The recent polling on this issue indicates that Catholics are more likely than the population at large to support marriage equality. There's no indication that Catholics are likely to say one thing in public and vote differently in private.RLMullen wrote:Don't ignore Catholics in this equation. Catholics aren't as vocal as the other two, but many will vote in line with the church once they are behind the curtain.Fireball1244 wrote:So long as the Republican Party is rife with Evangelical Christians in the South and Mormon church members in the West, its base will be solidly anti-gay.
LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
- Fireball
- Posts: 4762
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
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. :-)
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. :-)
- AWS260
- Posts: 12730
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:51 pm
- Location: Brooklyn
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
Including a priest I've known for years, who recently told me that the Supreme Court "had better not mess it up." He may have used stronger language. And he may have been a bit tipsy at the time.Fireball1244 wrote:The recent polling on this issue indicates that Catholics are more likely than the population at large to support marriage equality.
- Chrisoc13
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:43 pm
- Location: Maine
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
I'm probably just too much of a skeptic. I don't have a lot of faith in politicians, I see them doing whatever it takes to win.Fireball1244 wrote:
Senator Kay Hagan, who was the most recent to announce support for equality, runs for re-election next year in a state that in early 2012 voted about 70% in favor of a gay marriage ban.
I can't say much for the evangelical Christians but there has been a shift within members of the Mormon church. I think the numbers are still overwhelmingly against allowing gay marriage, but there are more supporters than there were just 5 years ago, and the church itself has softened its stance in just the last 5 years, not to mention the last 20+ years. I don't think by any means that will mean you will see gay Mormon bishops or gay marriages performed in LDS church or temples ever but I do think more and more members of the church will decide legalization of gay marriage is ok by them. In ten years time I could see more Mormons taking the same stance most have taken with alcohol- choosing not to participate but not having any desire to outlaw it. Just my two cents on the matter.Fireball1244 wrote:
So long as the Republican Party is rife with Evangelical Christians in the South and Mormon church members in the West, its base will be solidly anti-gay.
Looking at the big picture the Mormon hold on the west only is strong in Utah and Idaho, maybe Wyoming and these are not populous states anyways. It wouldn't surprise me if most red western states start swinging with public approval of gay marriage in the next decade. Again just my opinion though based off nothing but my personal observations and feelings.
- Fireball
- Posts: 4762
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
Cynicism is poisonous to representative government.Chrisoc13 wrote:I'm probably just too much of a skeptic. I don't have a lot of faith in politicians, I see them doing whatever it takes to win.Fireball1244 wrote:
Senator Kay Hagan, who was the most recent to announce support for equality, runs for re-election next year in a state that in early 2012 voted about 70% in favor of a gay marriage ban.
Within the last 5 years, the LDS has been pumping mountains of cash into anti-gay hate groups like the National Organization for Marriage. The LDS bankrolled much of the pro-Proposition 8 movement just over four years ago, and gave large donations to groups fighting equality in Maryland, Washington, Minnesota and Maine last year. It is, perhaps, the most dedicated and unabashedly anti-gay institution in the nation. That's to say nothing of the LDS's behind the scenes and public efforts to ensure that the Boy Scouts of America continues to tell gay kids that they are worthless vermin undeserving of membership in Scouting.I will never forget or forgive that hate, malice and harm their efforts have encouraged.I can't say much for the evangelical Christians but there has been a shift within members of the Mormon church. I think the numbers are still overwhelmingly against allowing gay marriage, but there are more supporters than there were just 5 years ago, and the church itself has softened its stance in just the last 5 years, not to mention the last 20+ years.
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. :-)
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. :-)
- Chrisoc13
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:43 pm
- Location: Maine
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
Then it's a shame they bring the cynicism on themselves.Fireball1244 wrote:
Cynicism is poisonous to representative government.
Sent using tapa
- Chrisoc13
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:43 pm
- Location: Maine
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
I was just sharing my perspective as someone who is a member of the Mormon church and my observations of not only the church itself but the opinions of the members. I understand you are very passionate about the subject and by no means did I intend to slight you. I can say that the church has actually changed it's stance on several gay issues within the last five years. And those changes are not insignificant. Within the last 20 years even more changes have occurred. The lds church will never support gay marriage. To do so would be dishonest to the doctrine of the church. But it would not surprise me to see them retreat from the fight against gay marriage. Younger members are already more willing to accept it. Just thought the perspective of someone on the inside would be helpful.Fireball1244 wrote:
Within the last 5 years, the LDS has been pumping mountains of cash into anti-gay hate groups like the National Organization for Marriage. The LDS bankrolled much of the pro-Proposition 8 movement just over four years ago, and gave large donations to groups fighting equality in Maryland, Washington, Minnesota and Maine last year. It is, perhaps, the most dedicated and unabashedly anti-gay institution in the nation. That's to say nothing of the LDS's behind the scenes and public efforts to ensure that the Boy Scouts of America continues to tell gay kids that they are worthless vermin undeserving of membership in Scouting.I will never forget or forgive that hate, malice and harm their efforts have encouraged.
As a note though most members of the lds church and certainly the lds church itself does not consider itself anti gay in the way you described. I understand that you feel that way and by no means am a discrediting that but I feel to be fair that should be noted. Anti gay marriage yes. Anti gays? I hope not. Certainly that isn't what is taught.
Sent using tapa
- Daehawk
- Posts: 64238
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
How can anyone openly support un equality for people? This..among many things....does not in the least affect any of these haters. They can still get married just fine. If gays got the rights everyone else has a gay couple is not going to spontaneously move in with these haters. Not a single thing affects anyone. You dont have to go gay if they get equal rights. you dont have to get a divorce because of it.
Its like these people and churches around me who constantly block beer and alcohol sales in restaurants or on Sunday. They dont have to buy it yet they constantly tell other's what they can and cant do. Its appalling. Even Jesus supposedly turned a river into wine.
Give people the rights afforded to other's. Really pisses me off that me and my wife can be married and be protected with laws yet another couple who is just as in love as us has no control over their own family. Shameful. This should not even be up for debate. It should just be. Yes Im mad.
Its like these people and churches around me who constantly block beer and alcohol sales in restaurants or on Sunday. They dont have to buy it yet they constantly tell other's what they can and cant do. Its appalling. Even Jesus supposedly turned a river into wine.
Give people the rights afforded to other's. Really pisses me off that me and my wife can be married and be protected with laws yet another couple who is just as in love as us has no control over their own family. Shameful. This should not even be up for debate. It should just be. Yes Im mad.
--------------------------------------------
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"
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"
- Rip
- Posts: 26891
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:34 pm
- Location: Cajun Country!
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
Tell me about it, just because I want a stable of wives it is none of their business!Daehawk wrote:How can anyone openly support un equality for people? This..among many things....does not in the least affect any of these haters. They can still get married just fine. If gays got the rights everyone else has a gay couple is not going to spontaneously move in with these haters. Not a single thing affects anyone. You dont have to go gay if they get equal rights. you dont have to get a divorce because of it.
Its like these people and churches around me who constantly block beer and alcohol sales in restaurants or on Sunday. They dont have to buy it yet they constantly tell other's what they can and cant do. Its appalling. Even Jesus supposedly turned a river into wine.
Give people the rights afforded to other's. Really pisses me off that me and my wife can be married and be protected with laws yet another couple who is just as in love as us has no control over their own family. Shameful. This should not even be up for debate. It should just be. Yes Im mad.
- Chrisoc13
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:43 pm
- Location: Maine
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
I personally think that should be legalized at the same time. The government has no business being involved in legislating what a marriage is beyond consenting age etc.Rip wrote:Tell me about it, just because I want a stable of wives it is none of their business!Daehawk wrote:How can anyone openly support un equality for people? This..among many things....does not in the least affect any of these haters. They can still get married just fine. If gays got the rights everyone else has a gay couple is not going to spontaneously move in with these haters. Not a single thing affects anyone. You dont have to go gay if they get equal rights. you dont have to get a divorce because of it.
Its like these people and churches around me who constantly block beer and alcohol sales in restaurants or on Sunday. They dont have to buy it yet they constantly tell other's what they can and cant do. Its appalling. Even Jesus supposedly turned a river into wine.
Give people the rights afforded to other's. Really pisses me off that me and my wife can be married and be protected with laws yet another couple who is just as in love as us has no control over their own family. Shameful. This should not even be up for debate. It should just be. Yes Im mad.
Plus throw that in along with gay marriage and then you might get those Mormon controlled western states (Utah, Idaho, etc) to come along... alright just kidding...
- LawBeefaroni
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 55466
- 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
Daehawk wrote:How can anyone openly support un equality for people? This..among many things....does not in the least affect any of these haters. They can still get married just fine. If gays got the rights everyone else has a gay couple is not going to spontaneously move in with these haters. Not a single thing affects anyone. You dont have to go gay if they get equal rights. you dont have to get a divorce because of it.
Its like these people and churches around me who constantly block beer and alcohol sales in restaurants or on Sunday. They dont have to buy it yet they constantly tell other's what they can and cant do. Its appalling. Even Jesus supposedly turned a river into wine.
Much of it is about privilege and self-worth, on a subconcious level. Having something that someone else doesn't can elevate someone in their own system of self valuation.
I wish I could find the study, but it was on how people took stock of their lives. Measure #1 was how they stacked up against their parents. In other words, were they better off now then their parents were at the same age. Depending on the results, they may resort to other measures, such as how they stacked up against their peers. Anyway, somewhere down the line they gain a greater sense of self worth if they had any status/protection denied to someone else. In this case that would be marriage.
In the same way, if they are denied a status/protection, they want to see it denied to everyone else. Your anti-alcohol laws example, for example.
That's not to say that the hateful treatment towards same-sex couples comes from this, but it does help to explain how some people are able to overcome the cognitive dissonance and support laws seemingly at odds with their moral/religious beliefs.
My wife wrote a long letter to our reps explaining how denying gay marriages cheapens our own marriage. I tend to think that Illinois did good with unions but she doesn't think it's even close to the same thing and gets pretty riled up over the whole issue.Daehawk wrote:Give people the rights afforded to other's. Really pisses me off that me and my wife can be married and be protected with laws yet another couple who is just as in love as us has no control over their own family. Shameful. This should not even be up for debate. It should just be. Yes Im mad.
Last edited by LawBeefaroni on Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
" 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
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- noxiousdog
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
I concur.Rip wrote: Tell me about it, just because I want a stable of wives it is none of their business!
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
"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
- stessier
- Posts: 29923
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
- Location: SC
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
Are there religions where this is a dissonance? I actually think in most cases people fall back on their religious beliefs to overcome the dissonance they feel about these things when faced with it in their lives (for example - actually knowing a gay couple and liking them).LawBeefaroni wrote:That's not to say that the hateful treatment towards same-sex couples comes from this, but it does help to explain how some people are able to overcome the cognitive dissonance and support laws seemingly at odds with their moral/religious beliefs.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82831
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
My mother has the opinion that allowing gay marriage would cheapen hers.LawBeefaroni wrote:My wife wrote a long letter to our reps explaining how denying gay marriages cheapens our own marriage.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- LawBeefaroni
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 55466
- 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
Maybe but in most cases it's probably internal to the religion. WWJD vs. WWOTS.stessier wrote: Are there religions where this is a dissonance? I actually think in most cases people fall back on their religious beliefs to overcome the dissonance they feel about these things when faced with it in their lives (for example - actually knowing a gay couple and liking them).
Of course somehow I don't think they'd fall back on religion to tell them what to eat on Fridays or to dictate acceptable internet content.
" 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
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- LawBeefaroni
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 55466
- 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
Well, in the sense of supply and demand, she's right. But since you can't sell a used marriage classic economics don't apply.Isgrimnur wrote:My mother has the opinion that allowing gay marriage would cheapen hers.LawBeefaroni wrote:My wife wrote a long letter to our reps explaining how denying gay marriages cheapens our own marriage.
Actually, that got me thinking. Is there even an argument about the cost of gay marriage? I have to believe that I'd rather have the saved tax dollars in the hands of spendy gay couples than in government coffers. I mean there's absolutely nothing I can think of to make a case against allowing gay marriage.
" 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
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- Defiant
- Posts: 21045
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
- Location: Tongue in cheek
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... i-thought/" target="_blank
On Wednesday, I wrote about Justice Antonin Scalia’s comment that “there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not.”
It turns out Scalia’s comment was wronger than I thought — and wrong in a way that Scalia, in particular, should have known.
<realScience>Although to be fair, social "science" is kinda soft and squishy. <realScience>"The clear and consistent consensus in the social science profession is that across a wide range of indicators, children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents when compared to children raised by opposite-sex parents."
Pretty definitive. And here’s the punchline: That paragraph isn’t buried in a press release on its blog or in an editorial from its trade magazine. It’s from the amicus curiae brief that the ASA filed in the very case Scalia was commenting on.
- Holman
- Posts: 29185
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
I'm no longer churchy but I can't let this go. Jesus never turned a river into wine. The reported miracle is that he turned water into wine...Daehawk wrote: Even Jesus supposedly turned a river into wine.
...at a wedding feast.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
- Fireball
- Posts: 4762
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
Don't worry about that; I didn't feel slighted.Chrisoc13 wrote:I was just sharing my perspective as someone who is a member of the Mormon church and my observations of not only the church itself but the opinions of the members. I understand you are very passionate about the subject and by no means did I intend to slight you.
Well, it is. It is a viciously, hatefully anti-gay organization.As a note though most members of the lds church and certainly the lds church itself does not consider itself anti gay in the way you described.
To be anti-equality is to be anti-gay.Anti gay marriage yes. Anti gays?
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. :-)
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. :-)
- Fireball
- Posts: 4762
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
It was also Jesus's first public miracle.Holman wrote:I'm no longer churchy but I can't let this go. Jesus never turned a river into wine. The reported miracle is that he turned water into wine...Daehawk wrote: Even Jesus supposedly turned a river into wine.
...at a wedding feast.
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. :-)
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. :-)
- AWS260
- Posts: 12730
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:51 pm
- Location: Brooklyn
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
Moses, on the other hand, turned a river into blood. And every Sunday at Mass priests turn wine into Jesus's blood...Fireball1244 wrote:Holman wrote:I'm no longer churchy but I can't let this go. Jesus never turned a river into wine. The reported miracle is that he turned water into wine...Daehawk wrote: Even Jesus supposedly turned a river into wine.
...at a wedding feast.
It gets confusing.
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82831
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
What's with the religious hangups on wine and blood?
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- Zarathud
- Posts: 16674
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
One you bathe in during peace, the other during war.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
- LawBeefaroni
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 55466
- 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
It's easy.
Wine is the blood of grapes.
Blood is the grapes of...no, wait...man is the...Jesus is the true vine...of...God is the husbandman...purgeth the grapes...
Wine is the blood of grapes.
Blood is the grapes of...no, wait...man is the...Jesus is the true vine...of...God is the husbandman...purgeth the grapes...
" 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
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82831
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- Fireball
- Posts: 4762
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
People are quick to notice when they think an elected official appears to be acting cynical, but completely ignore the many instances where they risk their position (ie, their job) to do what they think is right. The Kay Hagan example we're discussing here is an explicit example of that.Chrisoc13 wrote:Then it's a shame they bring the cynicism on themselves.Fireball1244 wrote:
Cynicism is poisonous to representative government.
Here's a video of members of Congress standing up in protest of DOMA... in 1996, when it was wildly popular and politically unstoppable. This is political bravery. Senator Robb lost his reelection in 2000 in part because of his opposition to DOMA. John Kerry almost lost his seat in 1996 for the same reason:
Presuming constant cynicism from elected officials isn't just wrong, it makes representational government impossible.
I interact with elected officials constantly. Yes, there are folks who are deeply politically craven. And there are fanatics who won't budge from their position to the point that their unwillingness to compromise becomes harmful in and of itself. But regardless, virtually every elected official I've ever encountered, regardless of party, got into politics for a good or noble reason, and most are doing the best they can to do right by the people who sent them there -- both when they vote how they think the people at home would want them to vote, *and* when they vote differently.
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. :-)
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. :-)
- Daehawk
- Posts: 64238
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
To us the government doesn't feel like it's for the people any longer. They get voted in then sit and sleep, dont go to votes, or if they do they simply vote the party line or more often simply vote what THEY want to vote. Their people back home they represent have no say in the voting process any longer. Sure they can call in and tell how they feel but no one listens. There's not a way for the general public to vote on any issue their representative would vote on in their stead any longer...never mind even know what IS being voted on. We send them to congress and that's that for our part in the Gov.
--------------------------------------------
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"
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"
- LawBeefaroni
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 55466
- 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
I appreciate her stand, but forgive me if I don't agree that she's risking that much. Losing her "job" that pays her less than her annual capital gains would be bruise to the ego more than anything else. She has $30,000,000 or so to get her through that tough stretch of unemployment.Fireball1244 wrote:People are quick to notice when they think an elected official appears to be acting cynical, but completely ignore the many instances where they risk their position (ie, their job) to do what they think is right. The Kay Hagan example we're discussing here is an explicit example of that.Chrisoc13 wrote:Then it's a shame they bring the cynicism on themselves.Fireball1244 wrote:
Cynicism is poisonous to representative government.
" 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
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton
MYT
- Kraken
- Posts: 44070
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
- Location: The Hub of the Universe
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
When was that ever different? Except for random fits of populism, government has always represented the rich and powerful before the average schlub. Is that truer now than it used to be? Certainly income inequality and the concentration of wealth have worsened steadily since the 1980s, and Citizens United cemented the equivalence of money and power. But aren't these developments just continuing a long historical trend? When was this populist democratic Golden Age that you think is lost?Daehawk wrote:To us the government doesn't feel like it's for the people any longer. They get voted in then sit and sleep, dont go to votes, or if they do they simply vote the party line or more often simply vote what THEY want to vote. Their people back home they represent have no say in the voting process any longer. Sure they can call in and tell how they feel but no one listens. There's not a way for the general public to vote on any issue their representative would vote on in their stead any longer...never mind even know what IS being voted on. We send them to congress and that's that for our part in the Gov.
- Holman
- Posts: 29185
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
American gov't has always reflected the tides of ideology, but it has usually tilted heavily towards the owners. Since we happen to live in the most politically polarized age since the Civil War, nobody is going to be happy with the whole.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
- Defiant
- Posts: 21045
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
- Location: Tongue in cheek
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82831
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
I'm almost certain that they stole that from Popehat's Facebook feed.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- LordMortis
- Posts: 70478
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
Cool, long since thought of marriage as a tax status first (second really, after work benefits distribution) status and commitment to love or God or whatever you are committing to second, much like a social security card. That premise is the right premise IMO, it's basically tell "the Church" even though we're using the same words, this is about legal responsibilities, so please go bark somewhere else about Sodom which has no business here.Defiant wrote:Woah, they have a ruling
- geezer
- Posts: 7555
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:52 pm
- Location: Yeeha!
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
Im assuming that's an April Fools joke - just a not funny one - the kind a bunch of tax analysis think-tankers would think was hilarious?
- LordMortis
- Posts: 70478
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
Too bad because it seems right to me. Also I'd expect breaking news to have caught up by now and it hasn't.geezer wrote:Im assuming that's an April Fools joke - just a not funny one - the kind a bunch of tax analysis think-tankers would think was hilarious?
- Chrisoc13
- Posts: 3992
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:43 pm
- Location: Maine
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
I found it decently humorous, as far as April fools jokes go. It is playing off the ruling for the Affordable Care Act last year. Sure it isn't bust a gut funny, but it is mildly entertaining.
- Fireball
- Posts: 4762
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:43 pm
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
I thought it was funny.
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. :-)
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. :-)
- geezer
- Posts: 7555
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:52 pm
- Location: Yeeha!
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
Yeah, but you think Dallas is a better city than Austin, so your take on things is obviously suspect.Fireball1244 wrote:I thought it was funny.
- Zarathud
- Posts: 16674
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
Tax nerds are not known for their humor. A CPA firm sent an awkward April Fool's update about the IRS reality show "So you think you can deduct that" and accountant stereotype jokes:
- Why do accountants not read novels? Because the only numbers in them are page numbers.
- What's an accountant's idea of trashing a hotel room? Refusing to fill out the guest comment card.
- Why do accountants not read novels? Because the only numbers in them are page numbers.
- What's an accountant's idea of trashing a hotel room? Refusing to fill out the guest comment card.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
- Kurth
- Posts: 6082
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
- Location: Portland
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
Don't mean to stir the pot needlessly here, but I can't stand these categorizations.Fireball1244 wrote:To be anti-equality is to be anti-gay.Anti gay marriage yes. Anti gays?
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.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
- Combustible Lemur
- Posts: 3961
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:17 pm
- Location: houston, TX
Re: Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases
I agree with your philosophical point, but I think that shelter is one of the hurdles in the anti equality fights.Kurth wrote:Don't mean to stir the pot needlessly here, but I can't stand these categorizations.Fireball1244 wrote:To be anti-equality is to be anti-gay.Anti gay marriage yes. Anti gays?
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.
I'm not anti gay, just anti equality for gay people.
I'm not anti black, I'm just anti black people touching the same stuff as me
I'm not anti immigrant, I'm just anti more immigrants.
Yes it's easy to overgeneralize, and the Isreal/ semitism debate is a very good example of that problem. But, bigots have always used that fear of not being discerning enough to shelter their actual prejudices.
Is Scott home? thump thump thump Crash ......No.