LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fireball »

Kurth wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
Anti gay marriage yes. Anti gays?
To be anti-equality is to be anti-gay.
Don't mean to stir the pot needlessly here, but I can't stand these categorizations.

On a run with a friend yesterday, we got into it on the degree to which being anti-Zionist (anti-Israel) necessarily makes you anti-Semitic.

I just think this is dicey territory. Being anti-equality is being anti-equality. Being anti-Israel is being anti-Israel. I think it's generally a bad move to employ the transitive property to transform one viewpoint we disagree with into another.
That is terrible comparison. To be anti-equality is to actively seek to hurt me because I am gay. One can oppose Israel's policies without opposing legal equality for Jewish people. The equivalent to opposing gay equality under the law wouldn't be anti-Zionism, but opposing the recognition of marriages performed by rabbis or something akin to that.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fireball »

Another day, another Senator. With Democrat Tom Carper, it now stands 49 aye, 51 nay on gay marriage in the Senate, with 48 members of the Democratic caucus (2 independents and 47 Democrats) and one Republican on the side of equality, and seven Democrats and 44 Republicans currently opposed.

At what point do Republicans start going the right thing?
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Isgrimnur »

So why are there still seven Democrats opposed? I don't see the Repubs playing Red Rover until the Dems get their line in order.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Holman »

Isgrimnur wrote:So why are there still seven Democrats opposed? I don't see the Repubs playing Red Rover until the Dems get their line in order.
I don't think Republicans will move quickly, especially when support for gay marriage is still only around 35% in most Red states.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fireball »

Isgrimnur wrote:So why are there still seven Democrats opposed? I don't see the Repubs playing Red Rover until the Dems get their line in order.
The seven opposed are: Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

You'll note that all but Sen. Nelson are from blood-red states.

Senators Donnelly and Heitkamp both ran uphill campaigns against the political grain of their states last year and explicitly opposed same-sex marriage in their races. It would be hard for them to change positions less than 100 days after being sworn in.

Senators Pryor and Landrieu are up in 2014, and may just be afraid of political repercussions.

Senator Manchin is quite conservative on a lot of issues. He may just actually be wrong on this issue.

Senator Johnson is retiring. I doubt Senator Nelson runs again, and even if he does he's in Florida, not the hardest state to run in (and he won't have to run again until 2018, which is lots of time for further evolution). I expect the two of them to change positions at some point in the near future.

If I had to guess, I'd say the dominos fall in this order: Johnson, Nelson, Landrieu, Donnelly, Pryor, Heitkamp and maybe Manchin. The latter four could take awhile.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 16436
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Zarathud »

Nelson would likely be influenced by his elderly constituents who are overall less likely to support same-sex marraige.

Compare my 3 year old city kid who made the year for a homosexual male couple at Easter by declaring them a "monster family" with her as baby with them as her mom and dad. When they asked her about their assigned roles, she looked at them like they were stupid and said "boys and girls can be mommies and daddies, now chase me!". We're liberal Catholics, but her absolute disregard for gender identities isn't something we've taught her. The one-marriage nuclear family is as likely as any other arrangement now.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by ImLawBoy »

Mark Kirk from Illinois becomes the second Republican senator to back same-sex marriage.

Not a huge surprise and not a huge risk for a Republican in Illinois.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
Fireball
Posts: 4762
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Fireball »

ImLawBoy wrote:Mark Kirk from Illinois becomes the second Republican senator to back same-sex marriage.

Not a huge surprise and not a huge risk for a Republican in Illinois.
Good on him. This is historic -- if an up or down vote on gay marriage were held right this moment in the US Senate, it would pass 51-50 with the Vice President voting yes.

Amazing.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LawBeefaroni »

ImLawBoy wrote: Not a huge surprise and not a huge risk for a Republican in Illinois.
And possibly a gay one at that.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Kurth »

Fireball1244 wrote:
Kurth wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
Anti gay marriage yes. Anti gays?
To be anti-equality is to be anti-gay.
Don't mean to stir the pot needlessly here, but I can't stand these categorizations.

On a run with a friend yesterday, we got into it on the degree to which being anti-Zionist (anti-Israel) necessarily makes you anti-Semitic.

I just think this is dicey territory. Being anti-equality is being anti-equality. Being anti-Israel is being anti-Israel. I think it's generally a bad move to employ the transitive property to transform one viewpoint we disagree with into another.
That is terrible comparison. To be anti-equality is to actively seek to hurt me because I am gay. One can oppose Israel's policies without opposing legal equality for Jewish people. The equivalent to opposing gay equality under the law wouldn't be anti-Zionism, but opposing the recognition of marriages performed by rabbis or something akin to that.
I'm having a very hard time replying to this, and I don't want to derail the thread. So, after reflection and further consideration, I'll be succinct:

You're right.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 63530
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Daehawk »

I consider it a black eye on the US political system that our representatives cannot simply vote on what is right or what their constituents want but instead have to focus on party lines and their future job. It's an archaic system that is starting to drag the country as a whole down and needs refreshing. Get back to the people for the people crap.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Holman »

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) announces support, leaving six Democrats yet to endorse same-sex marriage.
Mr. Nelson, a Protestant, referenced God twice as he explained why he reversed his position that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

“Simply put, if the Lord made homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, why should I discriminate against their civil marriage?” he said. “I shouldn’t, and I won’t.”

Mr. Nelson said he would join other senators in signing a petition urging the Supreme Court to declare the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by noxiousdog »

Holman wrote:Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) announces support, leaving six Democrats yet to endorse same-sex marriage.
Mr. Nelson, a Protestant, referenced God twice as he explained why he reversed his position that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

“Simply put, if the Lord made homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, why should I discriminate against their civil marriage?” he said. “I shouldn’t, and I won’t.”

Mr. Nelson said he would join other senators in signing a petition urging the Supreme Court to declare the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
...

What a dumb argument. God made abusers, thieves, and murderers too.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Isgrimnur »

And they're allowed to marry, too. :)
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Holman »

noxiousdog wrote: What a dumb argument. God made abusers, thieves, and murderers too.
Nelson is declaring that support for same-sex equality is compatible with Christian faith. This is a not-uncontroversial move in a part of the country where God made a large number of Republicans.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Ralph-Wiggum
Posts: 17449
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:51 am

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Ralph-Wiggum »

noxiousdog wrote:
Holman wrote:Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) announces support, leaving six Democrats yet to endorse same-sex marriage.
Mr. Nelson, a Protestant, referenced God twice as he explained why he reversed his position that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

“Simply put, if the Lord made homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, why should I discriminate against their civil marriage?” he said. “I shouldn’t, and I won’t.”

Mr. Nelson said he would join other senators in signing a petition urging the Supreme Court to declare the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
...

What a dumb argument. God made abusers, thieves, and murderers too.
Only if you believe that being an abuser, thief, or murderer is genetic and not a choice.
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by El Guapo »

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
Holman wrote:Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) announces support, leaving six Democrats yet to endorse same-sex marriage.
Mr. Nelson, a Protestant, referenced God twice as he explained why he reversed his position that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

“Simply put, if the Lord made homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, why should I discriminate against their civil marriage?” he said. “I shouldn’t, and I won’t.”

Mr. Nelson said he would join other senators in signing a petition urging the Supreme Court to declare the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
...

What a dumb argument. God made abusers, thieves, and murderers too.
Only if you believe that being an abuser, thief, or murderer is genetic and not a choice.
Not sure that really matters. Presumably God is responsible for the result as lord of all creation, whether it is a product of genetics or of choice.

It is a silly argument. God created everything, so I would think His agency would be of little help in deciding how we treat various people. Also (and maybe this is covered in his interview with the Tampa Times, but I'll never know since the link in the NYT blog is busted) it begs the question of the timing of his shift - did he just discover that gay and lesbian people were also created by God?

But the important thing in any event is that he's for gay marriage, rather than why - presumably each politician who switches is carefully calibrating their statement towards their perceived constituency, so the stated reason does not have to adhere to normal logic.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LawBeefaroni »

El Guapo wrote: Also (and maybe this is covered in his interview with the Tampa Times, but I'll never know since the link in the NYT blog is busted) it begs the question of the timing of his shift - did he just discover that gay and lesbian people were also created by God?
He "discovered" that fact, that homosexuals were created by God, right about the same time he discovered that it would be politically expedient to shitft his stance.


It is unknown if this was before or after he went a huntin' for some of God's other creatures with Alligator Ron.
Image
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by noxiousdog »

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Only if you believe that being an abuser, thief, or murderer is genetic and not a choice.
I'd argue that all are genetic, but surely you believe that there's a huge component of genetics in addiction?
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Holman »

Are you really grouping homosexuals with "abusers, thieves, and murderers"?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Rip »

Holman wrote:Are you really grouping homosexuals with "abusers, thieves, and murderers"?
If we wer making a group composed of humans would they not be grouped together? Grouping != equating.
User avatar
silverjon
Posts: 10781
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Western Canuckistan

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by silverjon »

In the respect that they are all "God's people"....
wot?

To be fair, adolescent power fantasy tripe is way easier to write than absurd existential horror, and every community has got to start somewhere... right?

Unless one loses a precious thing, he will never know its true value. A little light finally scratches the darkness; it lets the exhausted one face his shattered dream and realize his path cannot be walked. Can man live happily without embracing his wounded heart?
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Pyperkub »

Fireball1244 wrote:
ImLawBoy wrote:Mark Kirk from Illinois becomes the second Republican senator to back same-sex marriage.

Not a huge surprise and not a huge risk for a Republican in Illinois.
Good on him. This is historic -- if an up or down vote on gay marriage were held right this moment in the US Senate, it would pass 51-50 with the Vice President voting yes.

Amazing.
I am curious as to what this 'support' means. Would these Senators pledge not to filibuster legislation as well as vote in favor, regardless of their Party's wishes?

Somehow I doubt it.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by ImLawBoy »

Pyperkub wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:
ImLawBoy wrote:Mark Kirk from Illinois becomes the second Republican senator to back same-sex marriage.

Not a huge surprise and not a huge risk for a Republican in Illinois.
Good on him. This is historic -- if an up or down vote on gay marriage were held right this moment in the US Senate, it would pass 51-50 with the Vice President voting yes.

Amazing.
I am curious as to what this 'support' means. Would these Senators pledge not to filibuster legislation as well as vote in favor, regardless of their Party's wishes?

Somehow I doubt it.
Kirk very well might.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
Rip
Posts: 26891
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Cajun Country!
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Rip »

I am curious if Mary will shift sides. She has a reelection that is far from certain and I would suspect supporting gay marriage will cost her some votes.

My suspicion is she doesn't really care that much one way or the other but she certainly cares much more about winning the election.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by noxiousdog »

Holman wrote:Are you really grouping homosexuals with "abusers, thieves, and murderers"?
Nothing aggravates me more about OO than when people pull this nonsense.

I trust that the community is smart to enough to know I mean:
God created [all kinds of things that you personally may like or dislike]. Ergo, God created [x] is an extremely poor set of reasoning to make it legal/illegal.

I used abusers, thieves, and murders as a univeral set that we can pretty much agree that are [kinds of things that we all dislike.] I could have used smokers, gamblers, speeders, and prostitutes, but those aren't fairly universally disliked.

:hawk:
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Holman »

noxiousdog wrote:
Holman wrote:Are you really grouping homosexuals with "abusers, thieves, and murderers"?
Nothing aggravates me more about OO than when people pull this nonsense.

I trust that the community is smart to enough to know I mean:
God created [all kinds of things that you personally may like or dislike]. Ergo, God created [x] is an extremely poor set of reasoning to make it legal/illegal.

I used abusers, thieves, and murders as a univeral set that we can pretty much agree that are [kinds of things that we all dislike.] I could have used smokers, gamblers, speeders, and prostitutes, but those aren't fairly universally disliked.

:hawk:
I don't think you're any kind of bigot, ND, but that's why the comparison surprised me. I'm calling it out as a bad analogy, not as a sign of malice on your part.

I'm sure there's all kinds of political expediency in the senator's move, but his statement isn't as hollow as you say. The point implied is that God created homosexuals--that is, homosexuals are not perverts who've broken with God's law but are just people they way they are meant to be. Therefore, marriage for them is just like marriage for straights.

This obviously isn't an argument that extends to criminals and creeps. Your point about abusers, thieves and murderers breaks down because it is not covered by "God made them too."

(I don't know many believers who would say that God "made" criminals to be criminals. Rather, criminals are people made by God who then chose the wrong path.)
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by El Guapo »

Holman wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
Holman wrote:Are you really grouping homosexuals with "abusers, thieves, and murderers"?
Nothing aggravates me more about OO than when people pull this nonsense.

I trust that the community is smart to enough to know I mean:
God created [all kinds of things that you personally may like or dislike]. Ergo, God created [x] is an extremely poor set of reasoning to make it legal/illegal.

I used abusers, thieves, and murders as a univeral set that we can pretty much agree that are [kinds of things that we all dislike.] I could have used smokers, gamblers, speeders, and prostitutes, but those aren't fairly universally disliked.

:hawk:
I don't think you're a bigot, ND, which is why the comparison surprised me. I'm calling it out as a bad analogy, not as a sign of malice on your part.

I'm sure there's all kinds of political expediency in the senator's move, but I don't think the argument is as hollow as you say. The point implied (although it isn't explicit) is that God created homosexuals--that is, homosexuals are not perverts who've broken with God's law but are just people they way they are meant to be. Therefore, marriage for them is just like marriage for straights.

This obviously isn't an argument that extends to criminals and creeps. Your point about abusers, thieves and murderers breaks down because it is not covered by "God made them too."

(I don't know many believers who would say that God "made" criminals to be criminals. Rather, criminals are people made by God who then chose the wrong path.)
There are plenty of believers who would say that (at least in effect, if not that particular phrasing). That is, there are plenty of people who believe that God controls every aspect of life. Indeed, IIRC a major component of Calvinism (at least from how I recall learning about it back in high school) revolved around predestination - God's already decided how things are going to play out, who is chosen and will go to heaven, and it's all going to play out like that). At the very least, anyone who believes that God intervenes in daily life has to account for God's decision or failure to prevent someone from becoming a murderer when that's clearly within his power.

Point is - God's responsible in many believers' frameworks for everyone and everything. "God made it" is a reasonable argument for a general policy of mercy and kindness - i.e. we're all God's children, so even though that murderer really has it coming he was made by God too and God has a plan so we should be merciful. It's not a terrific reason for altering our policy towards any one group unless we have reason to believe that God created them for a separate reason than other groups.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by noxiousdog »

Holman wrote: I'm sure there's all kinds of political expediency in the senator's move, but his statement isn't as hollow as you say. The point implied is that God created homosexuals--that is, homosexuals are not perverts who've broken with God's law but are just people they way they are meant to be. Therefore, marriage for them is just like marriage for straights.
Except if he thought that, why is he changing his mind now?
This obviously isn't an argument that extends to criminals and creeps. Your point about abusers, thieves and murderers breaks down because it is not covered by "God made them too."

(I don't know many believers who would say that God "made" criminals to be criminals. Rather, criminals are people made by God who then chose the wrong path.)
Except that He did. Whatever failures people do are by the way their brain is wired and the chemicals react. Are there choices to be made? Of course there are. Are some people better equipped to handle it than others? Of course they are. Ergo, His influence is everywhere and it's a lame reasoning to use in a matter of law.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Holman »

El Guapo wrote:
There are plenty of believers who would say that (at least in effect, if not that particular phrasing). That is, there are plenty of people who believe that God controls every aspect of life. Indeed, IIRC a major component of Calvinism (at least from how I recall learning about it back in high school) revolved around predestination - God's already decided how things are going to play out, who is chosen and will go to heaven, and it's all going to play out like that). At the very least, anyone who believes that God intervenes in daily life has to account for God's decision or failure to prevent someone from becoming a murderer when that's clearly within his power.
That kind of full-blown 17th-century predestination Calvinism is rare these days. The vast majority of American Christians cherish the idea that salvation is free, regardless of whether their church's theology came out of Zurich.

My point is simply that the senator is saying three things:
1) People who are gay are that way inherently and not by some perversion,
2) God loves gays as much as straights,
3) Marriage for gays is founded on the same grounds of commitment and love as marriage for straights.

These are pretty bold statements for a Southern politician to make. And they don't really map on to thieves and murderers except in the vaguest "God loves all his children" kind of way. In fact, the (still for some people controversial) argument here is that homosexuality is *not* sinful like murder and theft.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Holman »

noxiousdog wrote: ... it's a lame reasoning to use in a matter of law.
That's because it's neither reasoning nor law. It's rhetoric. The senator is telling his audience that he's pro-marriage-equality and that this is coherent with rather than contrary to his Christianity.

At the legal level, the whole debate has nothing to do with God, nor should it. But the statement we're jumping on isn't happening at the level of law-making. It's his self-presentation and relationship to his constituents.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by noxiousdog »

Holman wrote:
noxiousdog wrote: ... it's a lame reasoning to use in a matter of law.
That's because it's neither reasoning nor law. It's rhetoric. The senator is telling his audience that he's pro-marriage-equality and that this is coherent with rather than contrary to his Christianity.

At the legal level, the whole debate has nothing to do with God, nor should it. But the statement we're jumping on isn't happening at the level of law-making. It's his self-presentation and relationship to his constituents.
So what you're saying is it's ridiculous pandering.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Exodor
Posts: 17196
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:10 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Exodor »

Santorum: segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever

Only the 2013 version:
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R) said Monday that, despite calls for the party to moderate on social issues and polls that show more and more Americans embracing marriage equality, the GOP will never endorse gay nuptials and warned that such a change in positions would be "suicidal" for Republicans.

“I’m sure you could go back and read stories, oh, you know, ‘The Republican party’s going to change. This is the future.’ Obviously that didn’t happen,” Santorum told the Des Moines Register. “I think you’re going to see the same stories written now and it’s not going to happen. The Republican party’s not going to change on this issue. In my opinion it would be suicidal if it did.”
:pop:

Republicans seem to be stuck choosing between appealing to their base or appealing to pretty much everyone else.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Holman »

It's amazing how a wedge has more than one angle.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
geezer
Posts: 7551
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Yeeha!

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by geezer »

Rick Santorum is basically just a bad person.
User avatar
gbasden
Posts: 7664
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by gbasden »

geezer wrote:Rick Santorum is basically just a bad person.
Indeed.
User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 63530
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Daehawk »

Maybe we as US citizens should actually vote human beings into office instead of whatever it is we are putting in there now.

I see no half smirk smilie. Im half serious and half silly on that...but mainly true.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Enough »

And yet another example of why we need same sex marriage.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Enough wrote:And yet another example of why we need same sex marriage.
Sadly marriage wouldn't help that biggoted family member or nurse.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases

Post by Isgrimnur »

The nurse can't issue a restraining order.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
Post Reply