stop doing it. I'm not Johan, dammit.

[Panthera]

So, roughly, the idea behind this paper is that the same thing that causes gender-non conformity and homosexuality is something that occurs in the womb? It's unfortunate that the paper is behind a login.

It also seems somewhat contradictory to say that gender conformity and homosexuality have a strong correlation, environmental factors have almost no influence, and homosexuality and gender identity are divorced from each other, which appears to be the current advocate position.
I don't see any contradiction here.

I won't really accept that. I admit to the possibility of being incorrect, but you consistently attack my arguments with insult without providing actual data points to contradict them, and have had a pattern of doing so for a long time. Saying "he'll never change" without making even a token attempt to educate me, if I am ignorant, is flagrantly disrespectful, and I really wish you would stop doing it. I'm not Johan, dammit.

Of course it's disrepectful. From reading your attempts to debate in P&R and elsewhere, I have little reason to respect you, both because of the positions you hold and the way you debate them. You're welcome to prove me wrong.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Of course it's disrepectful. From reading your attempts to debate in P&R and elsewhere, I have little reason to respect you, both because of the positions you hold and the way you debate them. You're welcome to prove me wrong.
There is literally no way to do this. I construct arguments to the best of my ability, attempt to present things as I understand them, but sometimes get overeager and "move in for the kill" when I do not actually have the logical ammunition to do so. If I am incorrect, you provide no opportunities for correction to occur, only insult.

And frankly, there is no time that it is appropriate to not bestow respect for the position held. I absolutely do not follow the pattern of behavior you suggest, and I have, on many occasions, come to a mutual understanding with someone I very strongly disagree with(hi, Ink!). Hell, BigJonno and I had a strong dislike of each other initially, but now I count him among my very good friends. Your treatment of me is rude, arrogant, and unwarranted. Even here, you simply say "the way you debate them" without giving any possibility for what should be done better. It is impossible for me to change my behavior to an abstract standard that you have in your head.

I am ready and willing to attempt to improve myself in whatever way you think I should, but first you must accept that men of good intent can have differing opinions.

[Bone]

I think that if, at any time in this thread, a gay forum member has said "I was simply born this way" you might take them at their word and not assume they don't know themselves well enough. That to me would show that you respect them regardless of what your logic tells you.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I think that if, at any time in this thread, a gay forum member has said "I was simply born this way" you might take them at their word and not assume they don't know themselves well enough. That to me would show that you respect them regardless of what your logic tells you.
I am very sorry, I truly am, but simply asking me to except an logical position based solely on things like "what someone believes in their heart of hearts", if I might paraphrase your meaning, isn't conductive to an argument. The one thing I cannot do, regrettably, is assume a position based on how those around me feel, no matter how strongly they feel them or how compelling their plea.

Were it a question with no scientific answer - "Do homosexuals have dignity, do they deserve rights?" Then we may discuss emotions and metaphysics. However, nature vs. nurture is, at its core, factual (though we may not have all the facts at this time). My interpretation of the evidence (which I'm mulling over after Panthera's earlier link, which had some challenging information) not only WILL not be swayed by whether some would find it offensive, I maintain that it SHOULD not.

[Bone]

Well, I suppose there may not yet be science sufficient to explain it, as you admit- and so why not accept the word of people who have given it a lot of thought? Who, by nature of their sexual preference, probably have to deal with the ramifications every day?

If nurture was so powerful, how come those "gay camps" don't work? Why can't awesome straight men like us "turn" lesbians? I hate to say it, but I do suspect you just don't like the answer that you are hearing. Sorry if that makes me rude.

[National Kato]

Orc is right, however, in that he is not Johan, dammit. Thankfully. ;)

[Panthera]

There is literally no way to do this.

To avoid this descending into a flamewar, I'll say that you could simply continue conducting yourself as you have here.

[Shieldmaiden]

I'll admit, I know fuck all about nature vs. nurture and how it applies to sexual preference. Frankly, it's not something that bothers me. Some people are gay, good for them, let's move on to shit that actually matters. (Just to be perfectly clear, gay rights most definitely matter, it's just that I see sexual preference as about as relevant to my feelings on, interaction with and opinions of a person as their hair colour, for example.)

With that out of the way, where is the scientific evidence for it being purely genetic? I figure if Orc is dumb and says stupid things despite being able to back them up with research, there must be some pretty compelling evidence to the contrary.

[aVaKus]

I think that if, at any time in this thread, a gay forum member has said "I was simply born this way" you might take them at their word and not assume they don't know themselves well enough. That to me would show that you respect them regardless of what your logic tells you.

Looking back through my life into my childhood, to my earliest self-aware memories, I've always known I was different. At the time I had no idea what that was, but I still knew something was up.

Remembering how I was raised and the environment I was brought up in, I can't imagine either of them being a factor in my sexual orientation. I was brought up on a farm in the middle of no where, West Virginia. My parents were stern, but loving, and my older sister harassed me endlessly. I spent my summers exploring the woods, slinging bales of hay into pickups, and playing baseball. I used to spend hours with my dad perfecting my fastball, curveball, and slider. I was feared in Little League as a pitcher and I loved it.

Fall coming meant it was time for hunting and butchering beef cattle. When I was 7, while I wasn't firing a gun, I was out on the hills with my dad, carrying the recently deceased squirrels he had shot. Not long after that that I was allowed to start carrying a gun myself. For deer hunting, I always preferred a bow and arrow and a muzzle loader to the normal high powered rifles. Much more sporting and a lot more skill required. As for butchering...well watching countless steers bleed out after taking a bullet to the head and having their throats slit has a way of staying with you. I don't eat beef to this day.

In Winter, when I was 6, I was entered into wrestling (bingo, here's why he's a Mo....but I despised it. I did it because my parents wanted me to.), which luckily only lasted a few years. As for chores, when I became old enough, it was always my responsibility to feed the cattle. Imagine an 8 year old lugging a bale of hay bigger than him across a frozen field to a bunch of hungry livestock.

Springs were spent working in the gardens, running a rototiller, and planting all varieties of crops.

We went to brainwashing, I mean church, every Sunday. Here, it was beat into me (not literally) that there wasn't anything worse in this entire world than being gay. And I did my best to be a good little Xtian boy for mommy and daddy. (sorry, there is a whole lot of bitterness here, moving on...)

(despite the previous statement) My family was always close and I have no memories of my mother being overbearing and my father being absent from my life. In fact it was quite the opposite.

There is countless more things I could say about my childhood/upbringing but I'm not going to bore anyone else any further with that. I just wanted to give some examples as I really can't describe it as anything but a normal "masculine" childhood. I've never had trouble accepting the typical "male" roles. Sure there were roles I didn't like that I was expected to (like football and fishing) but everyone has their likes and dislikes.

Despite all of this, when I got to high school, I catch myself checking out boys. So really the only explanation I can give is that I was indeed "born this way."

[OUX]

Were it a question with no scientific answer - "Do homosexuals have dignity, do they deserve rights?"
This is the question. It has always been the question. The science and religion have always been a smoke screen of rationalization to people that think they provide solid, irrefutable answers to alleviate their guilt from not being decent human beings. The curve of history will step on their throats, will show them as monsters. It has happened with every other social rights movement and it will happen here too.

[Ox]

If nurture was so powerful, how come those "gay camps" don't work? Why can't awesome straight men like us "turn" lesbians? I hate to say it, but I do suspect you just don't like the answer that you are hearing. Sorry if that makes me rude.
Isn't there a big difference between saying that a psychological phenomenon is caused by environmental factors and saying that we can deliberately manipulate it?

It's reasonably well-established that there are a host of physical aspects which are affected by environmental factors -- for example, not getting enough folic acid as a fetus raises your chances of spinal bifida.* Force-feeding a spinal bifida patient with folic acid after birth will not cause his spine to close. A lot of what happens during development causes a sort of "lock-in", and reversing the effects of development often are very difficult or impossible.

Not to mention, "gay camps" appear to be little more than telling gay people not to be gay. Claustrophobia is probably entirely environmental and might even be reversible, but I doubt many psychologists would say shouting, "Don't be afraid of closets!" is a good way to cure claustrophobia.

I don't know enough about the science to say whether homosexuality is purely genetic like eye color or a more nuanced combination of genetics and occult developmental influences. But you seem to assume that all developmental influences are reversible in adulthood, which is not the case.

* Yes, spinal bifida is a pathology. I do not mean to say that homosexuality is a pathology. Unfortunately, almost all variations from a supposed human "norm" are considered pathologies, so I'm at a loss for examples.
This is the question. It has always been the question. The science and religion have always been a smoke screen of rationalization to people that think they provide solid, irrefutable answers to alleviate their guilt from not being decent human beings.
I, for one, am just genuinely curious about humanity, including the causes of why we are different in such profound ways. I understand some people have pretended to be curious as a smokescreen, but I really am curious. If you don't care about the question, you don't have to engage it.

[OUX]

I am curious too. I think what makes people who they are, what sticks and what doesn't and how it all gets molded together in a tight, sentient package is fascinating. Those answers, however intriguing, are never cause for denying someone their dignity or rights. Whatever makes a person who they are still makes them human and that is what needs to be addressed. My reference to the smokescreen is in response to people passing off their responsibility for their opinions to institutions.

[Ox]

I am curious too. I think what makes people who they are, what sticks and what doesn't and how it all gets molded together in a tight, sentient package is fascinating.
When you say things like "The causation is a point of trivia at best", I tend to doubt you are genuinely curious about that "trivia." Ditto when you start declaring that the science of the cause of homosexuality has "always been a smoke screen" employed by "monsters" and history will "step on their throats." These are not terms one generally uses when one is curious about exploring an issue.
Those answers, however intriguing, are never cause for denying someone their dignity or rights.
Eh... if you could demonstrate some trait was the consequence of deliberate conscious decisions a person made after reaching the age of reason (e.g., cancer being the result of a deliberate decision to smoke cigarettes), it might be a justification for treating someone differently. Of course, this is irrelevant to the current discussion, since (a) nobody here is proposing to deny anyone their dignity or rights, and (b) nobody here thinks homosexuality is the result of deliberate conscious decisions made after a person reaches the age of reason.

[Bone]

Isn't there a big difference between saying that a psychological phenomenon is caused by environmental factors and saying that we can deliberately manipulate it?

I was being a bit facetious, as I tend to do. But I don't think anyone has shown how a lack of folic acid (or anything like that) has caused homosexuality. Most of the arguments for nurture I've seen appear to be based on social constructs or expectations. But like you said, the science is murky as it relates to this area.

[Ox]

But I don't think anyone has shown how a lack of folic acid (or anything like that) has caused homosexuality.
Wasn't there a study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation) that suggested excess estrogen production in utero is linked to homosexuality? That link also alleges that "stress" during pregnancy is linked to pregnancy, which would also be a non-genetic factor.

One study is not proof, etc.

[OUX]

When you say things like "The causation is a point of trivia at best", I tend to doubt you are genuinely curious about that "trivia." Ditto when you start declaring that the science of the cause of homosexuality has "always been a smoke screen" employed by "monsters" and history will "step on their throats." These are not terms one generally uses when one is curious about exploring an issue.

Eh... if you could demonstrate some trait was the consequence of deliberate conscious decisions a person made after reaching the age of reason (e.g., cancer being the result of a deliberate decision to smoke cigarettes), it might be a justification for treating someone differently. Of course, this is irrelevant to the current discussion, since (a) nobody here is proposing to deny anyone their dignity or rights, and (b) nobody here thinks homosexuality is the result of deliberate conscious decisions made after a person reaches the age of reason.

To be fair, I said the curve of history will show them as such, not that they are. Once a social injustice (completely subjective term) has been toppled the people fighting for the status quo are usually regarded as such. The plantation owners demanding their right to slaves, the men and women that tried to block women's suffrage etc. The hindsight of history never casts these people in a good light. Regardless, science is always a smokescreen in these issues. Whether it is pro issue or not. The science used to say that African Americans weren't as smart as everyone else because their brains were smaller. Was it good science, no but that is what the scientist said. If they conclusively prove (not saying they will) that there is a gay gene and they are gay from birth so they shouldn't be discriminated against... so what? It is still a failure on our part as a free people to look at what the question is and remain: Are we being just to the individual?
My curiosity to the issue is just that. Curiosity. Discovering how something works, how behaviors are formed, why things turn out like they do is important and should be pursued. However; practicality has to take priority over exploration. If a building is on fire do they try to get people to safety or figure out how it started first? If they find a cause for homosexuality, then "curing" it is an entirely different argument. What is on the table to us, now, is a portion of the population that exists today is being denied a right everyone else enjoys, even abuses.

I actually thought about including a conditional about willful actions in my previous post but came to your conclusion as well. Also, I know we (as a community, fully taking the guilt myself) keep throwing around science like it is some amorphous blob of unanimous decisions, when in reality much of it is as contradictory as anything else. Like if we said politics says *fill in the blank*. Scientist are making claims and presenting evidence not science. There is no reason to believe that they aren't just as wrong now as some scientists were 100 years ago. And while that isn't a damnation of their finds we need to keep the perspective of "This is what we think we know right now," and lose the concept of it being a gilded shield of correctness.

[Panthera]

Wasn't there a study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation) that suggested excess estrogen production in utero is linked to homosexuality? That link also alleges that "stress" during pregnancy is linked to pregnancy, which would also be a non-genetic factor.

One study is not proof, etc.

Wouldn't that cause an endless loop of recursive pregnancies?

[Ox]

However; practicality has to take priority over exploration. If a building is on fire do they try to get people to safety or figure out how it started first?
That's a pretty ridiculous analogy. Does the study of the causes of homosexuality materially slow acceptance of homosexuality? This isn't a case of one or the other: our society is capable of engaging in a variety of pursuits simultaneously. Otherwise, I could condemn the gay-marriage crusade as a needless distraction from the pressing and far more important battle against the house fire undoubtedly raging somewhere in America right now. Do you think gay marriage is more important than children burning to death?
What is on the table to us, now, is a portion of the population that exists today is being denied a right everyone else enjoys, even abuses.
I always find it interesting when people who view marriage as a purely social construct accuse others of "abusing" it. There's an awful lot of normative freight in there that begs for unpacking.
Wouldn't that cause an endless loop of recursive pregnancies?
This would be a good time to point out I am high as a fucking kite.

[Superman's Dead]

You guys know Ox. When he's on drugs he goes RIGHT for the burning children metaphors.

[MagGnome]

I just want to get married so that I can get two dogs and move to the suburbs.

[OUX]

That's a pretty ridiculous analogy. Does the study of the causes of homosexuality materially slow acceptance of homosexuality? This isn't a case of one or the other: our society is capable of engaging in a variety of pursuits simultaneously. Otherwise, I could condemn the gay-marriage crusade as a needless distraction from the pressing and far more important battle against the house fire undoubtedly raging somewhere in America right now. Do you think gay marriage is more important than children burning to death?

I always find it interesting when people who view marriage as a purely social construct accuse others of "abusing" it. There's an awful lot of normative freight in there that begs for unpacking.

This would be a good time to point out I am high as a fucking kite.

Accept it isn't. It relates directly to there being a situation affecting people and an appropriate priority response. Your straw man (come ox you knew that) extrapolation of the analogy doesn't make sense however, because now you are questioning whether the firemen will stop at this particular burning house or drive to the next one because it is deemed more important. And while you don't address the priorities of whichever house they choose to stop at, you suggest that it is possible to investigate the fire and save people at the same time. And I am a little shocked that you, a lawyer, would even suggest that. Did the marriage restriction bills pass and both allow and deny gay marriage at the same time? We can do both right? It is a question of the laws being passed not a question of private industry investigating it.

And while I always appreciate your patented brand of pondering condescension to flatly dismiss part of a post to open ridicule, you have no idea what I think about the institution of marriage because I haven't told you. Any normative baggage about marriage is going to be held by the people rejecting it on the grounds that it is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. And we both know that the institution of marriage has been abused more times than a perpetual 12 year old red-headed locked in Roman Polanski's basement.

[Ox]

Accept it isn't. It relates directly to there being a situation affecting people and an appropriate priority response.
Explain to me how TFO asking about the cause of homosexuality on a videogame forum has any influence on US government policy regarding gay marriage. Is the Supreme Court checking out the P&R forum to figure out how to judge the DOMA litigation?
Your straw man (come ox you knew that) extrapolation of the analogy
It's an argument ad absurdum, not a strawman. If you think I was seriously claiming that you are in favor of letting kids burn to death, rather than simply highlighting the invalidity of your analogy, you should calm down.

And while you don't address the priorities of whichever house they choose to stop at, you suggest that it is possible to investigate the fire and save people at the same time. And I am a little shocked that you, a lawyer, would even suggest that.
Funny, because I, a lawyer, have actually had a case in which a literal house fire broke out and police investigated the cause of the fire even as firefighters attempted (unsuccessfully) to rescue the children within. I'm not speaking metaphorically anymore, this is an actual event that actually happened. I was not scandalized by the simultaneous investigation-and-rescue, because (a) there's a limit to how many people can work to fight a single fire without getting in each other's way and (b) the individuals who investigated the fire (police) were not trained in or capable of fighting a fire. There was no real trade-off; both actions could proceed simultaneously without inhibiting each other.

I am now taking your poor analogy very literally, but I think I can circle it around to demonstrate (yet again) that your underlying claim is meritless. Just as in my house fire, there are an awful lot of people thinking about and discussing aspects of homosexuality. Those people have different skill-sets: I would be little use in exploring the scientific causes of homosexuality, just as a scientist would be of little use in exploring the constitutional basis for discriminating against homosexuals. There's no trade-off in letting scientists explore the causes even as lawyers consider the legal issues, because the scientists would be useless and in fact would just get in our way. TFO, so far as I'm aware, is completely useless on both fronts. So long as the serious people ignore him, as I believe they do, he can putter around discussing whatever he likes without holding either group back.
I just want to get married so that I can get two dogs and move to the suburbs.
If that's the only reason you want to get married, I have good news: single gay men are also allowed to get two dogs and move to the suburbs. Bon voyage! ;)

[Panthera]

If that's the only reason you want to get married, I have good news: single gay men are also allowed to get two dogs and move to the suburbs. Bon voyage! ;)

No, I'm pretty sure there's a screening procedure in place. And that's without even mentioning the spring-loaded plates at the entry to every subdivision that eject all cars below a certain weight.

[Banacek]

I always forget that there are people who don't think that homosexuality isn't a genetic trait. I wonder what they're going to do with themselves when it's proven that free will is just an illusion when compared to genetic disposition.

[MagGnome]

No, I'm pretty sure there's a screening procedure in place. And that's without even mentioning the spring-loaded plates at the entry to every subdivision that eject all cars below a certain weight.

I wish it was the opposite way, where people from the suburbs had to pay a heavy toll to enter the city. I'm tired of the suburbs having such a large say in city issues here in Minneapolis. Suburbanites bitch and moan about the county spending money on public transportation, city projects, etc., yet at the same time 160,000+ of them drive into the city for work each day. They complain about how all of the good restaurants are in the city, about how they have to pay to park their giant SUV, about how they have to enter the city to visit museums, etc. I've heard these complaints several times before. You know what? You can always stay out in the suburbs, eat at Olive Garden, go to the mall, park your SUV at Wal-Mart for free, and leave us city-slickers alone!

Ahem, I'll get off my soapbox now. :p

[Banacek]

Mags, there are people out there that don't like you just because they are ignorant and uneducated. I hope you never get off your soapbox :)

[MagGnome]

Mags, there are people out there that don't like you just because they are ignorant and uneducated. I hope you never get off your soapbox :)

I want a big fancy balcony that I can shout from just like Evita.

Is that gay? :p

On another note, I'm really tired of the whole "born with it/choice" argument when it comes to homosexuality. The real issue is gay rights. Gay people should be allowed to wed, period.

[J Arcane]

I want a big fancy balcony that I can shout from just like Evita.

Is that gay? :p

On another note, I'm related tired of the whole "born with it/choice" argument when it comes to homosexuality. The real issue is gay rights. Gay people should be allowed to wed, period.
Even if being gay is a choice, it remains an infringement on freedom of choice to deny gay people the same rights as everyone else.

It also remains irrelevant because that choice is only seen as bad by a particular fraction of the population, with no real proof as to why it's bad other than "it's icky" and "my religion says so", which is no reason to infringe upon one's freedom of choice.

The "debate", such as it is, is a smoke screen, used to support ideas that are ultimately unsavory for other reasons anyway.

[MagGnome]

Even if being gay is a choice, it remains an infringement on freedom of choice to deny gay people the same rights as everyone else.

It also remains irrelevant because that choice is only seen as bad by a particular fraction of the population, with no real proof as to why it's bad other than "it's icky" and "my religion says so", which is no reason to infringe upon one's freedom of choice.

The "debate", such as it is, is a smoke screen, used to support ideas that are ultimately unsavory for other reasons anyway.

Exactly.

Besides, religion is clearly a choice, yet discriminating against a person based upon his or her religion is generally frowned upon. Whether or not being gay is a "choice" (and I firmly attest that it is NOT a choice) is totally moot when it comes to the gay marriage debate.

[Ox]

Besides, religion is clearly a choice, yet discriminating against a person based upon his or her religion is generally frowned upon.
Is it? I'd disagree with both halves of that sentence. Anyone here want to try sincerely adopting a different religion for a while, let us know how effortless that 'choice' is? People can and do change their religions, but that's different from belief being mutable at will. I'm not certain belief is any more deliberately mutable than sexual orientation is.

As for the second half -- this thread (http://colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=18742) and this thread (http://colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=21523) suggest it's perfectly okay to discriminate against some religions, at least in certain contexts. Unless you want to claim only governments can discriminate.

[Banacek]

Is it? I'd disagree with both halves of that sentence. Anyone here want to try sincerely adopting a different religion for a while, let us know how effortless that 'choice' is? People can and do change their religions, but that's different from belief being mutable at will. I'm not certain belief is any more deliberately mutable than sexual orientation is.

As for the second half -- this thread (http://colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=18742) and this thread (http://colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=21523) suggest it's perfectly okay to discriminate against some religions, at least in certain contexts. Unless you want to claim only governments can discriminate.

Hey Ox, do you support equal rights for gay people to get married or not? No legalese, I just want to know what you think personally.

[MagGnome]

Is it? I'd disagree with both halves of that sentence. Anyone here want to try sincerely adopting a different religion for a while, let us know how effortless that 'choice' is? People can and do change their religions, but that's different from belief being mutable at will. I'm not certain belief is any more deliberately mutable than sexual orientation is.

Do you really think that it isn't easier to change one's religion than it is to change one's sexual orientation?

Being religious (and following a certain religion) is certainly more of a "choice" than your race, sexual orientation, eye color, etc. I really don't see how that couldn't be the case.

The Westboro Baptist "Church" is a terrible example. They deliberately antagonize people and act like a bunch of pricks. People don't hate them because they are Christian. They hate them because they are pricks. I'm sure this could be stated in a more eloquent fashion, but dinner and a glass of beer are calling my name.

[Ox]

Hey Ox, do you support equal rights for gay people to get married or not? No legalese, I just want to know what you think personally.
I support gay marriage. I've said (http://colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=226210&postcount=1062) so in this very thread, although that was approximately 1000 posts and two years ago so I don't blame you for not remembering.

Do I support "equal rights for gay people to get married"? You asked me not to get into legalese, so the only answer I can give is "That is a different question from whether I support gay marriage, and I'm not sure about the answer to that question."
Do you really think that it isn't easier to change one's religion than it is to change one's sexual orientation?

Being religious (and following a certain religion) is certainly more of a "choice" than your race, sexual orientation, eye color, etc. I really don't see how that couldn't be the case.
Okay, then do me a favor. Become a conservative Catholic for the next week. Oppose gay marriage, secularism, abortion, and the vernacular Mass. Hold these views sincerely for seven days. If you can do that, I'll concede you're right.
The Westboro Baptist "Church" is a terrible example. They deliberately antagonize people and act like a bunch of pricks. People don't hate them because they are Christian. They hate them because they are pricks.
People don't hate WBC because they are Christian, they hate WBC because they have a particularly cruel and twisted form of Christianity. You seem to think there's a distinction between WBC's prickishness and their theology, but everything you identify as evidence they are pricks is grounded in their sickening theology. It's not possible to be a sincere and devout WBC member and act like an Episcopalian.

[Banacek]

I support gay marriage. I've said (http://colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=226210&postcount=1062) so in this very thread, although that was approximately 1000 posts and two years ago so I don't blame you for not remembering.

Do I support "equal rights for gay people to get married"? You asked me not to get into legalese, so the only answer I can give is "That is a different question from whether I support gay marriage, and I'm not sure about the answer to that question."

I apologize. I honestly was just asking for your opinion. This thread is so old that I do forget what base opinions people have.

[Shieldmaiden]

Being religious (and following a certain religion) is certainly more of a "choice" than your race, sexual orientation, eye color, etc. I really don't see how that couldn't be the case.

You're on very shaky ground here. You're grouping homosexuality with physical genetic characteristics and excluding religious belief based on what evidence? Following a specific set of religious teachings is a choice, but I'd argue that it's a choice on a similar level as choosing to have sex with someone of the same gender; it's simply choosing to act on something that is an intrinsic part of who you are.

I'd agree that religious belief is probably more mutable than sexual preference, but it isn't as simple as just picking a sect from a list. Getting someone who genuinely, balls to bone believes in God to stop isn't any easier than getting someone to stop being gay.

[Banacek]

This. This is dumb.

Edit: I just want to pick up my avatar and play Sonic the Hedgehog every time I see it. Back to your regularly scheduled programming. WHO IS SERVING DRINKS!?!

Edit2: To be extra clear: He used 'disposition' to describe proving free will is a false hypothesis which just means a complete lack of understanding of one or both concepts involved.

I'm shocked that someone on the internet decided to be snarky instead of actually explaining himself.

[Banacek]

Oh ok. No worries then. Thanks for the reply, I enjoy when I learn something new.

[Shieldmaiden]

Biological determinism is a pretty serious issue to bat down with extreme prejudice both for gays, women, and any other genetically differential group. There's a rather compelling article by Fehr about biological determinism and feminism that spells out many of the pitfalls of being stuck on the wrong end of that stick -- although I'm sure you are familiar with more than your fair share of them.

I hunted that article down, it's pretty interesting.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Do you really think that it isn't easier to change one's religion than it is to change one's sexual orientation?

Actually, the recent literature has suggested that for men, it is extraordinarily unlikely that they can "choose" their sexual orientation, but that, shockingly enough, women's sexuality is a lot more fluid.

I'm not intimately familiar with the studies (I'll try to look them up tomorrow, that sounds hella boring tonight), but I believe the base is that they've found that gay men aren't turned on by herosexual stimuli, straight men aren't turned on by homosexual stimuli, but women are turned on by sexual situations/imagery regardless of the couplings involved.

NOTE: This is obviously not true for all women or all men, it's a strong statistical correlation. Also, my source on this is somebody who is a staunch LBGT supporter.

[Gwinny]

Actually, the recent literature has suggested that for men, it is extraordinarily unlikely that they can "choose" their sexual orientation, but that, shockingly enough, women's sexuality is a lot more fluid.

I'm not intimately familiar with the studies (I'll try to look them up tomorrow, that sounds hella boring tonight), but I believe the base is that they've found that gay men aren't turned on by herosexual stimuli, straight men aren't turned on by homosexual stimuli, but women are turned on by sexual situations/imagery regardless of the couplings involved.

NOTE: This is obviously not true for all women or all men, it's a strong statistical correlation. Also, my source on this is somebody who is a staunch LBGT supporter.

I've read articles about the same cluster of studies. And one that suggested audio cues are very important, to the extent that human females can be stimulated by the sounds of bonobos mating. Ehehe. (Don't recall if they tried the same thing with men. Must try to find that article.)

I've heard female sexuality described as a "moving target". From personal experience (someone who identifies as a gq bio-female, quite flexible, mad crushing on men/women/other)... *shrug* No bonobos, though.

[Ox]

I'm not intimately familiar with the studies (I'll try to look them up tomorrow, that sounds hella boring tonight), but I believe the base is that they've found that gay men aren't turned on by herosexual stimuli, straight men aren't turned on by homosexual stimuli, but women are turned on by sexual situations/imagery regardless of the couplings involved.
I've always been slightly skeptical of such studies (although I want to believe!) simply because male arousal is measured by gauging the extent to which a guy gets a chub on. I have vivid memories of some embarrassing pre-calculus classes which would suggest I have a fetish for cosines.

[Bone]

Indeed, my turn-ons may include wind, boredom, and the smell of bacon.

[LordDon]

I have vivid memories of some embarrassing pre-calculus classes which would suggest I have a fetish for cosines.

Plot that wave, GOD YES, plot that wave!

[TheFlyingOrc]

I've always been slightly skeptical of such studies (although I want to believe!) simply because male arousal is measured by gauging the extent to which a guy gets a chub on. I have vivid memories of some embarrassing pre-calculus classes which would suggest I have a fetish for cosines.

Fair enough - I know that "all homophobes are secretly gay" studies have been flawed as hell because their evidence was related to male arousal signs, primarily in the genitals. However, anger/hatred/repulsion ALSO causes men to get what are scientifically called "hella boners". So, basically, the study found "men who are mad get mad".

The important thing is not that you get false positives - you wouldn't expect false positives, it's not a big surprise when you show a man porn and he gets an erection. However, when you show a gay man straight porn, he DOES NOT get an erection, and a man not getting an erection is a notable event, indeed!

[Panthera]

I actually spent a year working for a company that made penile plethysmographs. I do believe that there is enough science there to determine someone's sexuality with a hefty margin of error in men. The equivalent device (vaginal probe) is nearly useless for women. However, those devices are mostly used in dubious ways with regards to legal matters and detecting and treating pedophilia. I'm happy to not be working there any more.

[Ink Asylum]

Sexuality is so complicated and people are so inundated with porn and sexualized imagery these days that I find it hard to take seriously any study with such simple methods of testing.

[VerseD]

I'm not intimately familiar with the studies (I'll try to look them up tomorrow, that sounds hella boring tonight), but I believe the base is that they've found that gay men aren't turned on by herosexual stimuli, straight men aren't turned on by homosexual stimuli, but women are turned on by sexual situations/imagery regardless of the couplings involved.

I remember they talked about a study like this on Loveline. Dr. Drew had participated. The researchers flashed different images at their subjects and monitored the activity of the brain. They found that, among heterosexual men, the neuron light show responding to the most grotesque images matched the response to those images depicting gay intercourse -- a feeling of gut-wrenching disgust and aversion that even Dr. Drew admitted to displaying, with noble reluctance. It is instinct, he said.

They always maintained on Loveline that while women could try either side, there was no such thing as a bisexual man -- "Yeah you're bi," Adam Carolla would say, "as in 'Bye bye girls.' "

(I reflect that most of my definitions of gender and sexual identity that do not come from personal experience seem to come from this radio show.)

[National Kato]

Mags, congratulations (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-9-2011/minneapolis-is-the-new-gay).

[biosc1]

Mags, congratulations (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-9-2011/minneapolis-is-the-new-gay).

Is it bad that I thought the same thing? Especially when I saw the Target bit.

[Ink Asylum]

They always maintained on Loveline that while women could try either side, there was no such thing as a bisexual man -- "Yeah you're bi," Adam Carolla would say, "as in 'Bye bye girls.' "

I hate when otherwise smart and sexually progressive people promote the theory that a man can't be bisexual.

[J Arcane]

My brother is bisexual.

I couldn't do it though. I'm capable of emotional attraction to other guys, but the sexual element just squicks me right the fuck out.

[MagGnome]

Mags, congratulations (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-9-2011/minneapolis-is-the-new-gay).

Yes, thanks. :p That video has been plastered all over my Facebook feed all day. As you can imagine, everyone here is quite excited.

Personally, having visited San Francisco two months ago, I would argue that it seemed a heck of a lot more gay to me than Minneapolis does. Granted there is a HUGE gay population here in Minneapolis, but we have nowhere near the number of gay bars, businesses, etc. that San Francisco has, or even Chicago for that matter. There are 7-8 gay bars here (and I use the term "gay" loosely with one of them that is the equivalent of a gay zoo for straight people), two "gay" stores (one sex shop and one sex/novelty shop), and one "gay" coffeehouse, two if you count the Dunn Bros. in Loring Park that has a majority gay clientele but doesn't do anything to promote itself as such. Compare this to San Francisco or Chicago, both of which have large neighborhoods full of all sorts of gay bars, clubs, businesses, etc.

Anyway, I realize I am over-analyzing a Daily Show sketch, but that ranking seems heavily flawed to me. Sure, there are many gays in Minneapolis, but San Francisco certainly has a more cohesive gay community, and I would be shocked if it wasn't much larger than the one here as well.




Um...wow....anyway....the video is quite amusing. I've never seen either of those guys before, but they definitely seem like many of the gay people here in Minneapolis, myself included. We are often compared to Portland for a reason. :p

The shot of them shopping at Target was both hilarious and somewhat awkward as well, since there is currently a movement among some gays and lesbians here to boycott Target because of some of their political contributions.

[Panthera]

I'm jealous. Kingston has half the population and zero gay bars.

[MagGnome]

I'm jealous. Kingston has half the population and zero gay bars.

Come to Minneapolis and we can hit the bars! :)

[MagGnome]

The next 18 months are going to be a really emotional time for gay Minnesotans, and a really ugly time for Minnesotans in general. There are large protests taking place at the State Capitol all week as the House is set to make the final vote today on whether or not a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (which is already illegal, fyi) would be placed on the ballot next year. My friends and I are all pretty torn up about it, as you can imagine. Here's an article highlighting the protests yesterday:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/122271819.html

[Shieldmaiden]

It's pretty sickening. I can't quite get my head around despising homosexuality so much that you'd want a rule preventing gay marriage to be written into the Constitution.

[Ink Asylum]

Yey another poll showing majority of support for gay marriage. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx) Not just civil unions, but marriage, with the same rights as heterosexual marriage.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vqf79nrpfewws7ibh-1u-q.gif

I have to say that popular opinion is changing faster than I expected.

[Shieldmaiden]

That's quite a dramatic swing over the last year.

[National Kato]

What the hell happened between '04-'06 and '07-'09? Did 'teh gayz' do something too fabulous and piss off a bunch of people?

[Ink Asylum]

Presidential Elections.

[MagGnome]

There's a relatively small chance that the House will vote against the proposed amendment, with a couple of Republicans saying that they are opposed to it. Hopefully it is voted down today.

This may well be the last chance to get such an amendment on the ballot, so opponents of gay marriage have been out in droves gearing up for this.

[Ink Asylum]

An interesting note from the Gallup poll:

Democrats' and independents' support for legalized same-sex marriage increased this year by 13 and 10 points, respectively. Republicans' views on the issue did not change from last year. Clear majorities of both Democrats and independents now support gay marriage, 69% and 59% respectively, contrasted with 28% support among Republicans.

[TheFlyingOrc]

What the hell happened between '04-'06 and '07-'09? Did 'teh gayz' do something too fabulous and piss off a bunch of people?

Well, in 06 they changed the wording of the question being asked, which can totally change your responses in ways you wouldn't expect.

[Ox]

There's also the fact that gay marriage became dramatically more likely in that period, as shown by stuff like Prop 8. There's nothing like a 'threat' becoming credible to get people to start taking it more seriously.

[MagGnome]

Well after a long and very painful debate in the House amid many protests at the State Capitol, the anti-gay marriage amendment will be on the ballot in 2012 (http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/122401039.html). A sad day for all gay men and women in Minnesota, and for the state as a whole.

Meanwhile our state government is set to shut down (http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/122396569.html), as (many) Republicans (and a few Democrats) would rather focus on building a new stadium for the Vikings and ensuring that gay people can't get married rather than pass a fair budget for the state.

Also, the entire gay marriage amendment was nearly derailed when a hateful pastor gave the morning prayer (http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/122373944.html) in the state house on Friday.

The election next year is going to be a bloodbath. -_-

[MagGnome]

I've read that first article twice now, and this part has moved me to tears both times:

Freshman Republican Rep. John Kriesel, an Iraqi war veteran, broke with his party early this session by clearly, publicly and passionately proclaiming the amendment was wrong.

On the House floor Saturday, GOP Rep. Tim Kelly, who also opposes the amendment, pressed him for his story. Kriesel, who has become a hero among amendment opponents, told his colleagues that he lost his legs in an explosion during combat patrol. He wanted to defend his country and help the oppressed, he said.

Hours later, he returned to stand on his prosthetic legs to tell his colleagues of Andrew Wilfahrt, whose photo Kreisel distributed. Wilfahrt was a Minnesota soldier, killed in Afghanistan. He was gay.

"I cannot look at this picture ... and say 'you know what, Corporal, you were good enough to fight for this country and give your life, but you were not good enough to marry the person you love,'" Kriesel said.

"This amendment doesn't represent what I went to fight for," Kriesel said.

"Hear that out there?" he said of the cheers that arose when he and other opponents spoke. "That's the America I fought for and I'm proud of that."

He said he would have pressed a "Hell No" button if he had one.

[biosc1]

Also, the entire gay marriage amendment was nearly derailed when a hateful pastor gave the morning prayer (http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/122373944.html) in the state house on Friday.


Angry people are angry. Honestly, with that type of anger, I like to always think that they are a closet homosexual who are angry at being unable to understand their own feelings...

...but that track suit... ick. :D

[OUX]

I am probably more upset that there was a prayer at all.

[J Arcane]

Dean, who heads a ministry he calls "You Can Run But You Can't Hide," has caused uproars before, saying homosexuals should be jailed and making comments that appear to support their execution.

Oh for fuck's sake. Way to be totally transparent, Republicans.

[MagGnome]

I am probably more upset that there was a prayer at all.

Right? There shouldn't be a prayer, period, let alone from such a hateful, spiteful man.

[MagGnome]

Yeah....

http://flexapic.com/g.ashx?id=6912

[Kelegacy]

Oh man, that is awesome.

[evilgoodwin]

That's... not the response I would expect...

[torrefaction]

Oh for fuck's sake. Way to be totally transparent, Republicans.

Way to be generalize a whole group of people for one asshole.

That's really pretty fucked up.

[J Arcane]

Somebody picked him, and I really doubt it was the Democrats.

[VerseD]

Way to be generalize a whole group of people for one asshole.

That's really pretty fucked up.

All thirty-seven Republicans in the Minnesota Senate voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Not one Republican opposed it.

What's ironic about this preacher is that all he did was put to voice the unspoken homophobia behind every "defense of marriage" act; and now that this is out in the open, and they cannot silently and stoically cast an unexplained vote, politicians are suddenly afraid to support their ban.

[MagGnome]

Oh man, that is awesome.

Err..."awesome" is not how I would choose to describe it. "Fucked up" seems more fitting to me.


Somebody picked him, and I really doubt it was the Democrats.

I would be interested to know who selects the pastor/religious person who gives the morning prayer and the process behind that. Most Republicans rushed to distance themselves from the prayer and the preacher after they were given, but SOMEONE obviously invited the guy there and must have known how bigoted he is. A quick Google search shows that the guy has said many gems over the years regarding gay people, including that homosexuals should be jailed and possibly even put to death. This wasn't a secret.


All thirty-seven Republicans in the Minnesota Senate voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Not one Republican opposed it.

Thankfully two Republicans in the House opposed the bill (although a few Dems in the House and Senate were in favor, ugh). Those two Republicans are being treated as heroes now in the gay community.

[Shieldmaiden]

I'm assuming that Kel is referring to the poster itself, as opposed to the information it represents.

[Ox]

SOMEONE obviously invited the guy there and must have known how bigoted he is.
You'd be surprised how half-assed most state legislators take stuff like that. Not that that is a whole lot of excuse, but I wouldn't be surprised if some constituent said, "Hey, this guy should give the prayer!" and shockingly little checking was done.

[OUX]

I wouldn't be surprised at all. In fact, that is my expectation.

[Kelegacy]

I'm assuming that Kel is referring to the poster itself, as opposed to the information it represents.

Right, I meant it as an "awww, burn," sort of thing. The irony. I mean, my God.

Marrying my father's brother's daughter. My uncles daughter. That's fucked up. We're fine with that sort of thing, but marrying a non-relative consenting adult isn't. Ha.

[MagGnome]

You'd be surprised how half-assed most state legislators take stuff like that. Not that that is a whole lot of excuse, but I wouldn't be surprised if some constituent said, "Hey, this guy should give the prayer!" and shockingly little checking was done.

You are most likely correct.


Right, I meant it as an "awww, burn," sort of thing. The irony. I mean, my God.

Marrying my father's brother's daughter. My uncles daughter. That's fucked up. We're fine with that sort of thing, but marrying a non-relative consenting adult isn't. Ha.

I knew what you meant. I was just ribbing you.

[biosc1]

My mom told me about her day today. She went to the hospital for her friend's retirement party. One of the guys there (who is much younger) told her he was finally getting married to his boyfriend.

Everyone congratulated him. End of story.

It's strange. We're so over "it" here. I suppose it was an issue ages ago, but it literally feels like it was the stone age when people got upset about it.

Of course, we still have the fringe who are upset about it, but they really are the fringe now that are upset and it's no longer the fringe that is fighting for the right.

I guess it just pisses me off when I still hear these stories like the one above. There has got to be more important things to do in one's day to day life than to get upset about two consensual adults who want to get married.

[Shrinn]

There are more important things. Did you hear Jimmy Bob Doucherknocker found a piece of paper frmo heaven that says the apocalyspe is on Smarch 32nd 2021? Let's all pay attention to that!!!

[MagGnome]

Great post, biosc1. Thanks for sharing.

[Shieldmaiden]

Interesting news item on Eurogamer. (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-05-27-allods-holding-article)

Players can now also opt to marry in-game, providing a boost to maximum health along with an ability to resurrect their soul-mates should they fall in battle. Unique to the European version of the game, players of the same sex will be able to marry.

[Panthera]

...why did they only put it inthe European version? That's a bit of a strange choice.

[VerseD]

To please the French? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/01/gay-mcdonalds-ad-in-franc_n_596361.html)

[TheFlyingOrc]

Yeah....

http://flexapic.com/g.ashx?id=6912

All the genetics research shows there are virtually no consequences for marrying your cousin, unless it is done many, many times within the same family. Furthermore, the natural "disgust" at the sexualization of relatives has been shown to be a result of being raised together, not of being genetically linked - large groups of children raised in commune type situations together do not consider each other sexual partners. Even moreso, brothers and sisters raised separately often find themselves attracted to each other, though it is DEFINITELY a bad idea for direct siblings to reproduce.

More or less, this picture is guilty of the same "hatred because it is icky" that it's mocking others for having.

[Bone]

Maybe the states that have laws against cousing-marryin' needed laws against it. Just saying.

[Shieldmaiden]

...why did they only put it inthe European version? That's a bit of a strange choice.

Exactly. I'm not sure if it's a case of them going by whatever's legal in the majority of each territory, or if they thought it might harm the product in the US. Either way it's fucking stupid.

[OUX]

Interesting news item on Eurogamer. (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-05-27-allods-holding-article)

I love these kinds of things because you know 90% of those are arranged marriages by the guild leader to promote group competency.

"But I don't looove him."

"You'll do it. You'll do it because you have a duty to the guild. Haven't you been well treated? Didn't you get your enchants at cost?"

"Well... yes."

"Good. We need to down the last boss, and that healer keeps stepping in the fire. The marriage will bring great strength and honor to us."

[Shieldmaiden]

I love these kinds of things because you know 90% of those are arranged marriages by the guild leader to promote group competency.

"But I don't looove him."

"You'll do it. You'll do it because you have a duty to the guild. Haven't you been well treated? Didn't you get your enchants at cost?"

"Well... yes."

"Good. We need to down the last boss, and that healer keeps stepping in the fire. The marriage will bring great strength and honor to us."

Bloody brilliant. :D

[MagGnome]

Like.~~~~~

Fo' shizzle.

[Shieldmaiden]

For the record, I'd totally get gay married for phat lewtz and a raid spot.

Yeah, you lot have fun with that. :p

[MagGnome]

In other words, you're looking for a sugar daddy?

This site cracks me up, but it may come in handy:

http://www.seekingarrangement.com/

[MagGnome]

Time to toss in my cards.

I haven't browsed the site in a while, but the last time I looked it was filled with:

A) Wealthy, older straight men seeking pretty young women.

and

B) Young gay men seeking sugar daddies.

There are some young women on there, but the disparity between the sugar daddies and the potential sugar babies really cracked me up.


Edit - I just browsed some of the profiles, and they are just as hilarious as they were the last time I poked around there.

[MagGnome]

What are my chances of finding a hot older sugar momma?

I just looked through some of the Sugar Mommies on the site, and nearly all of them are looking for other women. :eek:

Many of them are smokin' hot too.

[MagGnome]

What the fuck? I wonder if I can work a deal since I have the frame of a woman.

Maybe if I agree to make them look smart at social events.

There is actually a woman in LA looking for a "companion" to attend social functions with her. I'd link you directly to her profile, but the site seems to be down at the moment.

[Doogie2K]

It's strange. We're so over "it" here. I suppose it was an issue ages ago, but it literally feels like it was the stone age when people got upset about it.

It's also been legal here for several years now. The social conservatives lost back in '04 or whenever, and like abortion, no one's willing to reopen the debate because they'll piss off the centre that decides elections. Thus, everyone had ample opportunity to get used to it, and now very few people give a shit either way. How perfectly civilized and reasonable.

[Ink Asylum]

Fuck Tracy Morgan (http://unicornbooty.com/2011/06/tracy-morgan-threatens-to-kill-his-son-if-gay-during-homophobic-tirade-onstage/)

30 Rock star and former SNL alum Tracy Morgan’s June 3rd stand-up routine drove offtrack, and eventually off a cliff when the comedian went on a homophobic tirade while onstage in Nashville, Tennessee. Morgan reportedly attacked President Obama for supporting the LGBT community, called homosexuality a choice, and even threatened to stab his own son to death if he ever came home from school and told his father he was gay.

-Mr. Morgan took it upon himself to mention about how he feels all this gay shit was crazy and that women are a gift from God and that “Born this Way” is bullshit, gay is a choice, and the reason he knows this is exactly because “God don’t make no mistakes” (referring to God not making someone gay cause that would be a mistake).

-He said that there is no way a woman could love and have sexual desire for another woman, that’s just a woman pretending because she hates a fucking man. He took time to visit the bullshit of this bullying stuff and informed us that the gays needed to quit being pussies and not be whining about something as insignificant as bullying.

I've never found Tracy Morgan funny and now I have even more reason to dislike him.

[biosc1]

The higher you are, the further you fall.

[Khrymsyn]

How is Tracy Morgan saying crazy shit news?

[Shrinn]

“if gays can take a dick up their ass, they can take a joke.” thereby upsetting all gays who don't do anal.

EDIT: I just noticed that site is called unicornbooty.com. I laughed and laughed.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Fuck Tracy Morgan (http://unicornbooty.com/2011/06/tracy-morgan-threatens-to-kill-his-son-if-gay-during-homophobic-tirade-onstage/)



I've never found Tracy Morgan funny and now I have even more reason to dislike him.

I like him on 30 Rock, but his standup has always been offensively unfunny, regardless of whether or not this is unfunnily offensive. :)

[muddi900]

Tracy Morgan is insane?

Shocking!

[J Arcane]

How is Tracy Morgan saying crazy shit news?

This time it might get him fired, so no one has to see him on the TV anymore?

Were I a richer man, I would personally pledge to donate a rather large sum of money to a gay bullying charity for every time the man appears on TV.