Topic: Marriage Equality
started by: TheCatt
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 28 2013,06:00
So I'm sure everyone (except TPR's) FB is overflowing with red squares with a pink equals. So a couple of weeks ago, my daughter told me she wanted to marry me (awwwww). I explained I was already married to mommy, she may meet someone later, etc, etc. I asked if she want to marry mommy, and she said "Daddy, that's silly, girls can't marry other girls." So I explain that in some places they can, etc, etc. "But daddy, two girls cannot make a baby." So then I explained that they could adopt, or just not have children, etc.
This morning it came back up again during breakfast, but this time Allie brings up "Then could 3 girls get married together?"
Me: This is why government shouldn't get involved.
So what's the next step? Red squares with 3 equal signs for polygamy? If marriage is between any two consenting adults, why not 3?
Wanted to ask the marriage equality their thoughts on that, but then i also didn't want my FB overrun with politics.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 28 2013,06:57
I was having this conversation at lunch yesterday. I'm all for gay people having the right to be married, but I'm going to draw my line in the sand at 2 consenting adults.
Nobody should be allowed to marry their horse, their TV, or their robot (until they become recognized sentient beings...), etc. Nor will I be ok with multiple adults in a legally binding relationship.
Sorry, but at some point a line does have to be made. As stated above, animals, children, inanimate objects, all prove that point.
Why am I drawing mine at multiple adults?
I don't know. I honestly don't give a shit if multiple consenting adults want to live together. I just think it creates unnecessary hassles and costs for employers and government entities. Thus, once someone's lifestyle begins to create a negative impact upon everyone else, that's where I draw the line.
Multiple adults in a legal relationship creates actual problems that aren't fair for other people to have to deal with. For example:
-Joe has a wife and 1 kid. Joe works as a programmer for Microsoft. Microsoft pays just under $20,000 a year for Joe and his family's medical insurance.
-Bob has 4 wives, 2 husbands and 12 kids. Bob works as a programmer for Microsoft. Microsoft was paying around $100,000 annually for Bob and his family's medical insurance. This made Bob unemployable. Bob and his whole family now live on government assistance, and he doesn't even bother to look for a job as nobody will hire him.
I'm sure that's probably a dumb example, but it showcases the concern.
Posted by thibodeaux on Mar. 28 2013,07:22
As soon as enough black/brown polygamists get together and decide that outlawing polygamy is RAAAACIIIIIIIIST, we'll get polygamy.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 28 2013,07:24
I think everyone should be as miserable as everyone else. Allow anyone to get married to anyone or anything. Makes no difference to me.Except make sure divorces hurt everyone as much, too. One of them loses half their money, one of them loses the kids, etc.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 28 2013,07:29
QUOTE
Nor will I be ok with multiple adults in a legally binding relationship.
I assume more than 2? And why not?
QUOTE
I honestly don't give a shit if multiple consenting adults want to live together. I just think it creates unnecessary hassles and costs for employers and government entities.
Yeah, and we wouldn't want to call those dudes out on their insanity or stupidity.
QUOTE
Thus, once someone's lifestyle begins to create a negative impact upon everyone else, that's where I draw the line.
That's a rather vague definition. What's "negative?" How much of "everyone else" do you need before it's enough people?
QUOTE
Multiple adults in a legal relationship creates actual problems that aren't fair for other people to have to deal with
The examples you provide are due to corporate or gov't entities engaging in stupidity to cover up for stupidity engaged in by everyone else. MacroShaft just ought to pay Bob cash and not deal with his fucking insurance. In the second exaggerated part, maybe Bob shouldn't have a dozen dependents. Maybe some of their lazy asses should get a job and chip in. It's the same reason you shouldn't have a wife and ten kids when all you got is the third shift at 7-11. Fuck, even with a six figure income, it's not easy to support that many other people in this country.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 28 2013,07:57
QUOTE
Except make sure divorces hurt everyone as much, too. One of them loses half their money, one of them loses the kids, etc.
It'll be interesting to see if the courts continue their bias towards women by siding with the more feminine partner in gay marriages.
QUOTE
And why not?
Thought I explained it.
QUOTE
their insanity or stupidity.
That's interesting. Is this correct or the first example of "ignorance" towards the "multiple partner relationship" movement?
QUOTE
That's a rather vague definition. What's "negative?" How much of "everyone else" do you need before it's enough people?
Two gay people getting married negatively affects nobody.
6 consenting adults getting married affects their employer, government agencies that deal with them (argue about whether or not they should be elsewhere), the neighborhood they live in (property values decline due to all the fucking kids and cars, schools who have to figure out who can legally pick up the kids, etc.
If you sit down and think about it, legally identifying more than 2 consenting adults in a legally binding marriage is a logistical nightmare.
Is that enough to say they shouldn't be married? Yes.
Why? Because fuck those selfish assholes. Gay people getting married is a no brainer. Our infrastructure and processes doesn't need to adapt, people do. For multiple partner relationships, everything needs to change from forms, to insurance plans, to the way hotel rooms are rented out, to the way benefits are paid, and the list goes on forever.
QUOTE
MacroShaft just ought to pay Bob cash and not deal with his fucking insurance.
Obamacare
QUOTE
In the second exaggerated part, maybe Bob shouldn't have a dozen dependents. Maybe some of their lazy asses should get a job and chip in. It's the same reason you shouldn't have a wife and ten kids when all you got is the third shift at 7-11. Fuck, even with a six figure income, it's not easy to support that many other people in this country.
It's cute how you ignore the fact that there are guys knocking up women all over the fucking place without a care in the world about who will be paying for the kids.
If we have people making kids in our current environment just to get a bigger check from the government, what makes you think Bob and his family wouldn't do the same?
And what if they're Catholic?
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 28 2013,08:23
QUOTE
If you sit down and think about it, legally identifying more than 2 consenting adults in a legally binding marriage is a logistical nightmare.
...
Our infrastructure and processes doesn't need to adapt, people do.
...
Our infrastructure and processes doesn't need to adapt, people do.
Fuck no. Other way around. The "logistical nightmare" you're talking about comes from the fact that all societal shit is based around the "two person" rule. Hell, even that derives from simple biology, but it's been broken down to nothing more than a practicality in various parts of the world. It's given a thin veneer of sanctity in this country. I say "thin" because while we pay lip service to it (due to cultural tradition), we've shit all over it. Trading Spouses. Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? Las Vegas 15-minute wedding chapels. I'm perfectly willing to watch the tradition get shattered.
QUOTE
Is that enough to say they shouldn't be married? Yes.
I disagree with that claim. Saying, "It's too hard," isn't a good enough excuse.
QUOTE
Obamacare
Another fucking horrible idea and example of wanton stupidity.
QUOTE
It's cute how you ignore the fact that there are guys knocking up women all over the fucking place without a care in the world about who will be paying for the kids.
Uh, I never denied such things go on. I fail to see how it plays into this argument. If you're a gas pump attendant who's got ten different kids by ten different women, then you get to deal with the fallout, just like your ten baby mamas. That's still a different scenario than a hypothetical group marriage.
QUOTE
If we have people making kids in our current environment just to get a bigger check from the government, what makes you think Bob and his family wouldn't do the same?
Yet another example of the gov't doing something where it should just stay the fuck still.
QUOTE
And what if they're Catholic?
.... sarcasm overload .... cannot process all my snide comebacks at once.... whew. Better now. Here's a couple...
1) god will provide
2) his yoke is easy and his burden is light
3) "And then Jesus said, 'Relax, don't do it, when you want to come.'" It's somewhere in one of the Gospels. Or 1980s, maybe, I get them confused.
But seriously, they're following their religion of their own free will. Nowhere does the constitution guarantee that every religion makes life equally easy. It guarantees we aren't going to discriminate against you on the basis of it. If you want to follow a two thousand year-old creed and say it's 100% applicable to today because you want to get into the high rise in the eternal paradise of the afterlife, then go for it.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 28 2013,09:12
I fight like hell wherever I can for gay marriage equality. Once that is done, I will likely fight like hell wherever I can for polyamorous marriage equality. Probably not quite as hard. But some.Why should consenting adults not be allowed to live their lives in the way they see fit, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else?
And no, I have yet to see a valid reason in this thread. "Because I don't like it" is never a good enough reason to limit someone else's liberties. "Because it will make someone's job in government difficult" is just as much of a bullshit reason, and in fact I consider that an argument in favor of whatever it is because we need to be making their job harder at every opportunity, IMO. The example about Bob is much more an argument about limiting the number of children people can have than it was about polyamorous marriage, and China has done a pretty good job of showing us how bad an idea that is.
I'm going to need to see some decent reasons before I'd begin to think it's a valid point of view. The default position should always be more liberty for citizens, not less, unless there's a damn good reason to stick your nose into their lives and tell them how to live. This is not an autocracy, nor a communist paradise, this is America.
America is supposed to be better than that.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 28 2013,09:19
QUOTE
The "logistical nightmare" you're talking about comes from the fact that all societal shit is based around the "two person" rule. Hell, even that derives from simple biology, but it's been broken down to nothing more than a practicality in various parts of the world. It's given a thin veneer of sanctity in this country.
Just like other societal shit like English, getting a driver's license, paying your bills, actually having citizenship to receive things funded by and for citizens, etc.
You can paint such things as being throw away, but I'd like to remind you of two things. First, you called those who would join in multiple adult partnerships insane and stupid, so please don't take a counter position to your own views. Second, at the end of the day, no matter what society says, a man and a woman make a baby. No other combo works. Thus, you can base laws on that (in regards to the welfare of the child, and his/her primary guardians...no matter who they end up being), and not worry about values changing from generation to generation.
QUOTE
I disagree with that claim. Saying, "It's too hard," isn't a good enough excuse.
Not what I'm saying.
I'm saying it's too expensive, and fuck your lifestyle if we have to adapt to it. It actually affects those around them. Living next to Tom and Peter and their 2 adopted kids is a far cry from living next to George, Mary, Helen, Steph, Amy, Angel, Frank, Pablo, Barry, Other Barry, Staci, Liz, etc. and their 30 kids.
Hell, occupancy laws alone dictate that their MUST be a limit at some point. Don't fuck with fire safety.
QUOTE
Another fucking horrible idea and example of wanton stupidity.
I don't disagree with that, just pointing out how your argument is ignoring fact. Microsoft can't give Bob cash instead of paying for his insurance.
QUOTE
Uh, I never denied such things go on. I fail to see how it plays into this argument. If you're a gas pump attendant who's got ten different kids by ten different women, then you get to deal with the fallout, just like your ten baby mamas. That's still a different scenario than a hypothetical group marriage.
Because of your quote here:
QUOTE
In the second exaggerated part, maybe Bob shouldn't have a dozen dependents. Maybe some of their lazy asses should get a job and chip in. It's the same reason you shouldn't have a wife and ten kids when all you got is the third shift at 7-11. Fuck, even with a six figure income, it's not easy to support that many other people in this country.
You started it.
You're saying that these people need to show some responsibility, and I'm pointing out that it's not going to happen because it doesn't happen now.
People mock the Duggars and their 19 kids, but the thing people seem to forget is that they can afford them.
Meanwhile, the Octomom is living off the government and making Spaghetti-O porn because she had a procedure specifically to have a fucking litter of kids.
And again, every single adult in Bob's household that gets a job runs into the insurance issue. Do we force them all to get jobs that don't require the employers to provide insurance? Are we now infringing on their rights to find a good job? Will employers finally draw the line here and stop providing insurance because of selfish assholes like Bob and his 9 wives/husbands? (If it cuts into the bottom line, yes.)
That hurts ALL of us. Thus, fuck Bob and his multiple partner relationship.
QUOTE
Yet another example of the gov't doing something where it should just stay the fuck still.
Take that to the Obama thread. Stay on topic here. Argue how Bob's multiple adult partner relationship won't affect things that actually exist, not how those things shouldn't exist.
QUOTE
.... sarcasm overload .... cannot process all my snide comebacks at once.... whew. Better now. Here's a couple...
1) god will provide
2) his yoke is easy and his burden is light
3) "And then Jesus said, 'Relax, don't do it, when you want to come.'" It's somewhere in one of the Gospels. Or 1980s, maybe, I get them confused.
But seriously, they're following their religion of their own free will. Nowhere does the constitution guarantee that every religion makes life equally easy. It guarantees we aren't going to discriminate against you on the basis of it. If you want to follow a two thousand year-old creed and say it's 100% applicable to today because you want to get into the high rise in the eternal paradise of the afterlife, then go for it.
1) god will provide
2) his yoke is easy and his burden is light
3) "And then Jesus said, 'Relax, don't do it, when you want to come.'" It's somewhere in one of the Gospels. Or 1980s, maybe, I get them confused.
But seriously, they're following their religion of their own free will. Nowhere does the constitution guarantee that every religion makes life equally easy. It guarantees we aren't going to discriminate against you on the basis of it. If you want to follow a two thousand year-old creed and say it's 100% applicable to today because you want to get into the high rise in the eternal paradise of the afterlife, then go for it.
I don't think you understood what I was saying there because you wrote a LOT of stuff for a one liner (a joke) about condom usage.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 28 2013,09:32
QUOTE
a man and a woman make a baby. No other combo works.
< It's the base minimum >. Other combos work.
QUOTE
People mock the Duggars and their 19 kids, but the thing people seem to forget is that they can afford them.
Meanwhile, the Octomom is living off the government and making Spaghetti-O porn because she had a procedure specifically to have a fucking litter of kids.
Meanwhile, the Octomom is living off the government and making Spaghetti-O porn because she had a procedure specifically to have a fucking litter of kids.
The first case is something I consider insane to the Nth degree, but I'm not going to prohibit others from chasing down that dream if they want, and they demonstrably can do it. In the second case, that woman is a powerful argument for forced, involuntary sterilization. Some people can't handle crack when they smoke it, some people can't handle their own reproductive organs.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 28 2013,09:39
QUOTE
Once that is done, I will likely fight like hell wherever I can for polyamorous marriage equality.
And I'm sure you'll line up to argue that a can should be able to marry his TV legally, and his employer should have to pay for its repair bills. I mean, who is he hurting?
And I'm saying that for humor, but honestly, when multiple adult partnerships become law, what do you think will be next? And don't say there won't be a next because that's just stupid. There is ALWAYS a next. Where will you throw your line?
QUOTE
Why should consenting adults not be allowed to live their lives in the way they see fit, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else?
They can, but why does everyone else have to foot the bill? How is that fair?
QUOTE
"Because I don't like it" is never a good enough reason to limit someone else's liberties.
Who said that?
And I'm all for people doing what they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. However, I think lines need to be drawn once their actions, beliefs, whatever DO begin to hurt others or their community.
We do NOT have an argument there. The argument is whether or not multiple adult partnerships harm us or not. I say they do, but I'm strictly speaking financially.
I do not think our community/nation should foot the bill to force a group to be able to exist. You're forcing everyone else to accept those beliefs, not the people.
I believe it's the same logic as asking legal and illegal immigrants to learn the language here instead of us paying millions upon millions to create bilingual forms, signs, etc.
QUOTE
"Because it will make someone's job in government difficult" is just as much of a bullshit reason, and in fact I consider that an argument in favor of whatever it is because we need to be making their job harder at every opportunity, IMO.
Nobody is saying that either.
QUOTE
The example about Bob is much more an argument about limiting the number of children people can have than it was about polyamorous marriage, and China has done a pretty good job of showing us how bad an idea that is.
Not sure how you reached that conclusion. I'd argue we need studies to be done to show how multiple adult partnerships affect a child, ala the billions they've done on single parents.
Oh yeah, Octomom and Kate would be great arguments for people not having more kids than they can handle. Hell, fucking Casey Anthony and everyone ever on Teen Mom would be a good argument for it.
QUOTE
The default position should always be more liberty for citizens, not less, unless there's a damn good reason to stick your nose into their lives and tell them how to live.
Live however the fuck you want until it starts affecting your community. (Again, my argument here is financial.)
I'm not arguing against anyone's civil liberties, so please climb off your high horse. Let folks live however they want, until it affects others.
And quite honestly, if we're going to force employers to cover an infinite amount of adult partners and their children (which is extreme, but you MUST accept worst case scenarios), and thus, immediately bankrupt said companies, why not have them cover the TVs too?
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 28 2013,09:43
QUOTE
It's the base minimum. Other combos work.[QUOTE]
or their robot (until they become recognized sentient beings...)[QUOTE]I went the Sci-Fi route earlier.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 28 2013,10:13
QUOTE
Where will you throw your line?
Wherever consent cannot be established or ends. So, no marrying horses (unless the horse can be shown to consent). No marrying children (because they are too young to be qualified as consenting). No marrying corpses or the brain dead, unless they established prior written consent back when they were still capable of doing so.
TVs are fine, since they are not living beings and thus consent is a null issue. But if that crack about repair bills hints that you think I think anyone should pay for other people's shit then you haven't been paying enough attention.
QUOTE
They can, but why does everyone else have to foot the bill? How is that fair?
It's not fair. But just because asshole Democrats won't get their hands out of our pockets that is not a good enough reason to limit people's liberty, IMO. Otherwise you've just established as valid the argument that no one should be allowed to ride a motorcycle or own a gun or go skydiving or drink sodas or eat red meat because now that we have universal health coverage we all pay for that if it goes wrong. Welcome to the justification of the worst nanny state imaginable, courtesy of Leisher.
QUOTE
Not sure how you reached that conclusion. --regarding Bob --
Well, which costs more, two extra adults or twelve kids? I'd say the twelve kids are the huge part of that expense, and thus your argument that Bob shouldn't be allowed to do that because it's so expensive applies far more to not being allowed to have so many kids than to the two extra adults.
Personally, I don't have a problem with Microsoft refusing to hire Bob because of the added expense. I am not seeking special protected status for polyamorous relationships. Just equality under the law with regular marriage (i.e. spouses can visit in hospital and make medical decisions and claim usual legal rights, etc). If Microsoft could refuse to hire someone because of the cost of those twelve kids, then it doesn't matter how many parents were involved.
QUOTE
I'm not arguing against anyone's civil liberties, so please climb off your high horse.
On the contrary, that's the core of your position. The financial issues are entirely the fault of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and shouldn't be an excuse for limiting liberties. That way lies the fastest way to kill liberty dead.
I don't think you hate liberty. Clearly your intentions in that area are fairly pure. I just don't think you've thought through the end result of the idea that it's okay to limit liberties due to cost. Because most of government is determined to have it's hand in our pockets in every arena, so one day every liberty can be defined by it's cost.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 28 2013,10:16
So do we get government out of marriage? If healthcare/benefits/etc aren't tied to marriage, then does it become ok, since it's not impacting you?
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 28 2013,10:17
QUOTE
And I'm sure you'll line up to argue that a can should be able to marry his TV legally, and his employer should have to pay for its repair bills. I mean, who is he hurting?
I'll hear an argument against marrying things that aren't sentient. In spite of what Robert Redford made us believe, you really can't whisper to horses. Certainly not to a sofa, either.
QUOTE
I do not think our community/nation should foot the bill to force a group to be able to exist. You're forcing everyone else to accept those beliefs, not the people.
So, you're going to force your belief of 2 as the magic number for marriage because of financial hardships and the reduction of quality of life for everyone else? I look at those cash problems as an indicator that shit needs to change. If the concept isn't philosophically fucktarded, then the society should fucking cope with it. A lack of ability to do so indicates the society is fucktarded. Not so long ago, dudes wearing crowns and robes had the only opinion that mattered. Took a lot of work to change that shit, too.
QUOTE
I'd argue we need studies to be done to show how multiple adult partnerships affect a child, ala the billions they've done on single parents.
My bet is they're fine. Wouldn't be the first time more than two people raised a kid. Furthermore, the questions of, "Will anyone be home to watch the kids," or "Will someone be around to give them a ride from school," are going to tend towards more positive responses with more able-bodied adults around.
QUOTE
if we're going to force employers to cover an infinite amount of adult partners and their children
This trump card of, "It doesn't reflect reality," isn't having any pull with me. If we limit this discussion to what is realistic and within the practical ability of this country, then it's going to be a real short talk. I'd rather see the bureaucracy and infrastructure crumble to the ground trying to cover up its own idiocy than have its unwillingness to change drag it into absurdity.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 28 2013,12:17
(Leisher @ Mar. 28 2013,10:57)
QUOTE
It's cute how you ignore the fact that there are guys knocking up women all over the fucking place without a care in the world about who will be paying for the kids.
Are you suggesting that women don't have a choice in the matter? It used to be ok to tell a girl, "Keep your legs together." Now that's just sexist.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 28 2013,12:20
(TheCatt @ Mar. 28 2013,13:16)
QUOTE
So do we get government out of marriage? If healthcare/benefits/etc aren't tied to marriage, then does it become ok, since it's not impacting you?
It has been my opinion that things like health insurance are why this is all an issue, anyway. If they hadn't been denying rights to gay spouses, and if hospitals hadn't been restricting access of gay spouses, etc, then this would never have been a federal case.
I saw a facebook pic going around a while back, like how marriage is all about love and commitment and partnership... so goddam, let's get the government in on this!
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 28 2013,14:06
I'm going to start with Catt's since it'll answer a lot of questions:QUOTE
So do we get government out of marriage? If healthcare/benefits/etc aren't tied to marriage, then does it become ok, since it's not impacting you?
Yes.
It's why I said earlier:
QUOTE
I honestly don't give a shit if multiple consenting adults want to live together. I just think it creates unnecessary hassles and costs for employers and government entities. Thus, once someone's lifestyle begins to create a negative impact upon everyone else, that's where I draw the line.
That's why I have said it's not a liberties issue for me. I don't give a fuck what people do, and if we recognize them or not. I care about the costs involved because that negatively affects the economy and everyone's personal finances.
(And I'm strictly speaking about reality. Not some bullshit utopia where the government and church actually stay out of people's business.)
I'm going to get side tracked for a moment. Bear with me if you'd like or skip down to where I bolded, "End of side track".
Let me take you back in time to the "gays in the military" debate. Back then, I was quite clear that I thought it was ridiculous to not allow someone to put his or her life on the line for their country just because of their sexual orientation. However, I suggested there would be a massive logistical problem in boot camp if you openly admitted gay people.
Specifically, how do you mass house them? In a perfect world, you simply throw everyone into bunks in one dorm and call it a day. That's not how our litigious, protect everyone society works though.
So, for example, where do you put the gay men?
Option #1: With the straight men. Nope! Straight men will complain that they're being sexually harassed. I heard a lot of gay people talk about this very issue at the time, and it pissed me off because they had two lines:
-We're not going to rape you.
-Don't flatter yourself thinking we're always looking at you sexually.
Oh really? Then why the fuck can't straight men dorm with straight women? SAME SHIT! Drove me nuts.
Option #2: Gay dorm. Nope! Not only will you have gay men complaining about harassment of one another, but now you could have sex in the dorms. Something they don't want you doing during basic.
Option #3: Gay men with the straight women. Fuck, I was laughing while typing that. NEVER would happen because the women would be screaming sexual harassment before the first gay guy stepped foot in the dorm.
Now for you non-military folks, you might not understand why they don't get their own rooms, and yada yada. Well, this is basic training, and you're learning together. You're a unit. You're supposed to live together, eat together, sleep together, shower together, etc.
At this point in human history, you cannot get away with putting people, particularly 18-25 year olds, in private areas together where they're going to be naked if they are attracted to one another.
Heinlein likes to think in the future we'll have mixed sex units, and that'd be great because honestly, we're not all fucking rapists, but right now no way. In fact, I can promise you that I am not a rapist and have ZERO interest in women that have no interest in me (I hate those two bitches...see what I did there?), but I sure as fuck would stare holes in the hotties I'm bunking with.
Human nature and whatnot.
Anyway, I hope that little tidbit helps to explain that I'm about logistics and the realities of a situation.
End of side track
QUOTE
TVs are fine
Actually, speaking strictly in terms of liberties, I think I'd be ok telling that guy to go fuck himself.
QUOTE
It's not fair. But just because asshole Democrats won't get their hands out of our pockets that is not a good enough reason to limit people's liberty, IMO. Otherwise you've just established as valid the argument that no one should be allowed to ride a motorcycle or own a gun or go skydiving or drink sodas or eat red meat because now that we have universal health coverage we all pay for that if it goes wrong. Welcome to the justification of the worst nanny state imaginable, courtesy of Leisher.
Two wrongs don't make a right. (You don't stop out of control government and spending with more government and spending...unless your name is Obama.)
I didn't create the government's current reach into our personal lives, and the indisputable financial implications that come with it. I'm simply trying to use my spoon to stop the flood.
Make people more aware of the financial repercussions of everything going on in this country, and perhaps more people will pick up their spoons, and make things like multiple partner marriages a non-issue because it doesn't cost anyone shit.
So the government has its hands into everything, and it's eroding our ability to have personal liberties, but we're ignoring the large issue for the symptoms, like multiple partner marriages, courtesy of TPR.
QUOTE
Well, which costs more, two extra adults or twelve kids? I'd say the twelve kids are the huge part of that expense, and thus your argument that Bob shouldn't be allowed to do that because it's so expensive applies far more to not being allowed to have so many kids than to the two extra adults.
The adults. No really. Covering adults is far more expensive than covering kids. I'm not just making that up. It's a direct quote from my HR lady.
QUOTE
Personally, I don't have a problem with Microsoft refusing to hire Bob because of the added expense. I am not seeking special protected status for polyamorous relationships.
No argument.
However, based on our current reality, you do realize this means we're now all paying for Bob and his whole family to live because of his lifestyle.
At what point can I simply decide to stop working for no reason and just get government checks to sit at home...oh shit, we're doomed.
QUOTE
On the contrary, that's the core of your position. The financial issues are entirely the fault of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and shouldn't be an excuse for limiting liberties. That way lies the fastest way to kill liberty dead.
No, it's not the core of my position.
Meanwhile, I'd argue that you're killing liberties faster than I could ever dream, because you're arguing logistics with someone on your side rather than taking the fight to people who can actually affect change.
Again, my whole argument is logistics. Grab a fucking accountant and make it work, and I no longer give a fuck. Hell, I NEVER gave a fuck what they were doing until our current system starting footing the bill (all of which has been laid out and proven).
It is simply NOT a liberties issue for me.
A farmer doesn't become a vegetarian simply because he can no longer afford his livestock.
QUOTE
This trump card of, "It doesn't reflect reality," isn't having any pull with me. If we limit this discussion to what is realistic and within the practical ability of this country, then it's going to be a real short talk. I'd rather see the bureaucracy and infrastructure crumble to the ground trying to cover up its own idiocy than have its unwillingness to change drag it into absurdity.
That's a you problem, not a me problem.
You're trying to make me change my beliefs to reflect a utopian society where the government isn't in our lives. Meanwhile, I'm simply discussing logistical issues based on our current situations.
Racist.
Seriously though, yet again I don't think we're arguing different things, we're just coming at an issue from different angles.
QUOTE
I don't think you hate liberty. Clearly your intentions in that area are fairly pure. I just don't think you've thought through the end result of the idea that it's okay to limit liberties due to cost. Because most of government is determined to have it's hand in our pockets in every arena, so one day every liberty can be defined by it's cost.
Does either of us oppose gay marriage? nope.
Does either of us oppose multi partner marriage? nope.
Do we both think too much governmental influence hinders said marriages, and things need to change? Yep.
So what's the problem?
Don't argue with your accountant about how much money your ex-wife is costing you.
I'm a realist. I am very aware that I'm frustrating, but that's the point.
Stop arguing with me and change the reality. Don't force square pegs into round holes destroying everything. Go make the hole fucking square.
Side note #1: All of a sudden I feel bad for the hell I'm going to put my kids through when they are teenagers, and particularly young adults.
Side note #2: Have you all been looking in the Images thread? Did you see the black and white of the blond I posted yesterday? She's sitting on a dock or something. Just wanted to break this post up a bit with something on a more fun note. If you haven't seen her yet, go find her then come back.
QUOTE
I'll hear an argument against marrying things that aren't sentient.
Covered earlier, but agreed.
Although if you haven't seen Lars and the Real Girl, go rent it. It's fantastic.
QUOTE
So, you're going to force your belief of 2 as the magic number for marriage because of financial hardships and the reduction of quality of life for everyone else?
Not force, no. I simply said that laws could be based on the production and welfare of a child. (Barring technological advances that would obviously change things, but realistically for a very small number of people.)
Again, I'm arguing from reality. If you don't like the reality, go and change it.
What we want is for the government to fuck out of our day to day business so issues like this aren't issues in any way but social acceptance.
QUOTE
My bet is they're fine. Wouldn't be the first time more than two people raised a kid.
That's an opinion. With so many adults, I'd tend to agree, but honestly, you never know. Multiple influences like that could confuse children, and might let to unexpected, and very negative side effects.
QUOTE
Furthermore, the questions of, "Will anyone be home to watch the kids," or "Will someone be around to give them a ride from school," are going to tend towards more positive responses with more able-bodied adults around.
The Manson family.
No, but seriously, I know NOTHING about multi partner relationships when in comes to "love". However, I know women and men who have accepted certain...situations of various natures, and none of them were what you'd call healthy.
Truthfully, while I would never stop anyone from living within such a union, because do whatever the fuck you want...I would have suspicions that all is not as it seems. Look at the emotions and issues that come from two people being together. Imagine adding to that shit.
What happens when you come home to your 8 brides and their cycles have synced up?
What happens when you buy one flowers and the other 3 get pissed?
Buy one a ring, you've got to get them all a ring.
Etc.
I think you'd have to be insane just to put yourself in that situation unless you were in total control, at which point we start a different argument, this time about "consent".
QUOTE
This trump card of, "It doesn't reflect reality," isn't having any pull with me.
I firmly believe that you are not good friends with reality.
QUOTE
If we limit this discussion to what is realistic and within the practical ability of this country, then it's going to be a real short talk. I'd rather see the bureaucracy and infrastructure crumble to the ground trying to cover up its own idiocy than have its unwillingness to change drag it into absurdity.
Human nature, despite what liberals tend to believe, is an ugly motherfucker. Do I think anyone here really wants to watch society plunge into anarchy so we can watch loved ones raped and murdered all in the name of three selfish assholes (a hypothetical multiple partner relationship) with a much better sex life than us have the right to be recognized by an insurer?
Well ok, Malcolm probably does, but the rest of us sane folks don't really want that.
Ok, I think I've responded to everyone. If you posted after Malcolm, and expect a response, tough shit. I'm exhausted from debating an issue where I'm on the same side as the folks I'm debating.
Dear TPR and Malcolm, please go easy on the responses. I'm a long winded fucker because I'm Italian and love to debate, but I hate discussions like this one where we're basically on the same side, just seeing things from different angles.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 28 2013,14:32
QUOTE
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Exactly! You can't solve the problem of out-of-control government spending by squashing the liberty of the citizenry. In fact I'd go so far as to say that doing so means you've let the assholes win.
I will always prioritize the citizen's right to liberty over trying to accommodate the shitheads in Congress overspending. I would much rather see our entire government and economy collapse into a steaming pile of manure than see us start to curb liberty because someone somewhere is worried about how much it will cost when Congress starts spending our money on their ridiculous entitlement programs related to it. The America I care about prioritizes individual liberty above all, and if we don't do that anymore then the country can burn for all I care. We might as well rename it Southern Canada because it sure isn't America anymore.
So I'm not sure we can change each other's minds on this one. EDIT: I know, we are on the same side overall, I mean specifically the details of our priorities. You know what I mean. You are not the enemy, and you mean well even though you are wrong.
That short enough for you?
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 28 2013,14:44
QUOTE
QUOTE
My bet is they're fine. Wouldn't be the first time more than two people raised a kid.
That's an opinion. With so many adults, I'd tend to agree, but honestly, you never know. Multiple influences like that could confuse children, and might let to unexpected, and very negative side effects.
As to this, I assure you that no research is required. The majority of human history is composed of children being raised by more than two adults just fine. Sometimes that is polygamy, but mostly it's extended families or whole villages working together or what have you. The idea that two adults will work together to raise a child and that's the main way it is done is brand new on a historical scale, and some would say it hasn't worked out so well for the kids since both of those adults have to now work in most cases.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 28 2013,14:56
< Gay dudes who were some of the most effective combatants of the ancient world >. Now yeah, back then there wasn't a concept of "gay" and "straight" like we have today. There is a precedent, though.QUOTE
Hell, I NEVER gave a fuck what they were doing until our current system starting footing the bill (all of which has been laid out and proven).
The system has been footing the bill for all sorts of shit since before any of us were born. In almost any matter of sociopolitical import, one must point how utterly fucked the U.S. gov't is. You even admit as much.
QUOTE
What we want is for the government to fuck out of our day to day business so issues like this aren't issues in any way but social acceptance.
Even in the face of practicality, I say, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." I do not see the logistics as obstacles, but as shit we can untangle to prove our society has the capability to unfuck itself. On a more direct note, I have no reason to actively push this kind of thing, but I've also got no reason to actively deny it.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 28 2013,15:05
It shouldn't be a red square with triples equals sign, it should be red square with a plus sign
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 28 2013,16:06
In the interest of being less hyperbolic (if I am capable of that), I will try analogy instead. But this is essentially a repeat of my last post in different terms.The primary purpose of good healthy government is to protect the liberty of the citizenry from threats both foreign and domestic. But our government has gone pretty cancerous, and it's purpose is to grow government as much as possible by destroying those liberties. The idea that we should curtail the liberties out of necessity because of the cancer sounds to me like cutting the heart out of the patient because we are afraid the cancer might spread. It defeats the whole purpose of trying to save the patient in the first place.
Posted by Troy on Mar. 28 2013,17:49
(TheCatt @ Mar. 28 2013,15:05)
QUOTE
It shouldn't be a red square with triples equals sign, it should be red square with a plus sign
I almost posted this, but thought it would screw up the discourse. Some smart ass on my facebook had it.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 04 2013,10:05
< Jeremy Irons weighs in >. He asks an interesting legal question and it looks like he's getting slammed for it.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 04 2013,10:37
That's a valid only if there's currently a trend of father's marrying their daughters to avoid inheritance tax. I haven't heard of that being a widespread problem, myself. But ultimately the problem there would be parents marrying children for tax reasons. The genders don't matter in the slightest.If it's not a thing, then it's just another stupid comment from someone desperately grasping for reasons to keep the gay man down.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 04 2013,10:57
(TPRJones @ Apr. 04 2013,12:37)
QUOTE
That's a valid only if there's currently a trend of father's marrying their daughters to avoid inheritance tax.
His further point is that the anti-incest laws only apply in cases where procreation is in play. It's a vaguely interesting hypothetical "what if..."
I don't think he really cares one way or the other, and the only hint of his psychosis is
QUOTE
"It seems to me that now they're fighting for the name,” he said. “I worry that it means somehow we debase, or we change, what marriage is. I just worry about that."
Debase != change. And the fight against debasement of marriage went out the window long ago. That's like protesting the results of a pro sports championship game from 50 years ago.
Posted by TPRJones on Apr. 04 2013,11:35
Huh. So if a man gets snipped or if his daughter gets her tubes tied, then they can legally marry? Or if she's on birth control? Or if they promise to always use a condom, then they can legally marry? Or if the daughter is too young to have gone through puberty yet?That seems unlikely. Or if it's true, those incest laws need some work.
Regardless, it's a pretty crappy reason to support DOMA.
Posted by Malcolm on Apr. 04 2013,11:41
Hmm, the U.S. anti-incest laws seems to include the following relations...QUOTE
In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include:
Father
Mother
Grandfather
Grandmother
Brother
Sister
Aunt
Uncle
Niece
Nephew
First cousins (in some states)
Father
Mother
Grandfather
Grandmother
Brother
Sister
Aunt
Uncle
Niece
Nephew
First cousins (in some states)
I don't know of any case where a father has tried to marry his son (or mother tried to wed her daughter), so maybe the rule hasn't been tested yet. Rhode Island has no penalties and New Jersey declares them null and void when everyone's over 18.
Posted by GORDON on Apr. 04 2013,12:16
(TPRJones @ Apr. 04 2013,14:35)
QUOTE
Huh. So if a man gets snipped or if his daughter gets her tubes tied, then they can legally marry? Or if she's on birth control? Or if they promise to always use a condom, then they can legally marry? Or if the daughter is too young to have gone through puberty yet?
That seems unlikely. Or if it's true, those incest laws need some work.
Regardless, it's a pretty crappy reason to support DOMA.
That seems unlikely. Or if it's true, those incest laws need some work.
Regardless, it's a pretty crappy reason to support DOMA.
I don't think the law reads, ".... because the resulting babies could be fucking fucked up." I think it just says, "YOU ARE FORBIDDEN TO..."
The law doesn't give a shit, just do as you are told. Even if you are not told, ignorance is no excuse.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 26 2013,08:00
< DOMA shot down by SCOTUS. >
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 26 2013,16:32
Good job, SCOTUS! You aren't completely useless after all.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 26 2013,16:42
(Leisher @ Jun. 26 2013,10:00)
QUOTE
< DOMA shot down by SCOTUS. >
QUOTE
Just as the states have constitutional authority to make state policy about marriage, so too Congress should have constitutional authority to pass a federal statute defining a term for federal programs created by federal law ... This is a serious loss for federalism and democratic self-government.
What we have here is a constitutional scholar that hasn't read the constitution and doesn't understand how our democracy was meant to work.
This is a loss for federalism, which is good because strong federalism has been horrific for democratic self-government. It should indeed be up to the states to define marriage, because that's how our constitution works.
Although at the same time, equal protection under the law for all citizens would require that those laws eventually all treat all citizens equally instead of screwing over those born differently from the majority, but it will and should be a state-by-state fight and NOT a sweeping mandate from the federal government. SCOTUS got it just right here, for once.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2013,21:17
How the fuck does one equate federalism with self-government? They're virtually opposing.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 21 2013,10:12
< New Jersey 14th state for gay marriage >Christie won't fight it in court.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 22 2013,13:13
< Marijuana fights for drug equality >America finally coming to their senses.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 22 2013,13:36
(TheCatt @ Oct. 22 2013,15:13)
QUOTE
< Marijuana fights for drug equality >
America finally coming to their senses.
America finally coming to their senses.
Bah. You'll have to pry the anti-bud funding from the DEA's cold dead hands.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 22 2013,13:45
Colorado and Washington have already legalized it... Less than 20 years ago we had DOMA. Now 14 states and DC allow gay marriage.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 22 2013,14:22
QUOTE
Adults 65 and older are the only age-group without a majority supporting marijuana legalization...
Like most issues, this will be a self-correcting problem as the stubborn old people die off.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 22 2013,16:27
(Malcolm @ Oct. 22 2013,16:36)
QUOTE
(TheCatt @ Oct. 22 2013,15:13)
QUOTE
< Marijuana fights for drug equality >
America finally coming to their senses.
America finally coming to their senses.
Bah. You'll have to pry the anti-bud funding from the DEA's cold dead hands.
Yeah, my thought exactly. Hopefully the people getting rich from the WAR ON DRUGS are rich enough and wont fight and/or try to shift focus to keep the free money coming.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 22 2013,17:44
There will be a fight. But I would be surprised if we don't have pot legal in at least 10 states 10 years from now.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 22 2013,17:46
(TheCatt @ Oct. 22 2013,15:45)
QUOTE
Colorado and Washington have already legalized it... Less than 20 years ago we had DOMA. Now 14 states and DC allow gay marriage.
They are still subject to federal raids, dependent upon how twisted someone's panties are that day. Federal law > local law here because ... interstate commerce clause ... something something something.
There's not enough money in keeping gay people from getting married. There isn't a federal agency in place whose purpose in life is to fight it here and across the globe, damn the international legal boundaries.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 22 2013,17:49
Actually, < Government says they won't do a damned thing > about CO and WA.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 23 2013,06:08
For now, sure. But who knows what the next administration will do, or if this one will change it's mind tomorrow.And nothing says that you live in a just society quite like having to gauge your chances of being imprisoned each day based on some corrupt politician's whims.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 23 2013,10:25
(TheCatt @ Oct. 22 2013,19:49)
QUOTE
Actually, < Government says they won't do a damned thing > about CO and WA.
I believe nothing until they write it down and give up their bullshit legal argument that means they can still overrule you if they want, they're just being nice for the time being.
Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 14 2014,18:13
< Oklahoma court battle a win for gay marriage. >I don't understand this thinking:
QUOTE
Gov. Mary Fallin spoke out against the ruling, which she said defied the views of 75% of those who voted in favor of limiting marriage to a man and woman.
"I support the right of Oklahoma's voters to govern themselves on this and other policy matters," Fallin said. "I am disappointed in the judge's ruling and troubled that the will of the people has once again been ignored by the federal government."
"I support the right of Oklahoma's voters to govern themselves on this and other policy matters," Fallin said. "I am disappointed in the judge's ruling and troubled that the will of the people has once again been ignored by the federal government."
So if 51% thought slavery was OK, she'd be for it? 51% wanted convicts to fight each other to death, she'd be for it?
Posted by TPRJones on Jan. 15 2014,04:14
(TheCatt @ Jan. 14 2014,20:13)
QUOTE
So if 51% thought slavery was OK, she'd be for it? 51% wanted convicts to fight each other to death, she'd be for it?
It's still cool - at least among the bigoted religious folks that voted for her - to hate on the gays. You could get in trouble for hating on the blacks these days.
I'd bet she'd be okay with the second one, though. At least until the cries about it being racism because all the convicts are black, then she might pull back a bit.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 15 2014,08:02
(TheCatt @ Jan. 14 2014,20:13)
QUOTE
< Oklahoma court battle a win for gay marriage. >
I don't understand this thinking:
So if 51% thought slavery was OK, she'd be for it? 51% wanted convicts to fight each other to death, she'd be for it?
I don't understand this thinking:
QUOTE
Gov. Mary Fallin spoke out against the ruling, which she said defied the views of 75% of those who voted in favor of limiting marriage to a man and woman.
"I support the right of Oklahoma's voters to govern themselves on this and other policy matters," Fallin said. "I am disappointed in the judge's ruling and troubled that the will of the people has once again been ignored by the federal government."
"I support the right of Oklahoma's voters to govern themselves on this and other policy matters," Fallin said. "I am disappointed in the judge's ruling and troubled that the will of the people has once again been ignored by the federal government."
So if 51% thought slavery was OK, she'd be for it? 51% wanted convicts to fight each other to death, she'd be for it?
We have a specific Constitutional Amendment outlawing slavery. We have no Constitutional acknowledgement of gay marriage. Or even of homosexuals being a protected class.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 26 2014,13:35
We still have a 14th Amendment.< Texas strikes down laws against gay marriage, kinda. >
Posted by Vince on Feb. 26 2014,14:01
I'm not getting the 14th amendment part. I don't see the gays anywhere in that amendment.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 26 2014,14:55
Funny, I thought they were citizens.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 26 2014,15:54
They are. How are they being deprived of life, liberty or property in a way unequal to other citizens?
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 26 2014,16:26
Liberty. And, equal protection of the laws. Marriage. Not being allowed it.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 26 2014,16:28
Bah... they can marry under the same restrictions as everyone else.I prefer my gays still in the closet. Much less whining and cry baby shit.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 26 2014,16:37
Up next... < Polygamy! >
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 26 2014,17:50
(Vince @ Feb. 26 2014,18:28)
QUOTE
I prefer my gays still in the closet. Much less whining and cry baby shit.
Just wtf?
EDIT: Yeah. Those days were awesome. Back when you could order < chemical castration > on someone that just busted his ass for your war effort. Back when you could < beat the shit out of dudes wearing makeup > and no one batted an eye lid.
QUOTE
Quentin is a hero of mine, someone I know very well. He is gay, and he was gay at a time in history when it was dangerous to be so. He had people beating up on him on a daily basis, largely with the consent of the public. Yet, he continued to be himself.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 26 2014,17:54
(Vince @ Feb. 26 2014,18:37)
QUOTE
Up next... < Polygamy! >
QUOTE
Kristyn Decker, who spent 50 in a polygamous sect, said that comparisons between polygamy and gay marriage were off-base because of the power structure of polygamous relationships. “It’s not about choice,” she said. “It’s about coercion.”
I'm sure that's just ex-polygamist propaganda.
On the flip side, if you want ten wives, fucking go for it. Let me know when the aneurysm comes and mercifully ends your life.
QUOTE
Utah County Attorney Juff Buhman said last year he wouldn’t prosecute consenting polygamous adults unless there were allegations of violence, abuse or fraud.
I really can't find anything at fault with that statement. If more than two adults think they can make that shit work, have fun trying. Don't expect me to pay the therapy bills, though.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 26 2014,17:56
At least you aren't going to try to make the argument that it's not coming.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 26 2014,17:59
Of course it is. As it should.Any marriage arrangement between two or more consenting human adults should be allowed, IMO. The government shouldn't have any say-so in what sort of marriages people can and cannot engage in.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 26 2014,18:02
Personally, I want the government out of the marriage business entirely. It's a religious ceremony. Leave it up to the religious institutions.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 26 2014,18:12
(Vince @ Feb. 26 2014,20:02)
QUOTE
Personally, I want the government out of the marriage business entirely. It's a religious ceremony. Leave it up to the religious institutions.
Fine by me. Take away all the laws for everyone. Then you can leave the marriage to begin when the priest, shaman, or Vegas pit boss on break finishes things. But then you're married only according to [insert faith here] and not in a sense with legal repercussions.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 26 2014,18:18
Does that means I will never have to see another gay pride parade? If so, count me in.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 26 2014,18:40
(GORDON @ Feb. 26 2014,20:18)
QUOTE
Does that means I will never have to see another gay pride parade? If so, count me in.
If they can't celebrate their sexuality in public, I'm inclined to say that religious activity in public should be equally restricted. For instance, no more nativity scenes outside church walls, even if it's church property. Fuck religion enjoying special protection because some old dudes years ago forgot to include it in the same category as the gender or genders that make you hard/wet.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 26 2014,18:54
Why do you keep assuming that I want things that I don't like forbidden? I keep arguing that the government should not have this power. Religions should NOT be protected from criticism or exclusion.I have no desire to see another gay pride parade, because I think if you need to celebrate what gets your cock hard then you are pretty much a pathetic loser. I never said they should be outlawed.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 26 2014,18:54
(Malcolm @ Feb. 26 2014,20:12)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Feb. 26 2014,20:02)
QUOTE
Personally, I want the government out of the marriage business entirely. It's a religious ceremony. Leave it up to the religious institutions.
Fine by me. Take away all the laws for everyone. Then you can leave the marriage to begin when the priest, shaman, or Vegas pit boss on break finishes things. But then you're married only according to [insert faith here] and not in a sense with legal repercussions.
I'm okay with that. The government adds nothing to my marriage to make it better.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 26 2014,20:51
You might be ok, but something tells me that other people might get uppity if they're not considered "universally" married, be they straight, gay, bi, or other.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,03:26
(Malcolm @ Feb. 26 2014,22:51)
QUOTE
You might be ok, but something tells me that other people might get uppity if they're not considered "universally" married, be they straight, gay, bi, or other.
I would hazard a guess that it would mostly be the gay community that wouldn't be okay with it, and mostly just the very vocal assholes we are hearing from now. They seem to be the ones with the motto of "Love and accept me or I'm suing".
For most straight people it' something between them, their partner and God. Or in the case of most men, it's because they wanted to keep having sex with their girlfriends and decided she was a keeper.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 27 2014,07:17
(Vince @ Feb. 26 2014,20:02)
QUOTE
Personally, I want the government out of the marriage business entirely. It's a religious ceremony. Leave it up to the religious institutions.
I agree. I'd much rather see marriage be a matter of private contract and/or religious ceremony and the government only being involved only as far as required by whatever contract the individuals decide on requires. But as long as marriage comes with legal implications for taxes, healthcare decisions, children, death, and everything else it impacts then this fight will continue on.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 27 2014,07:20
(GORDON @ Feb. 26 2014,20:54)
QUOTE
I think if you need to celebrate what gets your cock hard...
Putting a halt to the celebration of what gets cocks hard would shut down 90% of our economy.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 27 2014,07:24
(Vince @ Feb. 27 2014,05:26)
QUOTE
For most straight people it' something between them, their partner and God.
And their tax accountant, and their doctor, and their lawyers, and the nurse trying to keep them from visiting their spouse in the hospital, and the long-avoided bigoted parents now keeping them away from the funeral of the person they spent their entire adult life with, and anyone that would try to take away their spouse's children away to foster care because they are no longer "legally married".
There are a whole shit-load of very good reasons that gays are fighting for marriage. The lack of it has ruined many lives and made for some fucking awful tragedies. Make light of that all you like, but it's still true.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,07:33
(TPRJones @ Feb. 27 2014,09:17)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Feb. 26 2014,20:02)
QUOTE
Personally, I want the government out of the marriage business entirely. It's a religious ceremony. Leave it up to the religious institutions.
I agree. I'd much rather see marriage be a matter of private contract and/or religious ceremony and the government only being involved only as far as required by whatever contract the individuals decide on requires. But as long as marriage comes with legal implications for taxes, healthcare decisions, children, death, and everything else it impacts then this fight will continue on.
My druthers would be a flat tax where marriage doesn't matter. But outside of that, you can file jointly with anyone you cohabitate with for at least 6 months out of the year. If you file jointly with them, the government considers them a "domestic partner" for that year. So if a couple splits up or divorces or whatever, they take in their taxes to family court and they say, "Okay, you were domestic partners for X years, you get this and you get that."
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 27 2014,07:47
(TPRJones @ Feb. 27 2014,10:20)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Feb. 26 2014,20:54)
QUOTE
I think if you need to celebrate what gets your cock hard...
Putting a halt to the celebration of what gets cocks hard would shut down 90% of our economy.
Care to explain? And don't be liberal with the definition of "celebration." I am talking about people who base their identity on the type of hole they like to fuck.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 27 2014,08:13
(GORDON @ Feb. 27 2014,09:47)
QUOTE
Care to explain? And don't be liberal with the definition of "celebration."
I am being liberal with that definition in order to be a bit of a smart-ass. A more realistic number would be more like 20%.
Gay men are no different from straight men when it comes to being blatant about what they like and not afraid to flaunt it in public. The only difference is what they like. For every gay pride parade there's a whole boat load of strip clubs and adult porn palaces that aren't any less blatant. For every gay man strutting his stuff down the street there's a dozen stereotypical construction workers cat-calling after some lady in a tight shirt and yoga pants.
Most men are fundamentally men, no matter what hole they like to put it in.
EDIT: Actually, 20% is probably too low. 20% for the blatant parts, and another 20% for the more discreet for a total of 40%. I think that's probably more reasonable.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,08:21
(TPRJones @ Feb. 27 2014,10:13)
QUOTE
For every gay pride parade there's a whole boat load of strip clubs and adult porn palaces that aren't any less blatant.
Strip clubs and porn palaces don't ride floats down Main Street where I live. Actually, the city is pretty particular as to where they CAN be.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 27 2014,08:32
QUOTE
Actually, the city is pretty particular as to where they CAN be.
Depends on where you live, I guess. Here they are anywhere that someone decides to open one. We don't do zoning laws, that sort of thing is for communist dictators.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 27 2014,08:58
I don't consider a catcall or strip joint to be anything like a parade. In fact, I would suggest that in some cities, there are more gay bars than there are "straight" strip clubs that often feature girl-on-girl.Show me a straight pride parade, and I am right there with you.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 27 2014,09:07
Mardi Gras comes fairly close. There's no official straight pride parades, of course, because our society is already soaking in hetersexual sex. Marketing is sex. Movies are sex. TV is sex. The internet especially is all about sex. We've still got a thin veneer of respectability in some places, but there's no denying that sex is a strong driving force behind most of our culture. I find it hard to begrudge the other side a parade or two.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 27 2014,09:40
(TPRJones @ Feb. 27 2014,12:07)
QUOTE
I find it hard to begrudge the other side a parade or two.
And being more equal than others under the law?
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 27 2014,09:42
Not at all. If you'll read back I've never thought special protection for anyone was justified. Just equal protection, where protection exists. All in all I'd see less protection for everyone than we have now as I think government has gotten out of hand, but if it's going to be there it damn well should be equal and even-handed about what it does.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,09:43
Just saw a story about a military vet with a service dog being denied entry to a restaurant with his service dog. A reader made the comment that he should have claimed his dog was gay and no one would have dared refused him service.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 27 2014,09:48
I'm not getting into this debate, but I wanted to point this out:QUOTE
Just saw a story about a military vet with a service dog being denied entry to a restaurant with his service dog. A reader made the comment that he should have claimed his dog was gay and no one would have dared refused him service.
I have said for years that you cannot force people to accept other people. You create a short term solution, but you breed hatred out of differences, and they usually come boiling up later.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 27 2014,09:56
(Vince @ Feb. 27 2014,11:43)
QUOTE
Just saw a story about a military vet with a service dog being denied entry to a restaurant with his service dog. A reader made the comment that he should have claimed his dog was gay and no one would have dared refused him service.
Lucky he's not a gay and living in Arizona.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 27 2014,10:01
QUOTE
I have said for years that you cannot force people to accept other people. You create a short term solution, but you breed hatred out of differences, and they usually come boiling up later.
Let's toss the entire first amendment out the window then. Because you can always come up with speech and religion that make other people uncomfortable to the point of nonacceptance.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,10:01
(Malcolm @ Feb. 27 2014,11:56)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Feb. 27 2014,11:43)
QUOTE
Just saw a story about a military vet with a service dog being denied entry to a restaurant with his service dog. A reader made the comment that he should have claimed his dog was gay and no one would have dared refused him service.
Lucky he's not a gay and living in Arizona.
It's okay. He wasn't ordering a wedding cake.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 27 2014,10:04
(Malcolm @ Feb. 27 2014,13:01)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I have said for years that you cannot force people to accept other people. You create a short term solution, but you breed hatred out of differences, and they usually come boiling up later.
Let's toss the entire first amendment out the window then. Because you can always come up with speech and religion that make other people uncomfortable to the point of nonacceptance.
I have been thinking about how to word a post about this... about how peoples' fucking feelings should not be protected by legislation, and therefor, gunpoint.
I don't give a flying fuck if you don't FEEL unaccepted. I don't accept a lot of people. I don't think I should go to jail for not pretending like I do.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 27 2014,10:11
I can't deny that there are plenty of oversensitive assholes on the gay side of this debate that are ... well, oversensitive assholes. Personally I try to be a bit forgiving about that because some of them - the older ones, at least - really have spent a lifetime being persecuted by their family or community. There's plenty of dead gays to go around, some tortured to death and others who stupidly decided suicide was the best response to constant harassment. No doubt some of the people that survived that are a bit ... touchy. Uptight. Resentful.But my forgiveness only goes so far. Some of them are just plain old assholes, not really any better than the people that do the persecuting and bullying previously mentioned.
There's plenty of asshole to go around here.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 27 2014,10:15
Can't we all just get along?
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 27 2014,10:18
(TheCatt @ Feb. 27 2014,13:15)
QUOTE
Can't we all just get along?
Honestly, I like everybody.
Until I am told I will behave as if I like them, or else. Then I fucking hate them.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,10:27
(Leisher @ Feb. 27 2014,11:48)
QUOTE
I have said for years that you cannot force people to accept other people. You create a short term solution, but you breed hatred out of differences, and they usually come boiling up later.
I have been sympathetic to gay people for a long time. Especially growing up. It's hard enough when you fall within the accepted parameters of "normal". Teenagers natural state of being is to feel different and as if they do not belong. I truly can't imagine how difficult that is for gay teenagers.
I really have no issue with gay people, other than the fact that from my experience they are one of the most openly racist and bigoted group I've ever encountered when I used to go to gay AA meetings.
But something has happened in the last few years. The Mathew Sheppard killing happened and a complete fabrication occurred with that becoming a "hate crime". It seems like every couple of weeks we have a story take off on social media that's picked up by the HuffPost and every other left leaning blog and news agency that we find out later is a hoax invented whole cloth by the homosexual at the center of the alleged "discrimination".
All the while, gays are being beaten (sometimes to death) for actually being gay in minority communities. But if the aggressor is in one of the other "protected classes" (ie, black or Hispanic), then that story isn't news worthy. But refuse to bake them a wedding cake while being white, and by God they'll make you pay!
Phil Robertson said in his interview that he thought what they were doing was a sin. It was a little coarse with the language he used, but he was not advocating imprisoning them or killing them or denying them their rights or stoning them to death. As a matter of fact, he never suggested doing ANYTHING to them. He simply stated that he thought it was a sin. The embarrassing reaction from the (vocal) gay community was quite simply a child's hissy fit.
If any of this were about gay rights, we'd be hearing more about the stories of the plight of gays in minority communities at a national level. We're not, because this isn't about gay rights. I don't know for what purpose, but we're being played.
Quite possibly this is simply about a few members of the gay community seeing the shit tons of money Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made over the years and opting for their slice of the pie.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 27 2014,12:00
(Malcolm @ Feb. 27 2014,13:01)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I have said for years that you cannot force people to accept other people. You create a short term solution, but you breed hatred out of differences, and they usually come boiling up later.
Let's toss the entire first amendment out the window then. Because you can always come up with speech and religion that make other people uncomfortable to the point of nonacceptance.
Please explain how your statement applies to my statement.
Explain how forcing someone to do something they don't want to do for someone else equals freedom.
I would argue that the trend of being ostracized publicly for having your own opinion that varies from the opinion du jour is doing more damage to the first amendment than some baker not wanting to make a gay couple of cake (or whatever).
I'm not saying a person's beliefs and choices shouldn't be respected. What I am saying is that someone else's beliefs and choices shouldn't be ignored to appease the first person.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 27 2014,12:35
QUOTE
What I am saying is that someone else's beliefs and choices shouldn't be ignored to appease the first person.
< This > says
QUOTE
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".
There's no way you'll convince me that religion, a thing that is your personal choice, deserves more protection than sexual orientation, which isn't something you choose. The fact that race and national origin are in there as well supports that theory. Later on, "gender" was added to that list, also something you're stuck with. I fail to see how the knowledge/belief in your own sexuality is any less important than your knowledge/belief in your preferred supernatural being(s).
QUOTE
This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy.
I suppose as long as the owner receives absolutely zero federal assistance of any kind and does biz only in his state, then fine.
However, it looks like any public accommodation is subject.
QUOTE
There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, believed he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, “the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers”. Rolleston used legal means in an attempt to prevent full equality for African Americans, claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, Rolleston argued that the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments were in violation as the bill deprived him of "liberty and property without due process”. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Congress claimed that it drew its authority from the Constitution’s commerce clause, disagreeing with Rolleston’s claims.
Supreme Court says interstate commerce trumps your personal beliefs about your customers, be they religious or otherwise. Other than Moreton not wanting to deal with blacks as opposed to gays, I see little difference as far as legal merit goes.
Most businesses are public spaces. They involve things like sales tax, health codes, regulations, etc. They are not houses of faith. If someone files a tax return and lists themselves as biz owner, certain legal shit kicks in. Occasionally, I'll grant that some transactions shouldn't be covered by this. If the dude that teaches piano on your street doesn't want to give you private lessons because you're gay, that's his thing. If the dude that runs your local coffee shop doesn't serve you for the same reason, I consider it a whole different world.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,12:44
Malcolm, it sounds like your larger complaint should be that the Constitution has not been amended to protect sexual orientation.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 27 2014,13:06
(Vince @ Feb. 27 2014,14:44)
QUOTE
Malcolm, it sounds like your larger complaint should be that the Constitution has not been amended to protect sexual orientation.
Because back then "gay" typically meant "happy." Even uttering the word "sodomy" was probably grounds for hanging. The fact it was left off is a historical and cultural oversight. There is no earthly reason why race or religion should be set above or below who you fuck. If church and state need a barrier between them, both sides ought to stop fucking scaling the wall.
Want your choice of which customers to serve? Fine. You get no federal assistance or privs for operating a small biz or any other support normally given to those that operate within fed mandates. I can't think of a mid-sized or large operation would be insane enough to try this type of thing. A gov't that wants a strong economy, after all, has a legit interest in making sure their sales and goods reach as large an audience as possible. A smaller customer base isn't good for biz (and therefore tax revenue).
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,13:12
(Malcolm @ Feb. 27 2014,15:06)
QUOTE
Because back then "gay" typically meant "happy." Even uttering the word "sodomy" was probably grounds for hanging. The fact it was left off is a historical and cultural oversight. There is no earthly reason why race or religion should be set above or below who you fuck. If church and state need a barrier between them, both sides ought to stop fucking scaling the wall.
Um... Amendment process... to Amend... to add to... doesn't matter what gay meant back then. To Amend. Built into the system.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 27 2014,13:31
< Passed Senate >. < In House subcommittee >.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,13:34
Not an Amendment
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 27 2014,13:40
The basis for the power the fed wields for the Civil Rights Act is derived from the interstate commerce clause. The Supreme Court has declared that beats individual freedom of religion. ENDA would most likely fall under that same commerce umbrella argument. The first amendment doesn't necessarily need changing.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,13:44
Unless I'm I sell cakes outside the state, I still wouldn't have to bake you one.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 27 2014,13:54
(Vince @ Feb. 27 2014,16:44)
QUOTE
Unless I'm I sell cakes outside the state, I still wouldn't have to bake you one.
"Nice business license you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it."
There, now you like gay people. Problem solved.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,13:57
Sometimes I find myself praying for the EMP or solar flare that can send us back to the 19th century.
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 27 2014,14:00
Ugh. I read a book like that a couple years ago. The first 18 months didn't sound like fun.
Posted by Leisher on Feb. 27 2014,14:16
(Malcolm @ Feb. 27 2014,15:35)
QUOTE
QUOTE
What I am saying is that someone else's beliefs and choices shouldn't be ignored to appease the first person.
< This > says
QUOTE
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".
There's no way you'll convince me that religion, a thing that is your personal choice, deserves more protection than sexual orientation, which isn't something you choose. The fact that race and national origin are in there as well supports that theory. Later on, "gender" was added to that list, also something you're stuck with. I fail to see how the knowledge/belief in your own sexuality is any less important than your knowledge/belief in your preferred supernatural being(s).
QUOTE
This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy.
I suppose as long as the owner receives absolutely zero federal assistance of any kind and does biz only in his state, then fine.
However, it looks like any public accommodation is subject.
QUOTE
There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, believed he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, “the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers”. Rolleston used legal means in an attempt to prevent full equality for African Americans, claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, Rolleston argued that the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments were in violation as the bill deprived him of "liberty and property without due process”. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Congress claimed that it drew its authority from the Constitution’s commerce clause, disagreeing with Rolleston’s claims.
Supreme Court says interstate commerce trumps your personal beliefs about your customers, be they religious or otherwise. Other than Moreton not wanting to deal with blacks as opposed to gays, I see little difference as far as legal merit goes.
Most businesses are public spaces. They involve things like sales tax, health codes, regulations, etc. They are not houses of faith. If someone files a tax return and lists themselves as biz owner, certain legal shit kicks in. Occasionally, I'll grant that some transactions shouldn't be covered by this. If the dude that teaches piano on your street doesn't want to give you private lessons because you're gay, that's his thing. If the dude that runs your local coffee shop doesn't serve you for the same reason, I consider it a whole different world.
What?
Come join the discussion you have provoked with me here, and stop trying to drag me over there.
You're responding to assumptions and not my actual statements. Stop assuming I'm disagreeing with you or that I'm talking specifically about some baker.
Although, it is sort of humorous to see a damn the man and not religious fellow such as yourself cite something written by men as "the last word". Not saying it's wrong, I just find a bit of humor in that.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,14:18
Wouldn't be much fun at all. But certainly would put a hella lot in proper perspective.Post flare/EMP
"How was your day?"
"Rough. killed a deer and had to field dress it and drag it a mile and a half back here. Then I cut it up, salted it and got it started in the smoker so we'd have food for the next couple of weeks and not starve to death."
"Good job. Have an extra biscuit tonight."
Pre flare/EMP
"How was your day?"
"Horrible! That asshole at the bakery refused to back us a cake!"
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 27 2014,14:21
And good luck having kids post-EMP to help feed you when you get old with your brilliant, non-viable reproductive strategy. ;-)
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 27 2014,14:45
(Vince @ Feb. 27 2014,15:57)
QUOTE
Sometimes I find myself praying for the EMP or solar flare that can send us back to the 19th century.
Seriously? I do not recall fondly the era when blasphemy was still a crime. Just a short step backwards from there to burning at the stake. I wouldn't even want to go back to the 1980s or 1990s.
Posted by TheCatt on Feb. 27 2014,14:46
If Post flare/EMP is anything like Rust, I'm a dead man.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,14:57
(Malcolm @ Feb. 27 2014,16:45)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Feb. 27 2014,15:57)
QUOTE
Sometimes I find myself praying for the EMP or solar flare that can send us back to the 19th century.
Seriously? I do not recall fondly the era when blasphemy was still a crime. Just a short step backwards from there to burning at the stake. I wouldn't even want to go back to the 1980s or 1990s.
Um... I think you're going a ways further back than the 19th century. And it was never done here in the States. The practice was abandoned before we were a nation. The last person killed for blasphemy in England was in the 1600's.
And the EMP/Flare would probably put us back for 2-3 years probably. In that time, we would come to rely on ourselves and our communities rather than the federal government. And we would certainly come to a better understanding about what's important.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 27 2014,15:16
(GORDON @ Feb. 27 2014,16:00)
QUOTE
Ugh. I read a book like that a couple years ago. The first 18 months didn't sound like fun.
I guess that would depend on if you like hanging black people or not.
QUOTE
I would argue that the trend of being ostracized publicly for having your own opinion that varies from the opinion du jour is doing more damage to the first amendment than some baker not wanting to make a gay couple of cake (or whatever).
I would argue that the trend of being ostracized publicly for having your own opinion that varies from the opinion du jour is how the First Amendment works. The speech of people who are pissed off at your speech is just as free. Freedom of Speech does not - and should not - mean Freedom from Consequences. It just means the law should not take sides when it comes to what people say except when actual harm occurs, and rarely even then.
QUOTE
The last person killed for blasphemy in England was in the 1600's.
That seems unlikely. I'm sure there have been some blasphemy-motivated murders in recent years by people like these (in London):
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 27 2014,15:35
QUOTE
Although, it is sort of humorous to see a damn the man and not religious fellow such as yourself cite something written by men as "the last word". Not saying it's wrong, I just find a bit of humor in that.
I'm certainly not religious. I'm pointing out that this country has already made a distinction when exercising your beliefs even in your own biz is or isn't lawful. If givens like skin colour and national origin and choices like faith are protected, then the parallel argument for sexuality seems rather strong, even if it's not specifically called out in a past document. That's the legal argument.
As for what I personally think, hell, I'm not even for the enforcement of laws as they are now. They are ultimately made reality by threat of force from local (or higher if need be) authorities. They outnumber and outgun you and do not answer to your philosophical arguments without going through their convoluted system first. Threat and follow-through of physical force is the immediate response. Reminds me of GTA, really. In a truly free society, you could kick out whoever the fuck you wanted, whenever you wanted, for any goddamned reason that came into your mind. In that type of environment, your shop, your cake ingredients, your call. In that magical world with that magical set of rules, the baker wins.
Theologically, I would be curious why someone chooses to follow that one particular rule with such fervor when they don't apply the same energy to other points of their faith, say people who go to work on the Sabbath (come the fuck on, that's Big C number three). If they can't offer up a decent enough reason, they could ratchet up a notch on my "crazy batshit psycho" meter and I may very well start talking shit about them the same way I talk shit about other things I consider crazy like: Scientology, either major US political party, Jimmy Fallon getting the fucking Tonight Show gig, etc. Shit, only one of those things in that list is comical; the others are fucking disgraces of humanity. Is the baker in the same category as Tom Cruise? No, Tom takes the cake. *rimshot* But something about his faith then seems a bit disingenuous, as if his prejudice sought out and locked onto something that confirmed it.
That's one theo point. I've got more. Like:
Is he objecting to the wedding? The fucking? Both? Would he bake a cake for a civil joining or does the gay fucking still exclude that possibility? How about a birthday cake?
As you can see, it gets into not legally relevant minutia fairly quickly. There's another major point I could bring up, but I think I've typed enough already.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 27 2014,15:36
QUOTE
Um... I think you're going a ways further back than the 19th century. And it was never done here in the States. The practice was abandoned before we were a nation. The last person killed for blasphemy in England was in the 1600's.
I didn't say "killed for it." I said it was a crime. 1600s to 1800s seems a pretty short step until the Industrial Revolution really kicked shit into gear.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,16:06
(Malcolm @ Feb. 27 2014,17:36)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Um... I think you're going a ways further back than the 19th century. And it was never done here in the States. The practice was abandoned before we were a nation. The last person killed for blasphemy in England was in the 1600's.
I didn't say "killed for it." I said it was a crime. 1600s to 1800s seems a pretty short step until the Industrial Revolution really kicked shit into gear.
It was never a crime here. In England it was a crime on the books until 2008, actually. Or within the last 10 or so years.
Weird, huh?
Posted by GORDON on Feb. 27 2014,16:08
(TPRJones @ Feb. 27 2014,18:16)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Feb. 27 2014,16:00)
QUOTE
Ugh. I read a book like that a couple years ago. The first 18 months didn't sound like fun.
I guess that would depend on if you like hanging black people or not.
I don't know what that means.
I am talking about this book:
< http://www.dtman.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=10119 >
Diabetics were the first to die. They made it about a month before there was no more insulin on ice.
Posted by TPRJones on Feb. 27 2014,16:51
Ah, I was considering the major events of the 1800s.As to the end of the world, the best solution I've come up with for my diabetic friend Bob in case of zombie outbreak is to intravenously connect him to a pig. Biochemistry is close enough that it might actually work as a strap-on replacement pancreas. Or it might kill him, but it's worth a shot.
At least until he comes down with swine flu.
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 27 2014,17:04
(Vince @ Feb. 27 2014,18:06)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Feb. 27 2014,17:36)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Um... I think you're going a ways further back than the 19th century. And it was never done here in the States. The practice was abandoned before we were a nation. The last person killed for blasphemy in England was in the 1600's.
I didn't say "killed for it." I said it was a crime. 1600s to 1800s seems a pretty short step until the Industrial Revolution really kicked shit into gear.
It was never a crime here. In England it was a crime on the books until 2008, actually. Or within the last 10 or so years.
Weird, huh?
< Bull the fuck shit > until 1925 in at least one state.
QUOTE
That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.
It additionally outlined that an offending teacher would be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined between $200 and $500 for each offense.
< Blasphemous heretic convicted under law >. < Last blasphemous heretic imprisoned under law in 1838 >. Last time the US Supreme Court had to < strike down a blasphemy law > -- 195-fucking-4. < Sodomy laws on the books until 2003 >, I'm sure for purely hygienic reasons.
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,17:23
(Malcolm @ Feb. 27 2014,19:04)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Feb. 27 2014,18:06)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Feb. 27 2014,17:36)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Um... I think you're going a ways further back than the 19th century. And it was never done here in the States. The practice was abandoned before we were a nation. The last person killed for blasphemy in England was in the 1600's.
I didn't say "killed for it." I said it was a crime. 1600s to 1800s seems a pretty short step until the Industrial Revolution really kicked shit into gear.
It was never a crime here. In England it was a crime on the books until 2008, actually. Or within the last 10 or so years.
Weird, huh?
< Bull the fuck shit > until 1925 in at least one state.
QUOTE
That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.
It additionally outlined that an offending teacher would be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined between $200 and $500 for each offense.
< Blasphemous heretic convicted under law >. < Last blasphemous heretic imprisoned under law in 1838 >. Last time the US Supreme Court had to < strike down a blasphemy law > -- 195-fucking-4. < Sodomy laws on the books until 2003 >, I'm sure for purely hygienic reasons.
um... okay?
Posted by Vince on Feb. 27 2014,18:23
(Malcolm @ Feb. 27 2014,17:35)
QUOTE
Is he objecting to the wedding? The fucking? Both? Would he bake a cake for a civil joining or does the gay fucking still exclude that possibility? How about a birthday cake?
But while his views on the matter may seem discriminatory to some, Phillips stands by them. In an interview with CBS, he noted that he has no problem making birthday, graduation or other event cakes for homosexuals, but that wedding cakes are a different story.
“If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever, he said. “It’s just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle.”
Posted by Malcolm on Feb. 27 2014,18:34
His statement seems extremely contradictory. Was he too flamboyantly gay? I'm still extremely unclear on his religious reasoning. Their lifestyle specifically involves sexual attraction to and most likely sex with other men (unless they're going celibate). If this was a man marrying a woman, he wouldn't care because that lifestyle agrees with his rules of life (or does he not provide wedding cakes to anyone)? It very much is the lifestyle. Gay men fuck other men. That is part of their lifestyle. Straight men fuck women. That is part of their lifestyle.Is the cake for the civil union in? Is it the fact that the word "wedding" is specifically treading on the name of a sacrament? I do not see where or why he's drawing a line. I'm trying to give this cat an out other than "discomfort at the thought of one man fucking another," but I'm not seeing it.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 01 2014,09:29
For Vince?
Posted by Vince on Mar. 01 2014,09:34
(TheCatt @ Mar. 01 2014,11:29)
QUOTE
For Vince?
Pretty much. I don't care if you're gay, I'm just tired of you telling me you're gay. And saying that everyone has to celebrate your gayness.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 05 2014,18:38
< Cabbie kicks out couple from his cab for being lesbians. >Yeah, that's reasonable.
Posted by Vince on Mar. 05 2014,18:41
Muslim vs Gay. Guess we'll find out who rank higher on the victim totem pole.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 05 2014,18:48
QUOTE
Egal also called 911 and told the dispatcher that the women were refusing to pay their fare, according to the complaint.
I hope he was charged for filing a false police report.
If he had refused to let them into his cab in the first place I would find it repulsive but not abominable. To accept their business and then kick them out on the side of the interstate is disgraceful. He should have at least pulled off and left them at a gas station or other lighted public area, and he certainly should not have insisted they pay for the privilege of being fucked over. He's lucky they weren't run over or attacked or his negligence would have gotten him into a shitload of trouble.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 05 2014,18:52
With as many false "I was attacked because I am gay/liberal/transgendered/whatever, and oh, coincidentally, there are no no witnesses but doesn't it SOUND real?" stories lately, I maintain a small amount of doubt in the lesbians' story.I did not read the article, though.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 05 2014,21:55
I still say shit you are born with trumps other people's religion/beliefs (aka shit you choose) in areas of biz. Would you boot someone for being ginger? Born with a tail? Women with a widow's peak? If "my beliefs" is the justification for how you can legally act, then I'm going to dream up the craziest-ass pantheon I can think of see how far that shit goes.
Posted by Vince on Mar. 06 2014,03:26
I can understand the reasoning in that Malcolm, but freedom of religion is the reason people moved here from Europe to begin with. It is a cornerstone of our Constitution. And the founders built into the Constitution a method to change it through the amendment process.And before you put all your eggs in the "born that way" basket, that can't be the defining line of liberty or we're going to have some issues with sociopaths.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2014,03:45
(GORDON @ Mar. 05 2014,21:52)
QUOTE
With as many false "I was attacked because I am gay/liberal/transgendered/whatever, and oh, coincidentally, there are no no witnesses but doesn't it SOUND real?" stories lately, I maintain a small amount of doubt in the lesbians' story.
The guy makes it pretty clear he dumped them from the taxi, he doesn't deny it. He doesn't think he was in the wrong about it.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2014,03:50
(Vince @ Mar. 06 2014,06:26)
QUOTE
I can understand the reasoning in that Malcolm, but freedom of religion is the reason people moved here from Europe to begin with. It is a cornerstone of our Constitution. And the founders built into the Constitution a method to change it through the amendment process.
And before you put all your eggs in the "born that way" basket, that can't be the defining line of liberty or we're going to have some issues with sociopaths.
And before you put all your eggs in the "born that way" basket, that can't be the defining line of liberty or we're going to have some issues with sociopaths.
Yeah, people will make up some crazy born that way shit, like people would make up crazy religion shit.
Agree: Freedom of religion is important. You are free to practice any religion you want, but that's a private matter. The government cannot force you to be Catholic, Muslim, etc. But that does not give you the right to not give someone a taxi ride, not bake them a cake, etc.
Do I love the government telling people what to do? No. But it's better than the chaos and legalized discrimination that is the alternative. I see no major difference between denying services to gay people as to denying services to blacks, military personnel, Christians, etc.
Posted by Vince on Mar. 06 2014,04:26
Amend the Constitution.
Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 06 2014,04:44
Don't kid yourself, no one pays more than lip service to that anymore.EDIT: Well, unless it serves some politicians political ends, then suddenly it's sacred again for a few minutes. Or at least whatever clause it is that meets their needs at that moment.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2014,06:26
(Vince @ Mar. 06 2014,07:26)
QUOTE
Amend the Constitution.
There's no need. It's already there.
Posted by Vince on Mar. 06 2014,06:28
Where does it say anything about sexual orientation.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2014,06:55
(Vince @ Mar. 06 2014,09:28)
QUOTE
Where does it say anything about sexual orientation.
Equal protection, for all people.
Posted by Vince on Mar. 06 2014,06:58
(TheCatt @ Mar. 06 2014,08:55)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Mar. 06 2014,09:28)
QUOTE
Where does it say anything about sexual orientation.
Equal protection, for all people.
I can use your argument for the rights of pedophiles to marry 12 year olds as long as the 12 year old consents.
Equal protection doesn't mean you can do what you want.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2014,07:03
(Vince @ Mar. 06 2014,09:58)
QUOTE
(TheCatt @ Mar. 06 2014,08:55)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Mar. 06 2014,09:28)
QUOTE
Where does it say anything about sexual orientation.
Equal protection, for all people.
I can use your argument for the rights of pedophiles to marry 12 year olds as long as the 12 year old consents.
Equal protection doesn't mean you can do what you want.
No, you can't. They're minors.
Equal protection means you can't treat people differently based on who they are / are not in places of public accommodation.
Posted by Vince on Mar. 06 2014,07:12
(TheCatt @ Mar. 06 2014,09:03)
QUOTE
No, you can't. They're minors.
Equal protection means you can't treat people differently based on who they are / are not in places of public accommodation.
Equal protection means you can't treat people differently based on who they are / are not in places of public accommodation.
What's a minor? Someone below an age that we as a society have arbitrarily set.
Saying that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman is a shit ton less arbitrary than saying an 18 year old is mature enough to decide to marry, but a 17 year old isn't.
How about incest?
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 06 2014,07:13
(TheCatt @ Mar. 05 2014,21:38)
QUOTE
< Cabbie kicks out couple from his cab for being lesbians. >
Yeah, that's reasonable.
Yeah, that's reasonable.
I saw the headline, and thought, "That's bullshit."
Then I saw their picture, and thought, "They probably ruined lesbian porn for him."
QUOTE
I still say shit you are born with trumps other people's religion/beliefs (aka shit you choose) in areas of biz.
That's fine, BUT the same folks arguing all the time about gay rights, and screaming "Born that way!" are the same folks who want to reform child molesters. There's a breakdown in logic there.
Not saying gay rights are wrong, but nothing is perfectly black and white.
QUOTE
I can use your argument for the rights of pedophiles to marry 12 year olds as long as the 12 year old consents.
Actually, a great point for my stance.
We're being told by the liberals/progressives now that we need to treat people as the sex they identify with, and by their orientation no matter their age! They're making an argument for the sexual exploitation of children, and they probably don't even realize it.
I think a fundamental law of nature that we're forgetting is you can't make everyone happy all the time. It's Utopian bullshit.
Gay people should absolutely have rights equal to anyone else. However, equal means not putting their rights ahead of other people's rights, and vice versa. Ditto for any other group, minority or majority.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2014,07:15
(Vince @ Mar. 06 2014,10:12)
QUOTE
What's a minor? Someone below an age that we as a society have arbitrarily set.
Saying that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman is a shit ton less arbitrary than saying an 18 year old is mature enough to decide to marry, but a 17 year old isn't.
How about incest?
Saying that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman is a shit ton less arbitrary than saying an 18 year old is mature enough to decide to marry, but a 17 year old isn't.
How about incest?
You're really into this kid and incest thing.
Posted by Vince on Mar. 06 2014,07:17
(TheCatt @ Mar. 06 2014,09:15)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Mar. 06 2014,10:12)
QUOTE
What's a minor? Someone below an age that we as a society have arbitrarily set.
Saying that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman is a shit ton less arbitrary than saying an 18 year old is mature enough to decide to marry, but a 17 year old isn't.
How about incest?
Saying that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman is a shit ton less arbitrary than saying an 18 year old is mature enough to decide to marry, but a 17 year old isn't.
How about incest?
You're really into this kid and incest thing.
You're really into the plugging of poop hole thing.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 06 2014,07:19
Well, it was an interesting discussion...
Posted by Vince on Mar. 06 2014,07:22
Heheh... Sorry Leisher. That just sort of set me off that somehow looking for possible unintended consequences to the argument meant I wanted to sleep with my sister or something.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 06 2014,07:51
(Vince @ Mar. 06 2014,10:22)
QUOTE
Heheh... Sorry Leisher. That just sort of set me off that somehow looking for possible unintended consequences to the argument meant I wanted to sleep with my sister or something.
Oh come on, I never said that. Jeez... lighten up.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 06 2014,08:45
QUOTE
We're being told by the liberals/progressives now that we need to treat people as the sex they identify with, and by their orientation no matter their age!
That's insane.
QUOTE
And before you put all your eggs in the "born that way" basket, that can't be the defining line of liberty or we're going to have some issues with sociopaths.
I prefer to deal with psychos and pedos without tricking myself into believing there's some way to "cure" them. If you've got a fundamental behaviour ingrained in you of which society vehemently disapproves, your options are limited to discipline and restraint. This also gets near the "do your rights stop at the tip of my nose" debate.
QUOTE
Saying that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman is a shit ton less arbitrary than saying an 18 year old is mature enough to decide to marry, but a 17 year old isn't.
The age of majority in this country is bullshit, but that's a totally separate issue. Even if it's a more ridiculous rule, that doesn't make the less ridiculous one ok.
Finally, being underage is something you'll definitely grow out of in time (physically speaking). Your sexual proclivities? Maybe, maybe not.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 06 2014,08:49
(Malcolm @ Mar. 06 2014,11:45)
QUOTE
QUOTE
And before you put all your eggs in the "born that way" basket, that can't be the defining line of liberty or we're going to have some issues with sociopaths.
I prefer to deal with psychos and pedos without tricking myself into believing there's some way to "cure" them. If you've got a fundamental behaviour ingrained in you of which society vehemently disapproves, your options are limited to discipline and restraint. This also gets near the "do your rights stop at the tip of my nose" debate.
There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect between saying, "Don't oppress homosexuals because you can not control who you are attracted to, and that makes it ok" and, "Put all pedos in jail forever because they are attracted to minors and that is just sick."
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 06 2014,08:53
Did I pass judgement on the pedos there? Psychos ... yeah, I've got a bit more of an ax to grind on them, so I'm inclined to jail/execute them, particularly the violent ones who have no interest in controlling themselves. In any case, I wouldn't jail anyone for being attracted to the minors. Attraction is not a crime.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 06 2014,08:55
I wasn't really arguing, just inserting that thought into the discussion.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 06 2014,08:56
(Malcolm @ Mar. 06 2014,11:45)
QUOTE
QUOTE
We're being told by the liberals/progressives now that we need to treat people as the sex they identify with, and by their orientation no matter their age!
That's insane.
Right?
Unfortunately, that's what we're being told.
Think about it. The age of consent is when society has decided a person is old enough to determine if they should have sex or not. This number varies by state and country, because obviously people develop differently based on geopolitical lines...
However, even before a person is supposedly old enough to make that decision, they can decide who they want to sleep with, and what sex they are themselves...
It just seems like the logic in the timing of all these decisions is off.
Posted by Vince on Mar. 06 2014,09:01
(Malcolm @ Mar. 06 2014,10:45)
QUOTE
I prefer to deal with psychos and pedos without tricking myself into believing there's some way to "cure" them. If you've got a fundamental behaviour ingrained in you of which society vehemently disapproves, your options are limited to discipline and restraint. This also gets near the "do your rights stop at the tip of my nose" debate.
I really don't understand the difference between saying that about sociopaths and saying that about homosexuals other than the viewpoint of acceptability of the speaker. Replace "psychos and pedos" with "homosexuals" and there's really not a big difference in the argument. Only the perspective of the arguer.
QUOTE
The age of majority in this country is bullshit, but that's a totally separate issue. Even if it's a more ridiculous rule, that doesn't make the less ridiculous one ok.
Really it's not a separate issue. If society can restrict who you marry based only on age or familial relationships, why can't they restrict it based on sex? Can society restrict who you marry if both parties are willing based on social norms? They either can or they can't.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 06 2014,09:09
QUOTE
There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect between saying, "Don't oppress homosexuals because you can not control who you are attracted to, and that makes it ok" and, "Put all pedos in jail forever because they are attracted to minors and that is just sick."
Disconnect?
Who said to jail someone based on who you're attracted to? Now once you act on it, different story.
And obviously details of any case would apply. I don't think a 20 year old should be locked up forever because he/she slept with a 16 year old. Especially considering one state over that coupling might be legal.
However, a 40+ person trying to nail a 12 year old or something? There's no gray area there. He or she knows what they're doing.
Why do we have to pretend we can "cure" that person?
Plus, there's the whole "nobody gets caught their first time" thing.
Posted by GORDON on Mar. 06 2014,09:10
I wasn't really arguing, I was just inserting that thought into the discussion.
Posted by Leisher on Mar. 06 2014,09:26
(GORDON @ Mar. 06 2014,12:10)
QUOTE
I wasn't really arguing, I was just inserting that thought into the discussion.
So you're not a big Chris Hansen fan. Fair enough.
Posted by Vince on Mar. 06 2014,09:28
(Leisher @ Mar. 06 2014,11:09)
QUOTE
And obviously details of any case would apply. I don't think a 20 year old should be locked up forever because he/she slept with a 16 year old. Especially considering one state over that coupling might be legal.
I agree, but the community standards have to come into play there. The 40 year old and the 12 year old might not have any gray, but what about the 16 year old and the 25 year old? The 35 year old? What about 15 instead of 16?
We're in the process of trying to rid ourselves of moral norms in society. That usually doesn't end well.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 06 2014,09:35
QUOTE
We're in the process of trying to rid ourselves of moral norms in society.
Morality is relative. There's always some kind.
Posted by TheCatt on May 20 2014,13:16
< PA legalizes gay marriage. >< Oregon too >
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 01 2014,10:23
< Congrats, Paul! >
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 01 2014,10:36
QUOTE
Heyburn rejected the only justification offered by lawyers for (Governor) Beshear — that traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate and the state's long-term economic stability.
Wow, that's about the flimsiest argument you can bring to the table. But it gets better.
QUOTE
Attorney Leigh Latherow, whose Ashland firm was hired by Gov. Steve Beshear to defend the ban after Attorney General Jack Conway refused to do so, referred questions to a spokesman for the governor, Terry Sebastian, who said only that state would appeal.
Jesus. The State Attorney General refused to defend the state law.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 01 2014,10:40
QUOTE
Jesus. The State Attorney General refused to defend the state law.
Wow. The fact that we may have identified a State Attorney General that actually has a moral sense might be the most unbelievable thing I've heard in a very long time.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 01 2014,10:49
(TPRJones @ Jul. 01 2014,12:40)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Jesus. The State Attorney General refused to defend the state law.
Wow. The fact that we may have identified a State Attorney General that actually has a moral sense might be the most unbelievable thing I've heard in a very long time.
< He > is psychotic in other ways.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 01 2014,19:09
It could be worse, < we could be in Uganda >.This one you can absolutely blame on the Christians. Before Christianity came to Uganda, homosexuals there were treated just like everyone else. Homosexual marriage was accepted as normal. Then Jesus came in and taught them to hate the gays. *sigh*
And if you might reply that that's just a handful of radical Christians, I would point out that the other 90% of Christians aren't actively decrying their actions. If you would use that logic to brand all Muslims as evil terrorists then the same thing applies here and all Christians are responsible for the persecution of homosexuals in Uganda.
EDIT: Although, admittedly I wouldn't use that logic. As much as I dislike religion in general, I can't really put that blame on all of Christianity any more than I would blame all Muslims for terrorism. Sure the bible says to stone homosexuals, but come on, it also says to do the same to someone wearing poly-cotton blends or eating lobster. It's not homophobia so much as just another facet of a generally violent religion. It's just a shame that some people latch onto that particular piece of it so fiercely while ignoring the parts they don't like and consider that a reasonable thing to do.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 01 2014,19:39
They may have taught them to hate gays, but they also taught them to turn the other cheek, and they certainly did not teach them to chop off limbs with a machete. I don't think it is Christianity's fault that population is fundamentally broken.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 02 2014,03:39
(TPRJones @ Jul. 01 2014,21:09)
QUOTE
This one you can absolutely blame on the Christians. Before Christianity came to Uganda, homosexuals there were treated just like everyone else. Homosexual marriage was accepted as normal. Then Jesus came in and taught them to hate the gays. *sigh*
Trying to find some info where Uganda had gay marriage before and it was treated as regular marriage before the official nation wide ban. Just kind of surprised by that, as before I had read the historically there were only a couple of cultures that accepted gay marriages (wanting to say a couple of them were American Indian tribes).
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 02 2014,06:20
It was part of the continued interview that I linked to. Not in that video but the one where they kept going.There's more < here > as well, including links to some references.
QUOTE
From the 16th century onwards, homosexuality has been recorded in Africa by European missionaries, adventurers and officials who used it to reinforce ideas of African societies in need of Christian cleansing.
The Portuguese were among the first Europeans to explore the continent. They noted the range of gender relations in African societies and referred to the "unnatural damnation" of male-to-male sex in Congo. Andrew Battell, an English traveller in the 1590s, wrote this of the Imbangala of Angola: "They are beastly in their living, for they have men in women's apparel, whom they keep among their wives."
The Portuguese were among the first Europeans to explore the continent. They noted the range of gender relations in African societies and referred to the "unnatural damnation" of male-to-male sex in Congo. Andrew Battell, an English traveller in the 1590s, wrote this of the Imbangala of Angola: "They are beastly in their living, for they have men in women's apparel, whom they keep among their wives."
Posted by Vince on Jul. 02 2014,06:46
Okay, I didn't watch much of the video once I saw it was a comedy show. Read the article and it seems it was definitely tolerated. I think it may be overselling it to say it was universally celebrated. I hope I don't have to point out that I in no way am okay with the draconian laws they are putting forth there.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 02 2014,07:07
I wouldn't think anyone here would be, even those here opposed to gay marriage aren't in the same ballpark as the awful stuff going on over there.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 02 2014,07:36
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 02 2014,09:24
(Vince @ Jul. 02 2014,05:39)
QUOTE
Just kind of surprised by that, as before I had read the historically there were only a couple of cultures that accepted gay marriages (wanting to say a couple of them were American Indian tribes).
< Not necessarily marriage >, but included two dudes fucking nonetheless.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 28 2014,19:15
< Coming to NC and VA soon? >
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 28 2014,19:46
You and Thib can finally make it official.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 29 2014,04:13
He's a little too grumpy for me.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 29 2014,04:23
Yay!
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 29 2014,05:33
They got to Vince.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 29 2014,05:51
Hard to get too excited about some government official announcing that he's going to follow the existing legal requirements of his job. I mean I know that's rare, but it shouldn't be.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 06 2014,10:50
< 5 more states legalize gay marriage > because the Supreme Court rejects ban arguments without comment.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 06 2014,14:54
< 6 more may follow soon, including North Carolina >QUOTE
The Fourth Circuit considered and overturned Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage in July, and on Monday it reiterated that ruling. The Virginia case was one of those the Supreme Court left alone, which means the Fourth Circuit's ruling stands.
In North Carolina, a federal judge must first lift a stay put in place after that ruling, according to Chris Brook, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in North Carolina. The judge then would have to issue a written order declaring unconstitutional the amendment North Carolina voters passed in 2012 defining marriage in the state as being between one man and one woman, Brook said.
Federal Judge William Osteen, Jr., in Greensboro, said he wouldn't lift the stay until all parties in the state cases can file status reports. He has asked for that information within 10 days.
In his order, Osteen wrote that the Fourth Circuit mandate looks like it will require him to overturn the amendment.
...
Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat, has said that he would no longer defend North Carolina’s law, and after Monday's decision, the ACLU pressed for change.
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 06 2014,15:56
Too lazy to review the thread: what's the over-under on legalized polygamy?
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 06 2014,18:28
(thibodeaux @ Oct. 06 2014,18:56)
QUOTE
Too lazy to review the thread: what's the over-under on legalized polygamy?
You mean the thing everyone in this country was screaming needed to be illegal 15(?) years ago?
Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 07 2014,04:43
Don't you know history began in 2000 when Bush stole the election? Racist. Anyway, polygamy. Think about it: there has never ever been "gay marriage" in any human society. Polygamy, however, has a pretty solid pedigree; Hell, it's even in the Bible!Polygamy is in fact practiced in many places today, and many of those practitioners are, shall we say, very persuasive victim groups ::cough Muslims cough::
The only thing holding back legalization in this country, I believe, is that the poster children of polygamy are Mormons. Who are the most disgustingly WHITEST White People in the world. So naturally anything they like is icky. If not for the Mormons, the Left would be tripping over themselves to give Muslims polygamy.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 07 2014,07:00
(thibodeaux @ Oct. 07 2014,06:43)
QUOTE
The only thing holding back legalization in this country, I believe, is that the poster children of polygamy are Mormons. Who are the most disgustingly WHITEST White People in the world. So naturally anything they like is icky. If not for the Mormons, the Left would be tripping over themselves to give Muslims polygamy.
I don't even think that's holding them back. I think what the left is aiming for is for marriage not to mean anything. Of course, they can't say that so they started with the rights for gays to marry. Next will be polygamy. Then marriage to your xbox.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 07 2014,07:32
QUOTE
I think what the left is aiming for is for marriage not to mean anything.
It already is meaningless except for the legal entanglements.
< Exhibit A >
< Exhibit B >
< Exhibit C >
Posted by Vince on Oct. 07 2014,07:47
(Malcolm @ Oct. 07 2014,09:32)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I think what the left is aiming for is for marriage not to mean anything.
It already is meaningless except for the legal entanglements.
< Exhibit A >
< Exhibit B >
< Exhibit C >
An what do all of your exhibits have in common OTHER than marriage?
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 07 2014,08:16
(Vince @ Oct. 07 2014,09:47)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Oct. 07 2014,09:32)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I think what the left is aiming for is for marriage not to mean anything.
It already is meaningless except for the legal entanglements.
< Exhibit A >
< Exhibit B >
< Exhibit C >
An what do all of your exhibits have in common OTHER than marriage?
They reflect this country's increasingly secular attitude towards the ceremony as opposed to the varying definitions laid out in the world's holy books. Shall I link the UK and Aussie versions of Wipe Swap?
Posted by Vince on Oct. 07 2014,08:32
I don't see how including yet two more reality television shows would make much of a difference. Though I will concede that the attitude towards marriage has degraded overall. I would suspect that the notion of choosing a spouse via a television contest in the '50's wouldn't have been as widely accepted as it is today.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 07 2014,08:43
(Vince @ Oct. 07 2014,10:32)
QUOTE
I don't see how including yet two more reality television shows would make much of a difference. Though I will concede that the attitude towards marriage has degraded overall. I would suspect that the notion of choosing a spouse via a television contest in the '50's wouldn't have been as widely accepted as it is today.
< Something > non-TV related. Or < her >.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 07 2014,17:47
(thibodeaux @ Oct. 07 2014,06:43)
QUOTE
...there has never ever been "gay marriage" in any human society.
This is incorrect. There have been many cultures throughout human history that recognized gay marriage. Somewhere back in the thread I inserted many links to list them. I'm too lazy to do it again.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 07 2014,17:52
(Vince @ Oct. 07 2014,09:00)
QUOTE
I think what the left is aiming for is for marriage not to mean anything. Of course, they can't say that so they started with the rights for gays to marry. Next will be polygamy. Then marriage to your xbox.
Let's see, we have:
1) Two consenting adults in a (very likely) loving and (somewhat likely) committed relationship that want to have the rights conferred by society on such a union,
2) Three or more consenting adults in a (very likely) loving and (somewhat likely) committed relationship that want to have the rights conferred by society on such a union,
3) Some guy that wants to marry an appliance.
Can you not really see the big difference here? Are gay people and people who are in love with multiple people just appliances to you instead of actual human beings?
I don't doubt that some of the more extreme people in the left are actually anti-marriage, as you say. But it's likely a number similar to other extremist crackpot viewpoints. The vast majority just want to stop having all the evil shit that comes with not being able to be married to your de facto spouse stop happening to people.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 07 2014,18:45
(TPRJones @ Oct. 07 2014,19:52)
QUOTE
I don't doubt that some of the more extreme people in the left are actually anti-marriage, as you say. But it's likely a number similar to other extremist crackpot viewpoints. The vast majority just want to stop having all the evil shit that comes with not being able to be married to your de facto spouse stop happening to people.
The gay couples are going to have their feelings hurt when they same people that brought them to gay marriage shit all over their institute.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 07 2014,19:01
If you are referring to polyamorous marriage, then I think those gays that consider it a threat to their own marriage are just as silly as the heterosexuals that think gay marriage threatens theirs. And I'll say so when the time comes.And for the record I have no problem with someone that wants to marry their Xbox. I think its absurd and pretty much meaningless under the law since there are no rights to convey to an Xbox nor can an Xbox form contracts. But I wouldn't begrudge someone their happiness as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else because I'm a libertarian and that's what we do. I was just making the point that the comparison was flawed and not a logical extension of the current trend as established.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 10 2014,16:19
< Gay marriages started today in NC. >
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 10 2014,19:04
(TheCatt @ Oct. 10 2014,19:19)
QUOTE
< Gay marriages started today in NC. >
Dumping your wife now to follow your heart?
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 10 2014,20:04
Stop reading my PMs to Thib.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 15 2014,05:54
< This > doesn't seem like a good idea.QUOTE
The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.
Posted by Leisher on Oct. 15 2014,05:55
I don't understand how anyone who has spent 5 minutes in law school could give this plan a thumbs up.
Posted by TheCatt on Oct. 15 2014,06:47
QUOTE
The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa. The city council approved the law in June.
TPR can go to women's locker rooms now.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 15 2014,07:01
I love how conservatives are called anti-science, but calling someone with a penis a male is discrimination.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 15 2014,07:21
QUOTE
“This is the place where we stop the LGBT assault on the freedom to practice our faith.”
The gays aren't doing anything, fuckwit. The city's attorneys are the ones asking for your sermons. And they aren't doing it for anything remotely close to gay rights. They want reelection. They want money.
QUOTE
Mayor Parker will not explain why she wants to inspect the sermons. I contacted City Hall for a comment and received a terse reply from the mayor’s director of communications.
“We don’t comment on litigation,” said Janice Evans.
“We don’t comment on litigation,” said Janice Evans.
Of course not.
QUOTE
This is the moment I wrote about in my book, “God Less America.” I predicted that the government would one day try to silence American pastors. I warned that under the guise of “tolerance and diversity” elected officials would attempt to deconstruct religious liberty.
Said with the same wide-eyed psychosis that Chuckie Manson had the first time he listened to the white album.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 15 2014,07:49
(TheCatt @ Oct. 15 2014,09:47)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa. The city council approved the law in June.
TPR can go to women's locker rooms now.
South Park just did an episode about this. Cartman got sick of having to wait to use the shitters in the boy's bathroom so he put a bow in his hair, named himself trans gendered, and by law was allowed to shit in the girls' restroom.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 15 2014,09:35
If I have a dog that thinks it's a cat in one of these stupid cities, can I file suit against the city's leash laws for being insensitive to my pet's rights? I mean, what business is it of the government what species my pet sees him or herself as?
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 15 2014,09:47
No. If < this dude > can't cross species, neither can your dog.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 15 2014,09:54
(Malcolm @ Oct. 15 2014,11:47)
QUOTE
No. If < this dude > can't cross species, neither can your dog.
Damn. Are you absolutely positive that dude DIDN'T cross species lines?
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 15 2014,09:55
Go with the DNA for the final answer, I always say. Also applies to "gender."
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 15 2014,11:00
(GORDON @ Oct. 15 2014,11:55)
QUOTE
Go with the DNA for the final answer, I always say. Also applies to "gender."
For species, you'll still have some < grey areas >. Not nearly < as many > as people.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 15 2014,11:25
(Malcolm @ Oct. 15 2014,13:00)
QUOTE
For species, you'll still have some < grey areas >.
I don't consider that a grey area. Horses and donkeys make mules all the time. Those are pretty easy to classify. Centuries before we even knew what DNA was, we understood what a mule was.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 15 2014,11:35
You talking a mule or a hinny? Because there's a genetic difference. Even looking past that, the offspring don't behave the same as the parents.QUOTE
There are no recorded cases of fertile mule stallions. A few mare mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey.
Would be nice to know why. And without some solid knowledge of DNA, you never will.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 15 2014,11:50
Since mules are the most common and easier to produce of the two, we'll say mules.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 15 2014,11:52
* Sigh *ok
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 15 2014,11:56
You might get a high-level understanding of genetics by watching it in action. All the annoying, pain in the ass questions need details.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 15 2014,12:34
1) As a libertarian and someone strongly in favor of individual freedoms, I would challenge anyone to show how letting someone label themselves as a gender different from the one with which they were born causes direct harm to another citizen. If it fails to cause direct harm to another citizen then there is no justifiable reason to not let them do it. IMO.2) I don't know what the city is trying to do, but clearly they've gone completely off the rails of legality with that sermons thing. If I were one of those pastors I'd tell them to fuck off. However, that having been said
3) {quote}"In other words – the city is rummaging for evidence to “out” the pastors as anti-gay bigots."{/quote} Like that would take any effort at all. Most of those pastors are absolutely anti-gay bigots and there is no doubt about it. Not because they are opposed to legalizing gay marriage, but because they're in favor of isolating the homosexuals from the rest of society so that they don't spread their dreadful plague of sin. Some of these guys talk about gays the same way the nazis used to talk about jews. That is not an exaggeration, that is a statement that is meant to be literal.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 15 2014,12:40
QUOTE
As a libertarian and someone strongly in favor of individual freedoms, I would challenge anyone to show how letting someone label themselves as a gender different from the one with which they were born causes direct harm to another citizen.
"Won't SOMEONE think of the children?!"
Posted by Vince on Oct. 15 2014,13:05
(Malcolm @ Oct. 15 2014,14:40)
QUOTE
QUOTE
As a libertarian and someone strongly in favor of individual freedoms, I would challenge anyone to show how letting someone label themselves as a gender different from the one with which they were born causes direct harm to another citizen.
"Won't SOMEONE think of the children?!"
Spoken like someone without any
Posted by Vince on Oct. 15 2014,13:08
(TPRJones @ Oct. 15 2014,14:34)
QUOTE
1) As a libertarian and someone strongly in favor of individual freedoms, I would challenge anyone to show how letting someone label themselves as a gender different from the one with which they were born causes direct harm to another citizen. If it fails to cause direct harm to another citizen then there is no justifiable reason to not let them do it. IMO.
Having raised two girls for varying amounts of time, and having sisters and nieces... If some guy came out of the women's restroom behind my young daughter or niece or whatever, it doesn't matter what gender he identifies with, he's getting kicked in the fucking junk. I suspect at that point he'll claim to be a dude.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 15 2014,15:35
QUOTE
If some guy came out of the women's restroom behind my young daughter or niece or whatever, it doesn't matter what gender he identifies with, he's getting kicked in the fucking junk.
I assume you'll extend the same courtesy to women walking out of the men's room?
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 15 2014,16:25
(Malcolm @ Oct. 15 2014,18:35)
QUOTE
QUOTE
If some guy came out of the women's restroom behind my young daughter or niece or whatever, it doesn't matter what gender he identifies with, he's getting kicked in the fucking junk.
I assume you'll extend the same courtesy to women walking out of the men's room?
Kicking her in the crotch would have way less impact. So to speak.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 15 2014,16:45
(Malcolm @ Oct. 15 2014,17:35)
QUOTE
QUOTE
If some guy came out of the women's restroom behind my young daughter or niece or whatever, it doesn't matter what gender he identifies with, he's getting kicked in the fucking junk.
I assume you'll extend the same courtesy to women walking out of the men's room?
I'd punch her in the tits.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 15 2014,17:04
Punt to the cunt? That can hurt.Would you do the same to a lesbian coming out of the ladies room, Vince? They're more likely to be into girls than some guy that wants to be a lady.
EDIT: More on topic, that's still not direct harm so I'd say you'd be in the wrong on that one even though I understand the impulse to do so. Now if something happened that IS direct harm by all means punt away, or worse. But that's about molestation, not some dude wanting to be a lady.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 15 2014,18:38
To me it's pretty simple. If you have a penis, go to the mens room. If you have a hoo ha, go to the ladies room. This isn't rocket science. People where I work got all bent out of shape because there was a woman there going through gender reassignment. She had to live as a he for a year before they did the surgery, etc. The women got all freaked out about it, so she ended up with her own bathroom until they slapped a dick on her. To me it was stupid. No dickie... little girls room. Dickie... little boys room.This really isn't that hard.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 15 2014,18:57
Then maybe instead of boys and girls bathrooms, we should call them penis and vagina rooms.
Posted by GORDON on Oct. 15 2014,19:02
(TPRJones @ Oct. 15 2014,21:57)
QUOTE
Then maybe instead of boys and girls bathrooms, we should call them penis and vagina rooms.
We probably should. People are going insane and need it clarified.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 16 2014,03:24
(GORDON @ Oct. 15 2014,21:02)
QUOTE
(TPRJones @ Oct. 15 2014,21:57)
QUOTE
Then maybe instead of boys and girls bathrooms, we should call them penis and vagina rooms.
We probably should. People are going insane and need it clarified.
Apparently.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 16 2014,03:42
(Malcolm @ Oct. 15 2014,09:21)
QUOTE
QUOTE
“This is the place where we stop the LGBT assault on the freedom to practice our faith.”
The gays aren't doing anything, fuckwit. The city's attorneys are the ones asking for your sermons. And they aren't doing it for anything remotely close to gay rights. They want reelection. They want money.
The mayor in Houston was a lesbian gay activist before getting elected, so at this point I don't know how distinctive the line is between the gay activists and the city government.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 16 2014,07:14
Mayor Parker used to be an activist who is gay, yes, but she's never been a "gay activist". Her activism was in relation to the Historical Preservation Society, not the LBGT community. She's never been liked very much by the actual gay activists in the city because of her unwillingness to loudly champion the causes they get worked up over.I don't even know if she's officially pro- or anti- on the point of gay marriage. Her stance in her political career has been that it's not an issue that is pertinent to a city leader since it's determined at the capitol in Austin and not Houston. Of course she got married in California earlier this year so I'd imagine she's pro-, but it's a political stance she has avoided as irrelevant much to the ire of some in the gay community.
So, no, she was not a lesbian gay activist in the way you mean it. Up until this weird summoning of the sermons, the only thing she's done to annoy these preachers is just be gay.
Posted by Vince on Oct. 16 2014,08:19
Thanks for the clarification TPR. I did not know that about her. I think this Sundays sermon shouldn't be about gay love or straight love, but about self love. Then invite the city attorneys to go fuck themselves.
Posted by Vince on Nov. 05 2014,16:55
I did not realize that Johns Hopkins was urging against gender reassignment surgery now. Reading their take on it, it makes a lot of sense. Has anyone seen their arguments?< Here >
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 05 2014,17:34
QUOTE
McHugh says "I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes...
How do they know that someone's better off without a sex change than with one? You can wind back the clock and get them to do the opposite so you have a means of comparison?
Posted by Vince on Nov. 05 2014,18:44
They look at rates of depression and suicide before and after reassignment surgery, and they remain pretty much the same. I wouldn't use his language though, I would say that they are mutilating the patient's bodies and fueling their false reality instead of treating the actual problem.The best explanation I heard was of people that think they have a body part (an arm for instance) that isn't theirs. That's an actual thing. We don't feed the deluded fantasy those people have by removing their limbs or body parts. We treat the mental illness.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 05 2014,18:50
(Vince @ Nov. 05 2014,19:55)
QUOTE
I did not realize that Johns Hopkins was urging against gender reassignment surgery now. Reading their take on it, it makes a lot of sense. Has anyone seen their arguments?
< Here >
< Here >
< More recent article by that doctor. >
Link maybe fixed.
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2014,18:51
Copy the full article here
Posted by Vince on Nov. 05 2014,18:51
Grrr...QUOTE
Get The Full Story
Subscribe or Log In
Subscribe or Log In
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 05 2014,18:58
Weird... it let me read the whole thing, yet when I go back... it's paywalled. If come in through google search, you can read it.QUOTE
The government and media alliance advancing the transgender cause has gone into overdrive in recent weeks. On May 30, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services review board ruled that Medicare can pay for the "reassignment" surgery sought by the transgendered—those who say that they don't identify with their biological sex. Earlier last month Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that he was "open" to lifting a ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. Time magazine, seeing the trend, ran a cover story for its June 9 issue called "The Transgender Tipping Point: America's next civil rights frontier."
Yet policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention. This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.
The transgendered suffer a disorder of "assumption" like those in other disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature—namely one's maleness or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight.
Enlarge Image
A man who looks into the mirror and sees himself as a woman Getty Images
With body dysmorphic disorder, an often socially crippling condition, the individual is consumed by the assumption "I'm ugly." These disorders occur in subjects who have come to believe that some of their psycho-social conflicts or problems will be resolved if they can change the way that they appear to others. Such ideas work like ruling passions in their subjects' minds and tend to be accompanied by a solipsistic argument.
For the transgendered, this argument holds that one's feeling of "gender" is a conscious, subjective sense that, being in one's mind, cannot be questioned by others. The individual often seeks not just society's tolerance of this "personal truth" but affirmation of it. Here rests the support for "transgender equality," the demands for government payment for medical and surgical treatments, and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.
With this argument, advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several states—including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts—to pass laws barring psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor. That government can intrude into parents' rights to seek help in guiding their children indicates how powerful these advocates have become.
How to respond? Psychiatrists obviously must challenge the solipsistic concept that what is in the mind cannot be questioned. Disorders of consciousness, after all, represent psychiatry's domain; declaring them off-limits would eliminate the field. Many will recall how, in the 1990s, an accusation of parental sex abuse of children was deemed unquestionable by the solipsists of the "recovered memory" craze.
You won't hear it from those championing transgender equality, but controlled and follow-up studies reveal fundamental problems with this movement. When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London's Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings. Some 25% did have persisting feelings; what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned.
We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into "sex-reassignment surgery"—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as "satisfied" by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn't have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a "satisfied" but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.
It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex-reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.
There are subgroups of the transgendered, and for none does "reassignment" seem apt. One group includes male prisoners like Pvt. Bradley Manning, the convicted national-security leaker who now wishes to be called Chelsea. Facing long sentences and the rigors of a men's prison, they have an obvious motive for wanting to change their sex and hence their prison. Given that they committed their crimes as males, they should be punished as such; after serving their time, they will be free to reconsider their gender.
Another subgroup consists of young men and women susceptible to suggestion from "everything is normal" sex education, amplified by Internet chat groups. These are the transgender subjects most like anorexia nervosa patients: They become persuaded that seeking a drastic physical change will banish their psycho-social problems. "Diversity" counselors in their schools, rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery. Treatments here must begin with removing the young person from the suggestive environment and offering a counter-message in family therapy.
Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston's Children's Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous—even though the drugs stunt the children's growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting.
At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. "Sex change" is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.
Dr. McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, is the author of "Try to Remember: Psychiatry's Clash Over Meaning, Memory, and Mind" (Dana Press, 2008).
Posted by GORDON on Nov. 05 2014,19:04
QUOTE
At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. "Sex change" is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.
Heyo. I think I said this recently.
Posted by Vince on Nov. 06 2014,03:54
Thanks Catt
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 07 2014,10:42
< Missouri >.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 07 2014,12:37
Four other states were rejected/denied/whatever yesterday by a different Court of Appeals (Which impacts MI, OH, TN, and KY, so sorry: Cake, Gordon, Leisher, and Paul).
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 07 2014,13:06
(TheCatt @ Nov. 07 2014,14:37)
QUOTE
Four other states were rejected/denied/whatever yesterday by a different Court of Appeals (Which impacts MI, OH, TN, and KY, so sorry: Cake, Gordon, Leisher, and Paul).
QUOTE
Koster's appeal represents the first to the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on state bans on same-sex marriage.
Arkansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota - all in the region handled by the 8th Circuit - have bans in place on gay marriage. Same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa under a state Supreme Court ruling and in Minnesota by state statute.
Arkansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota - all in the region handled by the 8th Circuit - have bans in place on gay marriage. Same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa under a state Supreme Court ruling and in Minnesota by state statute.
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 07 2015,10:59
< Three more bans > up for review.
Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 07 2015,11:17
C'mon TPR!
Posted by TPRJones on Jan. 08 2015,14:09
That's nice. Texas is mostly pretty good. I found the whole vote on banning gay marriage down here very disappointing. Generally most Texans are very much about minding your own business and I'll mind mine sort of thinking when it comes to laws like that. Just too many Christians, I guess.
Posted by Malcolm on Jan. 08 2015,14:39
< Ever since > the Supreme Court forced them to mind their own biz...
Posted by TheCatt on Jan. 16 2015,13:13
< Supreme Court to take it up. Ruling ETA around July >
Posted by Malcolm on May 06 2015,10:13
< Nebraska shithead wastes > everyone's time.
Posted by Vince on May 06 2015,10:17
She's obviously not well.
Posted by Malcolm on May 06 2015,10:51
(Vince @ May 06 2015,12:17)
QUOTE
She's obviously not well.
Voluntarily remaining in Nebraska should be evidence of mental illness.
Posted by Malcolm on May 19 2015,10:08
< Irelands comes down > on baker who forgets he's a businessman.QUOTE
Explaining the rationale for the long-awaited ruling in a case that has attracted worldwide attention, Judge Brownlie said that the defendants were not a religious organization and that they conducted their business for profit. As such, she said, they were obliged to provide a service to everyone.
Posted by Malcolm on May 20 2015,10:07
< Louisiana gov > has the balls to do what the state legislature didn't.
Posted by Malcolm on May 20 2015,10:23
< Gay marriage-hating pastor suddenly changes his tune >.QUOTE
According to screenshots obtained by Queerty, Makela was soliciting sex from men on Grindr, an app geared toward gay, bisexual and bi-curious men.
Posted by TPRJones on May 20 2015,11:37
Ironically what that guy actually wrote I can kind of respect:QUOTE
"Read these words this morning: 'Long before gay marriage was part of our national discussion, natural marriage did not always reflect God's will of love and submission. Divorce became common, love in marriage grew colder and children were not always seen as a blessing. Changing the culture begins with changing our culture of marriage and family, taking the marriage union with the utmost seriousness and welcoming children in our church.' AMEN!"
While I of course disagree, I can respect that he's implying here that divorce, loveless marriages, and unwanted children are all just as much of a problem with marriage as homosexual marriage. He's not just preaching "hate the gays" he's preaching "fix marriage". That's rare enough to almost be commendable. If he'd come right out and said that divorce, loveless marriages, and unwanted children should be made illegal alongside homosexual marriage then he'd have gotten my full respect, but he didn't go quite that far.
Sadly he also has clearly has a lot of self-denial to deal with and is having a hard time making his religion work in the context of his own sexuality.
Posted by Malcolm on May 20 2015,11:44
QUOTE
Changing the culture begins with changing our culture of marriage and family, taking the marriage union with the utmost seriousness
Meanwhile, < Wife Swap > and its celebrity counterpart on the ABC (Disney) network argue with that shit. Where's the religious outrage? Do we have to make a show called God Swap where you have worshippers trade deities for a few weeks?
Posted by TPRJones on May 20 2015,11:50
Exactly. Anyone who advocates against gay marriage but does not advocate equally strongly against divorce, marriages of convenience, and all that sort of stuff has a lo to answer for lest they be branded hypocrites.He didn't do that. Thus some modicum of respect.
Posted by Malcolm on May 20 2015,12:09
Damn, the more I think about it, God Swap would be hilarious.
Posted by Malcolm on May 24 2015,11:18
< Catholic leaders dumbfounded > and stupefied (or maybe just stupid).QUOTE
"The Church has to find a new language which will be understood and heard by people," Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin, a senior Irish cleric, told reporters after mass at the city's St Mary's Pro-Cathedral.
"We have to see how is it that the Church's teaching on marriage and family is not being received even within its own flock."
"We have to see how is it that the Church's teaching on marriage and family is not being received even within its own flock."
Let me save you some time, Diarmuid. But first, goddamn, that's an Irish name. Here's how: your teachings have become outdated. The millennia of not updating shit has finally caught up with you.
Posted by Malcolm on May 27 2015,13:13
< Vatican >: Same-sex marriage is a "defeat for humanity."QUOTE
Without mentioning Ireland's referendum vote, the pope described marriage as "the alliance of love between a man and a woman."
Or a priest and an altar boy.
Posted by GORDON on May 27 2015,13:42
(Malcolm @ May 27 2015,16:13)
QUOTE
< Vatican >: Same-sex marriage is a "defeat for humanity."
Or a priest and an altar boy.
QUOTE
Without mentioning Ireland's referendum vote, the pope described marriage as "the alliance of love between a man and a woman."
Or a priest and an altar boy.
To be fair, priests never tried marrying the alter boys.
Posted by Malcolm on May 27 2015,14:06
(GORDON @ May 27 2015,15:42)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ May 27 2015,16:13)
QUOTE
< Vatican >: Same-sex marriage is a "defeat for humanity."
Or a priest and an altar boy.
QUOTE
Without mentioning Ireland's referendum vote, the pope described marriage as "the alliance of love between a man and a woman."
Or a priest and an altar boy.
To be fair, priests never tried marrying the alter boys.
Of course not, that'd be gay (and probably underage) marriage. That's something they'll go on the record and actively campaign against. But based on the number of transferred and shuffled pedo priests, I get the feeling they're not willing to put forth the effort on that issue.
Thoughts:
1) God made everyone in his image.
2) Some people are gay.
Conclusion: I guess god's kind of gay.
Posted by TPRJones on May 27 2015,15:40
The classic reply to that would be that God doesn't make people gay, Satan does.
Posted by Malcolm on May 27 2015,18:33
(TPRJones @ May 27 2015,17:40)
QUOTE
The classic reply to that would be that God doesn't make people gay, Satan does.
Nah, Satan only exists because the almighty lets him. For some equally unfathomable reason. All part of the plan. Which means he's letting the devil make them gay. It's still ultimately on him.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 05 2015,10:06
< Patrick Stewart backs the bakers. >(Right thread?)
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 05 2015,10:29
Much as I like the old captain...QUOTE
Stewart argued that nobody should be forced to write specific text that they disagreed with.
... his reasoning invites further questions. Does he explicitly mean "writing" or does that have equivalent weight with "talking" or any other form of expression? It's not hard to get from there to "you shouldn't be forced to do anything you don't want." I don't agree with the gov't on 99.9% of the taxes they levy. I'm still forced to pay.
And finally, a few people still don't get it:
QUOTE
Coleen Nolan previously expressed a similar sentiment, although it was perhaps not as carefully worded.
The Loose Women panelist played devil's advocate for the bakery, comparing their reaction to being asked to support gay marriage to a Westerner being asked to ice a cake supporting ISIS.
The Loose Women panelist played devil's advocate for the bakery, comparing their reaction to being asked to support gay marriage to a Westerner being asked to ice a cake supporting ISIS.
No, it's not, Coleen. I'm pretty sure most ISIS members are that way because they chose it. I'm equally certain that gay marriage supporters haven't resorted to suicide bombers.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 08 2015,08:29
Hey, at least it's a step up from comparing homosexuals to pedophiles and dog fuckers.Progress!
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 08 2015,09:23
I self identify as canine and I find your post extremely triggering.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 08 2015,09:36
(GORDON @ Jun. 08 2015,11:23)
QUOTE
I self identify as canine and I find your post extremely triggering.
Chase some cars and I might believe you.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 08 2015,09:42
(Malcolm @ Jun. 08 2015,12:36)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Jun. 08 2015,11:23)
QUOTE
I self identify as canine and I find your post extremely triggering.
Chase some cars and I might believe you.
Better check your privilege cis scum.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 08 2015,09:55
(GORDON @ Jun. 08 2015,11:42)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Jun. 08 2015,12:36)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Jun. 08 2015,11:23)
QUOTE
I self identify as canine and I find your post extremely triggering.
Chase some cars and I might believe you.
Better check your privilege cis scum.
Better check your rabies shots, Fido.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 08 2015,10:30
(Leisher @ Jun. 05 2015,12:06)
QUOTE
< Patrick Stewart backs the bakers. >
(Right thread?)
(Right thread?)
That one bothered me more than the usual gay marriage cake. This was a cake with a political message (Support gay marriage), not a cake for a gay marriage.
So this one is hideously evil.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 08 2015,11:14
The cake is evil?
Posted by Vince on Jun. 08 2015,13:12
The people suing for the bakers not agreeing with their political message is evil. stop. end of message.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 08 2015,15:38
Oh. I will agree as long as you agree that it would be equally evil regardless of what the message was. ANY message can be refused for any reason, yes? Then we are agree.But if it's only about gaygaygay then I would disagree.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 08 2015,15:46
Anyone remember when bakers just made fucking cakes instead of worrying about what the cake said about them or what it'd be used for?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 08 2015,15:52
Are you suggesting that there used to be people who just did a job and never had opinions about things?
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 08 2015,16:29
(Malcolm @ Jun. 08 2015,17:46)
QUOTE
Anyone remember when bakers just made fucking cakes instead of worrying about what the cake said about them or what it'd be used for?
Well, it was a lot easier when the biggest difference likely to come up was Protestant vs Catholic. These days people are likely to have all sorts of contrary opinions about things.
Some of us consider that a good thing. Not everyone agrees.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 08 2015,16:59
(TPRJones @ Jun. 08 2015,17:38)
QUOTE
Oh. I will agree as long as you agree that it would be equally evil regardless of what the message was. ANY message can be refused for any reason, yes? Then we are agree.
But if it's only about gaygaygay then I would disagree.
But if it's only about gaygaygay then I would disagree.
I absolutely agree that anyone suing anyone for having an opinion that doesn't agree with yours is evil. I would equally call someone going to a gay bakery and asking for an anti-gay cake and being told no and turning around and suing them would also be evil.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 08 2015,17:11
Cool, then we're on the same page there.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 09 2015,03:27
I'm at the point where I seriously would not be surprised if a gay couple sued a baker for publicly supporting a conservative candidate.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 09 2015,06:37
Sure, sure, the world is full of assholes.Just don't forget that they're not all gay.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 09 2015,07:21
I know. And I agree that most are fine. I think I've said before here in this thread that I think this movement is driven as much or more so by the anti-Christian types than as any affection for the homosexual community.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 09 2015,07:30
< Title IX: The next fronteir for assholes >
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 09 2015,07:36
That link could go directly into my "send your son to college?" thread so people could call me paranoid, more.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 09 2015,07:39
QUOTE
People who are accused of far worse things than I was - you know, students accused of sexual assault don't have lawyers. They don't know what the rules of evidence are. And so I think the whole process just has to be more transparent than it is.
Awesome justice system this country has.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 09 2015,07:40
QUOTE
I know. And I agree that most are fine. I think I've said before here in this thread that I think this movement is driven as much or more so by the anti-Christian types than as any affection for the homosexual community.
Agreed. And I'd feel worse about that if it weren't for the equally evil pro-Christian crazies that keep suing evolution out of the classrooms and protesting funerals.
These people - on both sides - are why we can't have nice things.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 09 2015,07:58
So maybe it's a parenting problem, because I guaren-damn-tee if my kid's school wasn't teaching evolution, my kid would still know and understand it better than 99% of the population.But this feels terribly off-topic.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 09 2015,08:26
(TPRJones @ Jun. 09 2015,09:40)
QUOTE
Agreed. And I'd feel worse about that if it weren't for the equally evil pro-Christian crazies that keep suing evolution out of the classrooms and protesting funerals.
Do you think either of those groups approach the influence and saturation of the anti-Christian groups?
The Christian groups mentioned are marginalized in the MSM. The LGBTLMNOP groups are heralded by the MSM.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 09 2015,08:31
QUOTE
Do you think either of those groups approach the influence and saturation of the anti-Christian groups?
Yeah.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 09 2015,08:56
Absolutely. The anti-Christians have won a majority of the public places on the internet, sure. But the pro-Christian crazies I mentioned still have a massive majority in the offline world, from school boards to state houses to Fox news and the vast majority of the Republican party and beyond.I think in the long run the side that has won the internet will come out on top and the other will fade away. But for now the other side still has much real world power.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 11 2015,10:10
< Aussies > say they'll get divorced if the country recognizes same-sex marriages. From the pen of the psycho...QUOTE
It will not be about the mystery of difference in sexual unity, as children come from gendered dissimilarity. It will not be about building and securing communities into the future… If this is no longer the case, then we no longer wish to be associated with this new definition.
I hope your room has a lot of rubber or padded wallpaper.
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 26 2015,08:37
< Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage >QUOTE
In a historic decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that gay and lesbian couples across the country have a constitutional right to marry.
The 5-4 decision caps a long and often contentious battle over what many have called the “defining civil rights challenge of our time."
The 5-4 decision caps a long and often contentious battle over what many have called the “defining civil rights challenge of our time."
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2015,08:50
QUOTE
A Cincinnati, Ohio, same-sex couple filed a lawsuit, Obergefell v. Kasich, in the U.S. Southern District of Ohio on July 19, 2013, alleging that the state discriminates against same-sex couples who have married lawfully out-of-state. Because one partner, John Arthur, was terminally ill and suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), they wanted the Ohio Registrar to identify the other partner, James Obergefell, as his surviving spouse on his death certificate based on their July 11, 2013, Maryland marriage.
Ohio felt like being a dick to a dead guy. Nice.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 26 2015,09:16
Scalia is proving himself to be one of the best Justices ever and it has nothing to do with how he rules. He's hilarious.Addressing the ruling itself, I think this is going to have far reaching implications that most people don't see at this point. The solicitor general has already indicated that they're going to have to look at the tax exempt status of churches that refuse to perform same sex marriages. This ruling has pretty much obliterated the rights of conscious, I'm seeing Nuremberg defense of Superior orders being legitimate now because no, you don't have the right or obligation to defy orders that are immoral.
Greece, please don't screw up the world economy before I get my house sold.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2015,10:26
(Vince @ Jun. 26 2015,11:16)
QUOTE
Scalia is proving himself to be one of the best Justices ever and it has nothing to do with how he rules.
I'm waiting for the day his old ass retires.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 26 2015,11:26
(Vince @ Jun. 26 2015,12:16)
QUOTE
The solicitor general has already indicated that they're going to have to look at the tax exempt status of churches that refuse to perform same sex marriages.
I saw one comment about this, "I can't wait until a mosque is forced to perform a same-sex marriage."
Posted by Vince on Jun. 26 2015,11:46
Well, the same officials that have refused to sue Muslim bakers for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding will, I'm sure, show the same level of even handedness when dealing with this issue.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2015,12:06
(GORDON @ Jun. 26 2015,13:26)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Jun. 26 2015,12:16)
QUOTE
The solicitor general has already indicated that they're going to have to look at the tax exempt status of churches that refuse to perform same sex marriages.
I saw one comment about this, "I can't wait until a mosque is forced to perform a same-sex marriage."
I would laugh my ass off.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 26 2015,13:29
From what I've read so far on the majority decision, there was very little in the way of the Constitution or even "legal argument" that went into this. Mostly just "because we want it and we have the votes and it makes us feel good".
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2015,14:15
(Vince @ Jun. 26 2015,15:29)
QUOTE
From what I've read so far on the majority decision, there was very little in the way of the Constitution or even "legal argument" that went into this. Mostly just "because we want it and we have the votes and it makes us feel good".
Law is, by definition, what 5 of these 9 decreed. All due respect to the founding fathers but "the power to interpret the law as written" may as well read "the power to make a decision and then that's it, we're fucking done, it's over until we decide to < bring it up in another decade or two >."
Posted by Vince on Jun. 26 2015,14:43
< Hours After Gay Marriage Ruling, Politico Op-Ed Calls for Legalized Polygamy >Fist line of the article made me laugh...
QUOTE
Man, that slope was slippier than it looked.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 26 2015,14:50
I wonder if the Mormon Church would revert.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 26 2015,14:56
I doubt it. They discontinued it back in 1890. Honestly I suspect most Mormons considered it more hassle than it was worth unless they has a lot of money.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 26 2015,15:02
Homosexuals < science deniers? >
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 26 2015,15:13
(Vince @ Jun. 26 2015,17:02)
QUOTE
Homosexuals < science deniers? >
Rebuttal:
Penn and Teller's Bullshit, season 3, episode 2: "Family Values."
Additionally, shouldn't they be coming down on widow and widowers with kids equally as hard? It's not intentional deprivation, but the result isn't just equivalent, it's worse. Holy shit, you know what'd go a long way towards making sure no child is ever without a mother or father?
QUOTE
Politico Op-Ed Calls for Legalized Polygamy
Lastly, I remember something about "more freedom, not less" over in the Indiana thread.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 26 2015,16:47
Polygamy is the next natural step to take and there's really no reason I can see to not let people that want to do that do it. The ultimate point of marriage is conservation and management of resources (including capital, assets, and time, mostly but not exclusively for the purpose of providing for offspring) and more adults involved makes it more efficient at doing that.A century ago that role was filled by the extended family which often had multiple generations living under one roof. We don't do that very much anymore and polygamy would be a good replacement for those adults so inclined.
But I won't fight for this one as hard as I did for gay marriage. After all as long as two of the three or more people involved in a polygamous relationship can get married that helps severely limit the damage caused by it not being legal for them all to get married to each other. So the need isn't nearly as pressing because the impact of it's illegality is not nearly as forceful.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 26 2015,16:57
My favorite tweet on the subject:QUOTE
Your move, sir. <
— Clay Aiken (@clayaiken) June 26, 2015 > Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 26 2015,16:59
The downside of today is that in a year or two there will be a big spike in gay divorce. All because you can get married doesn't mean you should. But the excitement is going to lead to some bad decisions.But that shall pass. And the divorce parties will be fabulous!
Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 27 2015,04:06
(Vince @ Jun. 26 2015,18:02)
QUOTE
Homosexuals < science deniers? >
Try to find a more unbiased source next time. You're quoting a political organization, not a medical one
QUOTE
The American College of Pediatricians:
* Recognizes that there are absolutes and scientific truths that transcend relative social considerations of the day.
* Recognizes that good medical science cannot exist in a moral vacuum and pledges to promote such science.
* Recognizes the fundamental mother-father family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for the development and nurturing of children and pledges to promote this unit.
* Recognizes the unique value of every human life from the time of conception to natural death and pledges to promote research and clinical practice that provides for the healthiest outcome of the child from conception to adulthood.
* Recognizes that there are absolutes and scientific truths that transcend relative social considerations of the day.
* Recognizes that good medical science cannot exist in a moral vacuum and pledges to promote such science.
* Recognizes the fundamental mother-father family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for the development and nurturing of children and pledges to promote this unit.
* Recognizes the unique value of every human life from the time of conception to natural death and pledges to promote research and clinical practice that provides for the healthiest outcome of the child from conception to adulthood.
< The AAP is a reputable organization of pediatricians. >
< AAP supports same sex civil marriage. >
Posted by Vince on Jun. 27 2015,04:17
(TPRJones @ Jun. 26 2015,18:59)
QUOTE
The downside of today is that in a year or two there will be a big spike in gay divorce. All because you can get married doesn't mean you should. But the excitement is going to lead to some bad decisions.
But that shall pass. And the divorce parties will be fabulous!
But that shall pass. And the divorce parties will be fabulous!
I agree the divorce rates will be high. For whatever reason, the age disparity seems to be a lot higher among gay couples (someone posted a chart on the forum here somewhere). That may have something to do with it. Not sure.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 27 2015,04:24
(TheCatt @ Jun. 27 2015,06:06)
QUOTE
(Vince @ Jun. 26 2015,18:02)
QUOTE
Homosexuals < science deniers? >
Try to find a more unbiased source next time. You're quoting a political organization, not a medical one
To be honest, I just looked in passing. To be fair though, there is a growing number of adults that grew up with same sex parents that are indicating that while they love their parents dearly, they always felt there was something missing in their rearing by not having a parent of the other sex.
Not sure how one would measure "reputable", but AAP seems just as political
QUOTE
Pediatricians Applaud Supreme Court Decision to Uphold Federal Subsidies for Health Insurance Purchased in All 50 States
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 27 2015,05:50
(Vince @ Jun. 27 2015,06:17)
QUOTE
I agree the divorce rates will be high. For whatever reason, the age disparity seems to be a lot higher among gay couples (someone posted a chart on the forum here somewhere). That may have something to do with it. Not sure.
To be clear I'm just referring to those who will be getting married just because it's finally legal and they get carried away. In a sane world where it had already been legal all along these couples wouldn't have gotten married at this time, if ever.
Once that spike has passed I think divorce rates among homosexuals are likely to be similar to but slightly less than heterosexuals. The difference would be because homosexual relationships are slightly more likely to be semi-open and/or include honest discussion about when and how dabbling with others is allowed, which reduces the odds of infidelity destroying the relationship.
As to the prevalence of age differences, it sounds rather Freudian but honestly some of those are due to daddy issues for some gay men who's fathers never accepted them. Having a bigoted father that hates them can screw some people up a bit.
Lastly it's too soon to have any good studies about how the children of homosexual couples turn out. Until the kids reach their 30s I wouldn't trust them to have enough perspective to make an accurate assessment of how it may have effected them, and 30+ years ago there was little to no acceptance of gay couples adopting children so there'd be all sorts of issues related to persecution from their peers getting in the way. It'll be a couple of decades from now before we can start to get good results on studies of this topic.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that on average the kids do better, if only because there are no unwanted accidents among homosexual couples which would alter the average outcome a bit.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 27 2015,09:19
QUOTE
To be fair though, there is a growing number of adults that grew up with same sex parents that are indicating that while they love their parents dearly, they always felt there was something missing in their rearing by not having a parent of the other sex.
What studies?
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 27 2015,12:32
Saw this somewhere.QUOTE
1 "All we want is to be out of the shadows."
2 "All we want is acceptance"
3 "All we want is equality"
4 "Your view belongs in the shadows."
2 "All we want is acceptance"
3 "All we want is equality"
4 "Your view belongs in the shadows."
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 28 2015,08:31
< The fuck >?QUOTE
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee urged Christian leaders to channel Martin Luther King, Jr. by resisting the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
Huckabee pointed to King's Letter from Birmingham Jail, in which the civil rights leader advocated non-violent resistance to racism, saying that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Huckabee pointed to King's Letter from Birmingham Jail, in which the civil rights leader advocated non-violent resistance to racism, saying that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Firstly...
QUOTE
King’s widow once said in a public speech that everyone who believed in her husband’s dream should “make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”
QUOTE
"May I ask, are we going to now discriminate against people of conscience, people of faith, who disagree with this ruling?" he said.
The people of the faith are going to have to, gasp, live with gay married people around them, exactly like the dudes that thought interracial marriage was fucked up and had to live with it. There's no minister that'll be forced to join two dudes in matrimony. If you want matters of faith to be at the forefront of gov't, there are plenty of places you can go: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Vatican City, Oman, the list goes on.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 28 2015,17:07
(TPRJones @ Jun. 27 2015,07:50)
QUOTE
Lastly it's too soon to have any good studies about how the children of homosexual couples turn out. Until the kids reach their 30s I wouldn't trust them to have enough perspective to make an accurate assessment of how it may have effected them, and 30+ years ago there was little to no acceptance of gay couples adopting children so there'd be all sorts of issues related to persecution from their peers getting in the way. It'll be a couple of decades from now before we can start to get good results on studies of this topic.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that on average the kids do better, if only because there are no unwanted accidents among homosexual couples which would alter the average outcome a bit.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that on average the kids do better, if only because there are no unwanted accidents among homosexual couples which would alter the average outcome a bit.
I agree that it's too soon to know how the kids of gay couples will do. And that's honestly been one of my biggest concerns with this entire debate. Personally I think they'll end up coming out on par with a child brought up by a single parent. But for the sake of this demonstration let's say that it comes out even worse. Let's say across the board they are at greater risk in every category. High school drop out rates, drug abuse rates, teen pregnancy risks, the whole gambit. Then what? "Sorry kid, I know we're dealing you a shit hand with this adoption, but we can't favor the straight family over the gay one"? It's done now. They are equal in the eyes of the law. No matter if we determine at a later date that they really aren't.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 28 2015,17:12
QUOTE
High school drop out rates, drug abuse rates, teen pregnancy risks, the whole gambit. Then what? "Sorry kid, I know we're dealing you a shit hand with this adoption, but we can't favor the straight family over the gay one"?
I'd need a large, large amount of studies to convince me.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 28 2015,21:15
QUOTE
But for the sake of this demonstration let's say that it comes out even worse. Let's say across the board they are at greater risk in every category.
Why don't we suppose for the sake of demonstration that we should give all kids cocaine. Let's say across the board they are more active and thus in better physical shape and lead a more productive life.
I find that to be about as likely to be true as your scenario. It will take several good studies from independent parties to convince me that gay parents are worse across the board. Not to mention that even though gay marriage is legal gay adoption is still frequently an uphill struggle in many states, including some that already had gay marriage. That whole "we can't favor the straight family over the gay one" bit isn't even close to being a reality.
I can almost guarantee that gay couples will be better than single parent if only because they have twice as much time to give. I can't see how anyone opposed to gay adoption can't take an equally hard-lined stance against single parents, unless of course it's just because gay people make them feel icky.
I was a child of a single parent and I seem to be doing fine. There are many more influencers in a kid's life than just their parents. There are teachers and neighbors and the parents of friends and etc. They all have an impact and for most kids there's plenty of role models to go around. It's far more important that the parents be good and dedicated and caring than it is that the parents have different sex organs.
EDIT: Besides, it's not like there's a shortage of kids needing homes. Gay couples don't have to be better than heterosexual couples for gay adoption to make sense. They don't even have to be better than single parents. They just have to be better than having a kid go through random foster homes their whole lives and never have a real family. Because there are kids doing that right now that could have a happy home if those states that won't let homosexuals adopt would get their heads out of their asses.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 29 2015,04:10
[quote=TPRJones,Jun. 28 2015,23:15][/quote]QUOTE
I can almost guarantee that gay couples will be better than single parent if only because they have twice as much time to give. I can't see how anyone opposed to gay adoption can't take an equally hard-lined stance against single parents, unless of course it's just because gay people make them feel icky.
I don't know if it's still the case any more, as the US has become increasingly insane for some time, but it used to be that many states would not allow a single person to adopt in a state adoption (I don't think they can do much on private adoptions) and I'm okay with that. So comparing apples to apples (no one is talking about having kids the normal way), I am treating single parent adoption the same as gay couple adoption.
QUOTE
EDIT: Besides, it's not like there's a shortage of kids needing homes. Gay couples don't have to be better than heterosexual couples for gay adoption to make sense. They don't even have to be better than single parents. They just have to be better than having a kid go through random foster homes their whole lives and never have a real family. Because there are kids doing that right now that could have a happy home if those states that won't let homosexuals adopt would get their heads out of their asses.
I have always thought they should be allowed to adopt in cases of difficult to place children. As you stated, it's worlds better than a life in foster homes. But if it turns out that a gay couple isn't as optimal as a straight couple and measurably so, we can't legally factor that in to the adoption evaluation now.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 29 2015,07:39
1) I still think the premiss is absolutely flawed but only time will tell, but more on point2) What the hell are you talking about there at the end? Marriage is not the same thing as adoption. These are two separate things that are treated separately under law. Nowhere in the ruling was there anything about how adoption is a civil right that everyone has a right to enjoy.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 29 2015,09:19
They just equated a gay marriage to a straight marriage. I don't see how they can say a gay marriage is not as desirable to adoption as a straight marriage, no matter what studies might show in the future. But they might be able to get away with it. Many states won't let you adopt if you're ill with a high likelihood of not surviving to see your child reach adulthood. Or if you're older. So maybe if it turns out it isn't optimal they'll have a standing to figure that in for the adoption process.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 29 2015,09:50
QUOTE
I don't see how they can say a gay marriage is not as desirable to adoption as a straight marriage
Why? Because I don't see how a two-parent household is as desirable as a four-parent household.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 29 2015,10:14
< Texas AG asks > to get his ass sued.< John Oliver on transgender civil rights >.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 29 2015,10:47
QUOTE
"(Judges and other state workers) may claim that the government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections," Paxton said in the statement.
Nope. That's going to get majorly slapped down.
A public servant serving a public purpose doesn't get to put their own religious convictions ahead of that of the individuals of the public that they are serving. They are the representatives of government and as such if they take an action that curtails someone's civil liberties it does not matter why; they are at that moment the personal embodiment of the government stepping on the citizen's rights.
If you are a government employee that does marriages and you aren't willing to marry anyone put before you, then quit and go get a different job. Period no exceptions.
Posted by GORDON on Jun. 29 2015,11:02
(TPRJones @ Jun. 29 2015,13:47)
QUOTE
Nope. That's going to get majorly slapped down.
A public servant serving a public purpose doesn't get to put their own religious convictions ahead of that of the individuals of the public that they are serving.
A public servant serving a public purpose doesn't get to put their own religious convictions ahead of that of the individuals of the public that they are serving.
And that's why we need to make all bakeries public institutions!
:-D
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 29 2015,14:57
Funny. But more seriously that's why we need to get government completely out of marriage. Turn it into a written contract - probably chosen from a set of boilerplate marriage contracts involving power of attorney, children's benefits, etc ad infinitum - between two or more consenting adults with the option to attach it to a religious ceremony if desired. Leave all that other government stuff aside completely.
Posted by Malcolm on Jun. 29 2015,15:15
QUOTE
But more seriously that's why we need to get government completely out of marriage.
Goverment's like a spiked dildo -- once it's up your ass, it's not coming out. I dare any politician to expunge marriage from the law. There'd be riots.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 29 2015,15:37
(TPRJones @ Jun. 29 2015,16:57)
QUOTE
Funny. But more seriously that's why we need to get government completely out of marriage. Turn it into a written contract - probably chosen from a set of boilerplate marriage contracts involving power of attorney, children's benefits, etc ad infinitum - between two or more consenting adults with the option to attach it to a religious ceremony if desired. Leave all that other government stuff aside completely.
I would absolutely support this idea.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 01 2015,10:16
< Now > someone from Tennessee is testing the waters.QUOTE
An East Tennessee hardware store owner who put up a “No Gays Allowed” sign in response to the Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriage says he decided to take a “bold” stand for his beliefs.
...
He said gay and lesbian relationships are against his religion.
...
He said gay and lesbian relationships are against his religion.
Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 01 2015,10:18
QUOTE
Amyx, who is Baptist, says he’ll sell to gay people as long as they “behave” and don’t express their opinions in his store.
Oh Lord.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 01 2015,10:22
(TheCatt @ Jul. 01 2015,12:18)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Amyx, who is Baptist, says he’ll sell to gay people as long as they “behave” and don’t express their opinions in his store.
Oh Lord.
It's totally cool for him to tell other people to stfu about their lives and remove their freedom of speech, though. If every homosexual joined a new religion that said gay marriage is ok, would that shut this dude and his ilk the fuck up? Since anything is permissible if god allows, and all.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 01 2015,10:29
(TheCatt @ Jul. 01 2015,12:18)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Amyx, who is Baptist, says he’ll sell to gay people as long as they “behave” and don’t express their opinions in his store.
Oh Lord.
Fair is fair, since you apparently can't work for Mozilla and express an opinion either. Unless it's the "approved" opinion by our betters.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 01 2015,10:33
(Vince @ Jul. 01 2015,12:29)
QUOTE
(TheCatt @ Jul. 01 2015,12:18)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Amyx, who is Baptist, says he’ll sell to gay people as long as they “behave” and don’t express their opinions in his store.
Oh Lord.
Fair is fair, since you apparently can't work for Mozilla and express an opinion either. Unless it's the "approved" opinion by our betters.
Mozilla didn't put up a sign that said "No straights allowed."
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 02 2015,10:27
< Sulu pissed at Clarence Thomas >.< Polygamist brings suit >, maybe. His license has to be denied officially first.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 05 2015,18:01
Thinking about this ruling over the weekend. I am thinking the same argument could be made using the same logic to argue that all states should honor and recognize conceal carry permits and issue them in all 50 states. I think you could even make a better legal argument for that now as the 2nd amendment specifically spells out the right to keep and bear arms, where the right to marry doesn't exist at all within the Constitution. So coupling the 2nd amendment with this ruling and it really should be a slam dunk.That being said, it will never happen. It doesn't matter how legally and logically sound the argument is, the SCOTUS will pretty much contradict their own logic and at that point I think we'd have to realize that the system of government we currently live under is not only no longer a Constitutional Republic, but we no longer even have a system guided by the rule of law. And when people no longer feel that they're being heard or have a system of redress, that's when bad things happen.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 05 2015,18:46
QUOTE
... where the right to marry doesn't exist at all within the Constitution
QUOTE
... the Court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
According to the majority of the nine opinions that matter, yes, it does.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 06 2015,12:46
(Malcolm @ Jun. 29 2015,12:14)
QUOTE
< Texas AG asks > to get his ass sued.
< His theory > just got tested and shot the fuck down.
QUOTE
Katie Lang, the clerk in Hood County southwest of Fort Worth, in late June said her Christian beliefs were being violated by issuing licenses to same-sex couples and she would not personally grant them.
My sobriety beliefs are being affected when I have to interact with coworkers of mine who aren't drunk at the moment.
QUOTE
Hood County residents Jim Cato and Joe Stapleton received the license from the clerk's office after filing suit against Lang on Monday.
Boo-yah.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 07 2015,10:17
< Colorado baker > going to court.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 07 2015,11:13
The simplest way around this problem for a cake baker would be to partner with a venue that doesn't accept homosexual weddings (like a big church) and then they don't bake wedding cakes for the public they only bake wedding cakes as a sub-contractor for that venue. If anyone comes directly to them wanting a wedding cake - straight, gay, whomever - they refer them to the venue and don't bake the cake directly for the customer.That would solve the problem. It would also cut heavily into their business, but that's the cost of using your religion as an excuse to be an asshat.
Posted by Vince on Jul. 07 2015,12:21
I agree with that solution for the bakers. Of course, they don't have to limit themselves to just one venue. I think they could go that route and be just fine.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 08 2015,08:53
< Chi-town mayor a dumb-ass. >Your town is setting some insane murder rates, but gay marriage and children born out of wedlock are on your radar.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 08 2015,12:27
< Toldeo judge wants to get sued and disbarred >.QUOTE
Alex Huguelet, executive chief deputy clerk for the municipal court, confirmed the couple came in Monday afternoon and paid the $15 fee to be married before going to the duty courtroom. They returned to the clerk’s office with the sheriff's deputy who works in the court, Ms. Huguelet said, because the judge would not marry them. An employee in the clerk’s office asked the couple if they would like to try to find another judge or get a refund.
If he's not going to do his job, he shouldn't have it.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 14 2015,10:14
< Walmart's next > on the list. At least they haven't < completely lost it >.QUOTE
The vote came after presiding Commissioner Darrell Skiles filed a letter into the public record, protesting “the U.S. high court’s stamp of approval of what God speaks of as an abomination.”
God made you in his image? God must be a dumb-ass.
Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 14 2015,13:07
God also has a few things to say about rich men and moneylenders but that doesn't matter.
Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 17 2015,11:23
< Boom >.QUOTE
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that existing federal protections against workplace discrimination based on sex also apply to sexual orientation.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 12 2015,10:20
< Mississippi > has to be forcibly drug into the modern era.QUOTE
Mississippi is the only state in the nation with a law banning same-sex couples from adopting, but given the Supreme Court's recent ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, that could soon change.
...
Furthermore, the Mississippi governor who signed the ban into law 15 years ago has since publicly admitted that he regrets the decision. "I believed at the time this was a principled position based on my faith. But I no longer believe it was right," Ronnie Musgrove wrote in an op-ed published in The Huffington Post. "As I've gotten older, I came to understand that a person's sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to be a good parent."
...
Furthermore, the Mississippi governor who signed the ban into law 15 years ago has since publicly admitted that he regrets the decision. "I believed at the time this was a principled position based on my faith. But I no longer believe it was right," Ronnie Musgrove wrote in an op-ed published in The Huffington Post. "As I've gotten older, I came to understand that a person's sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to be a good parent."
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 13 2015,07:37
< Another douchebag denies a marriage license. >QUOTE
James Yates and William Smith Jr. were turned away at the Rowan County clerk's office Thursday morning. An office staffer told them Clerk Kim Davis was on vacation, and the county judge executive also said he couldn't help them.
Davis has refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples despite court rulings and orders. She argues that her right to religious freedom exempts her, citing Christian beliefs.
Davis has refused to issue licenses to same-sex couples despite court rulings and orders. She argues that her right to religious freedom exempts her, citing Christian beliefs.
Should result in dismissal and loss of pension, along with the shithead county judge executive up there. According to you, God > Supreme Court as far as law is concerned. Good to know.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 26 2015,18:17
< Bitch of a clerk > tries to justify her actions with one of the shittiest defenses I've ever heard.QUOTE
"The court of appeals did not provide any religious accommodation rights to individuals, which makes little sense because at the end of the day it's individuals that are carrying out the acts of the office," Staver said. "They don't lose their individual constitutional rights just because they are employed in a public office."
Whoa. I guess religion's an excuse to do anything even if you're directly violating the highest court in the land. My faith says it's ok to shoot people who cut me off in traffic. I can also nut-punch any NE Patriots fan I see because my god tells me it's my duty. I can also rob people at gunpoint when I need money even though it's illegal because god says it's cool.
QUOTE
Davis continued to refuse to issue marriage licenses after other judges' rulings. And they suspect she will continue to refuse after this one.
Because fuck your constituents, you sanctimonious cunt, it's all about you.
QUOTE
"Regardless of what any man puts on a piece of paper, the law of nature is not going to change," Davis told the crowd.
Go live with the druids, hippie.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 26 2015,18:43
(Malcolm @ Aug. 26 2015,21:17)
QUOTE
QUOTE
"The court of appeals did not provide any religious accommodation rights to individuals, which makes little sense because at the end of the day it's individuals that are carrying out the acts of the office," Staver said. "They don't lose their individual constitutional rights just because they are employed in a public office."
Whoa. I guess religion's an excuse to do anything even if you're directly violating the highest court in the land. My faith says it's ok to shoot people who cut me off in traffic. I can also nut-punch any NE Patriots fan I see because my god tells me it's my duty. I can also rob people at gunpoint when I need money even though it's illegal because god says it's cool.
Not that I disagree with you, but you just compared the refusal to shuffle some papers on religious grounds with attempted murder, assault, and armed robbery.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 26 2015,20:07
(GORDON @ Aug. 26 2015,20:43)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Aug. 26 2015,21:17)
QUOTE
QUOTE
"The court of appeals did not provide any religious accommodation rights to individuals, which makes little sense because at the end of the day it's individuals that are carrying out the acts of the office," Staver said. "They don't lose their individual constitutional rights just because they are employed in a public office."
Whoa. I guess religion's an excuse to do anything even if you're directly violating the highest court in the land. My faith says it's ok to shoot people who cut me off in traffic. I can also nut-punch any NE Patriots fan I see because my god tells me it's my duty. I can also rob people at gunpoint when I need money even though it's illegal because god says it's cool.
Not that I disagree with you, but you just compared the refusal to shuffle some papers on religious grounds with attempted murder, assault, and armed robbery.
Fine, I'll get a more interesting religion ... I mean, uh, my god has given me a new revelation.
My god says people aren't married until I personally approve every single song and movie in their media collection or they conform to my pre-approved published list of acceptable entertainment. Can't have them corrupting the totally subjective morals of future society and running the risk of a Macarena comeback.
Posted by Alhazad on Aug. 26 2015,20:13
(Malcolm @ Aug. 26 2015,20:07)
QUOTE
My god says people aren't married until I personally approve every single song and movie in their media collection or they conform to my pre-approved published list of acceptable entertainment. Can't have them corrupting the totally subjective morals of future society and running the risk of a Macarena comeback.
That's cool and all but you can't get tax-exempt status like that. Disney has been trying.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 26 2015,20:15
(Alhazad @ Aug. 26 2015,22:13)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Aug. 26 2015,20:07)
QUOTE
My god says people aren't married until I personally approve every single song and movie in their media collection or they conform to my pre-approved published list of acceptable entertainment. Can't have them corrupting the totally subjective morals of future society and running the risk of a Macarena comeback.
That's cool and all but you can't get tax-exempt status like that. Disney has been trying.
< Anyone > can get tax-exempt status. Disney just doesn't have the balls to run the crazy into the end zone and out of the stadium like L. Ron.
Posted by Alhazad on Aug. 26 2015,20:33
(Malcolm @ Aug. 26 2015,20:15)
QUOTE
< Anyone > can get tax-exempt status. Disney just doesn't have the balls to run the crazy into the end zone and out of the stadium like L. Ron.
Difference being that you have no lawyers and you're not willing to tolerate stupid long enough to infiltrate our government.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 26 2015,20:49
(Alhazad @ Aug. 26 2015,22:33)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Aug. 26 2015,20:15)
QUOTE
< Anyone > can get tax-exempt status. Disney just doesn't have the balls to run the crazy into the end zone and out of the stadium like L. Ron.
Difference being that you have no lawyers and you're not willing to tolerate stupid long enough to infiltrate our government.
I think all you need is:
some scripture (probably optional, but helps)
some place you meet
some belief you talk about
some congregation to
some proof you contribute to the community
I bet you could find a lawyer to take it pro bono.
Posted by Alhazad on Aug. 26 2015,20:50
(Malcolm @ Aug. 26 2015,20:49)
QUOTE
I bet you could find a lawyer to take it pro bono.
Ever the optimist.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 26 2015,20:52
(Alhazad @ Aug. 26 2015,22:50)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Aug. 26 2015,20:49)
QUOTE
I bet you could find a lawyer to take it pro bono.
Ever the optimist.
Ask the law firms representing the CoS if it was a sound financial decision.
Posted by Alhazad on Aug. 26 2015,21:15
(Malcolm @ Aug. 26 2015,20:52)
QUOTE
Ask the law firms representing the CoS if it was a sound financial decision.
I think they had the money trap lined up before the siege lawyers started knocking on the door.
Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 27 2015,07:47
(Alhazad @ Aug. 27 2015,05:15)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Aug. 26 2015,20:52)
QUOTE
Ask the law firms representing the CoS if it was a sound financial decision.
I think they had the money trap lined up before the siege lawyers started knocking on the door.
We have L. Ron admitting in writing that was his intention. That still wasn't enough to disqualify them. If their beliefs are "genuine" enough, there's still a lot of insane shit that'd slip under the radar.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 01 2015,07:53
< Raging, theocratic, self-righteous cunt of a dumb-ass of a bitch > still at it. She shouldn't have a job at this point. Wtf, KY?
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 01 2015,10:10
< One insane bitch clerk deserves another >.QUOTE
A fellow Kentucky clerk, Casey Davis, has protested alongside Kim Davis and insisted Tuesday on CNN's "New Day" that "we've not tried to prevent" same-sex marriages, and "we've only tried to exercise our First Amendment rights."
Casey Davis said gay couples could go to another county to get married when a county clerk objects due to religious beliefs.
Casey Davis said gay couples could go to another county to get married when a county clerk objects due to religious beliefs.
Fuck you both. My religion says women can't hold public office or own property because it's an affront to my god(s). I'm sure Jesus is proud to have you asswipes as followers.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 03 2015,10:08
< Rubio > also thinks we should live in a country ruled by god.QUOTE
"While the clerk's office has a governmental duty to carry out the law," he added, "there should be a way to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of individuals working in the office."
I missed the part where someone was putting a gun to her head, forcing her to do this, and only this job for the rest of her life.
QUOTE
Davis, a clerk in Kentucky's Rowan County, has been summoned to a hearing Thursday before U.S. District Judge David Bunning. He also ordered all Davis' deputy clerks to appear. Bunning could hold Davis in contempt, which can carry hefty fines or even jail time.
Jail time's stupid. A steep fine and quick firing would do.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 03 2015,10:42
< Guilty. >QUOTE
But Bunning, who had previously ordered her and her clerks to process the paperwork and issue certificates, said fines for Davis, who makes $80,000 a year, would not be enough to ensure her to follow his orders.
You make 80 grand a year? Issue the fucking license and do your job.
QUOTE
She has resisted suggestions that her deputies could issue the licenses because her name appears on the certificates.
...
To me, this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s word.”
...
To me, this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God’s word.”
When god's word says you can't issue a license to a couple lesbians, it is very much a gay issue. The courthouse isn't a church. Go to some place where they confuse the two -- like Iran. Also fairly sure god talks about divorce, and she's racked up 3.
QUOTE
When that stay expired, appeals court judges declined to renew it. And when she asked the Supreme Court to weigh in Monday, justices in Washington refused.
...
Davis, an Apostolic Christian, had said it would violate her faith to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and had directed her office to withhold marriage licenses to anyone, gay or straight.
...
Davis, an Apostolic Christian, had said it would violate her faith to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and had directed her office to withhold marriage licenses to anyone, gay or straight.
Indirect contempt of court is not something you get a jury for, either. This means her options are reduced to: (i) jail or (ii) changing her tune.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 03 2015,12:00
or (iii) quitting.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 03 2015,12:06
(TPRJones @ Sep. 03 2015,14:00)
QUOTE
or (iii) quitting.
She's had that option since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage federally. Walking away's not good enough for her.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 03 2015,12:07
It's still an option. Same as (ii) is.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 03 2015,12:11
QUOTE
Also fairly sure god talks about divorce, and she's racked up 3.
It'll be interesting to see which cracks first, her distaste for incarceration or her double standards for interpreting the will of the divine.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 03 2015,13:50
< Sitnexto Kim Davis >
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 04 2015,10:56
< I was waiting for this comparison >.QUOTE
On Friday, Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver said in a statement that Davis “joins a long list of people who were imprisoned for their conscience.”
“People who today we admire, like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Jan Huss, John Bunyan, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and more,” Staver said in the statement. “Each had their own cause, but they all share the same resolve not to violate their conscience.
“People who today we admire, like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Jan Huss, John Bunyan, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and more,” Staver said in the statement. “Each had their own cause, but they all share the same resolve not to violate their conscience.
This is an extremely fucked up statement.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 04 2015,11:40
Her mistake was that < Breaking the Law is Only OK When Progressives Do It. >
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 04 2015,11:46
(GORDON @ Sep. 04 2015,13:40)
QUOTE
Her mistake was that < Breaking the Law is Only OK When Progressives Do It. >
QUOTE
Back in 2004, when gay marriage was banned under California state law, Newsom openly defied the law and used his power as the mayor of San Francisco to force taxpayer-funded government clerks to issue gay marriage licenses
I don't recall that dude saying that dogma and doctrine trump US law. Additionally, that dude had the state and federal courts agrees with him.
QUOTE
In 2008 California voters passed the gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8, but a San Francisco federal judge struck down the initiative as unconstitutional and last month the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that supporters of the ban did not have the legal right to appeal.
QUOTE
Don’t even get me started on federal laws regarding drug possession. You won’t find progressives calling for the prosecution of scores of Colorado officials in open defiance of federal drug bans
Don't even get me started on the bullshit that is federal drug policy, the policy that says bud is in the same category as smack.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 04 2015,11:58
So as long as the reason isn't "dogma," it's ok to break the law? What about the mayors of "Sanctuary Cities" that flout federal immigration law? They're cool because their reasons aren't religious?
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 04 2015,12:14
(GORDON @ Sep. 04 2015,13:58)
QUOTE
So as long as the reason isn't "dogma," it's ok to break the law? What about the mayors of "Sanctuary Cities" that flout federal immigration law? They're cool because their reasons aren't religious?
When people cherry pick religious beliefs that were laid down thousands of years ago and claim they are 100% applicable to today's life, verbatim and beyond question, I find that insane. As I pointed out, her branch of Christianity must let the divorce thing slide.
The Sanctuary City idea also seems insane. It's as psychotic as zero tolerance but in the other direction. It's infinite tolerance.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 04 2015,12:15
Don't you wish it was actually ok to only be accountable for following the laws that you agree with, too?
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 04 2015,12:25
(GORDON @ Sep. 04 2015,14:15)
QUOTE
Don't you wish it was actually ok to only be accountable for following the laws that you agree with, too?
I have no issue with breaking bullshit laws. Applying rules of sexual morality pioneered by Semitic nomads in the Fertile Crescent centuries before Vesuvius erupted isn't enough for me to call bullshit on the 14th amendment. She's not issuing licenses in a church and if her religion places her at odds with the duties of a county clerk, she doesn't have some inalienable right to that position. If she can tell the people to go to another county to get married, then I can tell her to go to one to get another damn job.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 04 2015,12:52
Well, ok. But as long as it is YOU deciding which laws are legit, or not. I don't really trust those other fuckers.Do us all a solid and get on those sanctuary city mayors, now.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 04 2015,13:00
(GORDON @ Sep. 04 2015,14:52)
QUOTE
Well, ok. But as long as it is YOU deciding which laws are legit, or not. I don't really trust those other fuckers.
Do us all a solid and get on those sanctuary city mayors, now.
Do us all a solid and get on those sanctuary city mayors, now.
"The law" is what the city is willing to enforce. Kentucky is quite willing to keep this woman in jail until the governor sees fit. If they felt like taking on the feds, they had the choice, and that state wasn't going to bat for her. Cali decided the opposite, even in the face of voter-approved legislation (another reason why I think voting is getting next to worthless). If you want to give the federal government total authority to fuck over an individual state, *** COUGH INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE BULLSHIT COUGH*** there's not a lot of recourse. Let me remind you of the oath this clerk took:
QUOTE
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law...
The second half of the oath (which I've omitted) has to do with swearing you've not engaged in a pistol duel.
If that conflicts with her faith, then that job's not for her. This is like a Hindu bitching about his job in the slaughterhouse.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 04 2015,13:03
Dude, I'm on your side. I think most laws are bullshit, too. Let's just do the ones we agree with.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 04 2015,13:58
(GORDON @ Sep. 04 2015,15:03)
QUOTE
Dude, I'm on your side. I think most laws are bullshit, too. Let's just do the ones we agree with.
Why should I play by different rules than the gov't? My crimes are fairly minor, and I had enough cash to lawyer up. At least I had an end game in mind. Wtf was hers? Refuse forever and figure nothing was going to happen?
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 04 2015,14:17
QUOTE
“People who today we admire, like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Jan Huss, John Bunyan, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and more,” Staver said in the statement. “Each had their own cause, but they all share the same resolve not to violate their conscience.
The difference is not one person on that list had a cause with the specific goal of curtailing the ability for other people to enjoy their civil rights.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 04 2015,15:02
When Ali went to jail for refusing the draft, which was legit on his end and also for religious reasons, he didn't go out and burn other people's cards. If she wanted to object due to faith, cool. That means your job's gone. She had a relatively (key word) easy option. For some reason, though, the "drawing a paycheck" aspect of her job held equal importance with her divorce-friendly faith and she froze like a deer in the headlights. The "following my oath" part of her gig is a distant third. I bet if god started paying her $80K a year, she'd quit the clerk thing. But I simply don't believe she'd cut it as a televangelist.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 05 2015,09:46
< Clerk now deity of marriage > because nothing is valid without her approval.QUOTE
A jailed Kentucky clerk asserted that marriage licenses issued without her authority Friday to gay couples in Rowan County are void and "not worth the paper they are written on" because she didn't authorize them, her attorney said.
Psycho.
QUOTE
Staver called on the judge as well as Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear to make "reasonable accommodations" so that Davis can keep her job without violating her beliefs as an Apostolic Christian. He suggested that with an executive order, he could change all the forms in Kentucky so that none require a clerk's signature or say that they've been issued under a clerk's authority.
As long as the rest of the county acknowledges your god wins tiebreakers and we rewrite state law to accommodate your fragile ego, it's all good? That's your alternative? This is getting close to clinical narcissism.
Posted by Vince on Sep. 05 2015,09:55
Since I'm now in KY I'm getting more of the story than most of the media is choosing to tell. This clerk is simply asking that the license be changed to not have her name on it. As far as issuing a license as a matter of public records, she has no problem. It's granting of the license with her name at the top that she has an issue with. From her perspective it's the same as her sanctioning gay marriage. She's only asking for a license that she can issue without her name on it and KY records currently don't support that and the Gov. doesn't want to help her out there. So it's as I've said for a while now. It's not enough that you simply live and let live. They will force you to celebrate it with them or go to jail.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 05 2015,09:59
Maybe she shouldn't take jobs that conflict with her religion. She can run for the governor's office or state legislature if she wants to change it. Jews probably would have trouble being bacon taste testers, and they might want to stay away from that instead of trying to warp reality around them so they can do it.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 06 2015,08:55
The media shouldn't be warping reality about the facts of this situation.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 06 2015,09:02
The media reported what Vince is reporting as well.The reality is: She isn't doing her job, and should be fired.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 06 2015,10:52
Where do I find the religion that has gods who only allow me to work between the hours of 12 and 2 in the afternoon and still require me to get paid for 40 hours a week? Guess my employer will have to accommodate me because < stress is deadly >. Hell, I can just invent one.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 06 2015,13:30
(Vince @ Sep. 05 2015,11:55)
QUOTE
It's not enough that you simply live and let live. They will force you to celebrate it with them or go to jail.
In this case that's bullshit and you know it. Sure I can understand her point and I - and probably most people - would be fine with changing the documentation so that it doesn't show her name on any marriage licenses. But the ultimate effect of her choice of actions is actively denying the civil rights of people she swore to serve. Period end of story.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 07 2015,09:03
< WBC > calls out clerk on her hypocrisy. At least they can keep their insane beliefs consistent.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 07 2015,18:02
Well, technically, from a biblical point of view they are correct about her.While the bible says nothing about gay marriage, it's pretty clear about how you only ever get one marriage. Anything after that is adultery, by the definition of her own religion.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 08 2015,10:27
< Released from jail >
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 08 2015,10:29
(TheCatt @ Sep. 08 2015,12:27)
QUOTE
< Released from jail >
QUOTE
He ordered her not to interfere with clerks in her office issuing marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.
So she's going to jail again as soon as she pulls this shit next time? She still has her fucking job?
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 08 2015,11:00
Yup. If she keeps insisting, I suspect there will be a bill in the KY state congress to take the name of the clerk off of marriage licenses across the state. But the earliest that could happen would be January so she's got a long wait.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 08 2015,12:05
< An ancillary > case.QUOTE
A Muslim flight attendant for ExpressJet is fighting to be reinstated after she says the airline suspended her for refusing to serve alcohol.
In a complaint filed last week with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Charee Stanley said the carrier had revoked a reasonable arrangement made to accommodate her religious beliefs.
In a complaint filed last week with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Charee Stanley said the carrier had revoked a reasonable arrangement made to accommodate her religious beliefs.
Just as much bullshit as the clerk's argument. Your religion doesn't get to ride roughshod over other people's lives. Everyone have fun when Christian Scientists start suing for discrimination when they become doctors.
Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 08 2015,12:20
I'm ok with her not drinking alcohol, but I'm not aware she cannot serve it.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 08 2015,12:28
The argument involved is similar, but I don't consider the cases parallel. There's a big difference between denying someone's right to marriage and denying someone's right to a whiskey sour. Plus she wasn't working as a government official, who by being paid through taxation must be held to an even higher standard.Not that I think she should win. If it's part of the job and she can't do the job she should quit. But then again on the other hand the complaint that lead the company to take action leans towards violating some laws:
QUOTE
The complaint also noted that Stanley "had a book with foreign writings and wore a headdress," CNN wrote.
Not nearly as open and shut as the other case, IMO.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 08 2015,12:30
(TheCatt @ Sep. 08 2015,14:20)
QUOTE
I'm ok with her not drinking alcohol, but I'm not aware she cannot serve it.
Not good enough, depending on how insane your branch of Islam is.
QUOTE
They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their profit.
In other words, not only may you not consume them, you shouldn't let others do so, either. Not until you hit paradise and get to drink the various rivers of wine that flow throughout.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2015,10:20
< Inertia >.QUOTE
The Rowan County Rights Coalition has no objection to licenses being issued as Davis described, spokeswoman Mary Hargis said. Davis violated the civil rights of same-sex couples when she chose not to issue marriage licenses, she added.
"She has an excuse as a religious conviction, but when did religious conviction and religious freedom become a shield for bigotry?" Hargis said.
"She has an excuse as a religious conviction, but when did religious conviction and religious freedom become a shield for bigotry?" Hargis said.
Since always.
QUOTE
"I'm here before you this morning with a seemingly impossible choice that I do not wish on any of my fellow Americans: my conscience or my freedom," Davis said.
Bullshit. No one is forcing you to work that job. Get down off your fucking cross.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2015,11:19
(Malcolm @ Sep. 14 2015,13:20)
QUOTE
Bullshit. No one is forcing you to work that job. Get down off your fucking cross.
So you're saying she doesn't need the high paying job, she merely wants it?
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2015,11:49
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2015,13:19)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Sep. 14 2015,13:20)
QUOTE
Bullshit. No one is forcing you to work that job. Get down off your fucking cross.
So you're saying she doesn't need the high paying job, she merely wants it?
Same as her faith.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2015,11:59
(Malcolm @ Sep. 14 2015,14:49)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2015,13:19)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Sep. 14 2015,13:20)
QUOTE
Bullshit. No one is forcing you to work that job. Get down off your fucking cross.
So you're saying she doesn't need the high paying job, she merely wants it?
Same as her faith.
I could argue that isn't true. I think some peeps would fall apart without it.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2015,12:05
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2015,13:59)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Sep. 14 2015,14:49)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2015,13:19)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Sep. 14 2015,13:20)
QUOTE
Bullshit. No one is forcing you to work that job. Get down off your fucking cross.
So you're saying she doesn't need the high paying job, she merely wants it?
Same as her faith.
I could argue that isn't true. I think some peeps would fall apart without it.
I bet people fall apart due to forced retirement all the time. Christopher Lee couldn't even contemplate retirement. Fortunately, he picked a biz where he could work literally until the day he died.
Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 03 2015,10:43
< Alabama invokes Jim Crow law > to deny issuing marriage licenses to anyone, in case they might be gay.QUOTE
In 1961, a time when the all-white Legislature was trying to preserve racial segregation, lawmakers rewrote state law to make it optional for counties to issue marriage licenses.
Sounds constitutional.
Posted by TPRJones on Oct. 03 2015,20:21
Well, I mean in terms of equal protection it might be okay. As long as they stick to it and don't issue any at all regardless of race or sexual orientation.I wonder if the Christian Right will decry how these judges have declared war on marriage.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 12 2015,10:11
< Asshole cunt of a bench pig > legally kidnaps a couple's child. But it's ok because they're lesbians and Utah treats them as second class citizens.QUOTE
copy of the court order by Judge Scott Johansen, a juvenile judge in Utah's Seventh District, was not immediately available, though the Salt Lake Tribune confirmed its contents. Hoagland told KUTV Johansen said "through his research he had found out that kids in homosexual homes don't do as well as they do in heterosexual homes." She added that, when the judge was asked to show the research, he wouldn't.
Naturally, this is the first time he's acted like a power tripping dickwad who has no biz being on a bench.
QUOTE
Johansen's exploits even led to the short-lived blog "Judge Scott Johansen is a tyrant" after he challenged home-schoolers in Utah to enroll their kids in class, or possibly lose them to the foster system.
"Scott Johansen is out of line," a post from 2007 that called him "out of control" read. "He hates homeschooling so much that when a school lost a mother's paper stating she will be homeschooling her kids the judge ordered the mother to enroll her kids in school within 24 hours or go to jail and lose her kids."
"Scott Johansen is out of line," a post from 2007 that called him "out of control" read. "He hates homeschooling so much that when a school lost a mother's paper stating she will be homeschooling her kids the judge ordered the mother to enroll her kids in school within 24 hours or go to jail and lose her kids."
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 12 2015,12:56
< Utah's governor responds: > WTF, man?!?!