Posting Towards Gomorrah - Page 267

Replaced_Texan · 10-26-2006, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't think gay/anti-gay equates to Rs and Ds (I mean people not who pushes the issues).

the city of Detroit voted for Kerry at about 90% in a state he won by about 53%. meanwhile our "gay marriage ban" passed by about 60%, and in the City of Detroit by about 60%.

I think you're right. I also think that this is one of those issues, like miscegenation, that will go away over time as people with entrenched attitudes die off and people who never knew a world without the random token gay character on television shows start taking over.

bilmore · 10-26-2006, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Yeah, well what of the rights of a boy and his dog?

If I remember that movie correctly, (and who doesn't - it was great), the dog scouted out and brought home the young females for the guy, so it really has no relevance here.

Replaced_Texan · 10-26-2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
More lies about stem-cell research. Sorry: They're clearly implying all sorts of stuff that isn't true, right?

As Rep. Sherwood didn't already have enough problems.

NPR had a thing a few days ago on these ads. The piece was about unregulated internet ads on YouTube, and apparently these ads have been downloaded a lot. The guy who made these ads originally made them for some candidate in upstate New York, but they were so effective he's made them for other candidates all over the country.

ETC: midwest to Upstate New York.

bilmore · 10-26-2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think you're right. I also think that this is one of those issues, like miscegenation, that will go away over time as people with entrenched attitudes die off and people who never knew a world without the random token gay character on television shows start taking over.

Given the number of very young people I've run into or seen who are virulantly racist and/or homophobic, I fear that your "over time" is going to be measured in geologic terms.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-26-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Given the number of very young people I've run into or seen who are virulantly racist and/or homophobic, I fear that your "over time" is going to be measured in geologic terms.

2. I wiki'd to find out that 40% of Alabamans voted against repeal of their anti-miscegenation statute in 1998. (Of course, I suppose one might vote in protest, but still).

Maybe it's because I'm homophobic, but my intuition tells me that given the history of marriage, the gender of the marrieds is somewhat more fundamental than their race, and will, as a result, require longer for people to change their attitudes.

SlaveNoMore · 10-26-2006, 05:11 PM

Quote:

y Tyrone Slothrop
According to RT's post, he said:

"Yesterday, in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage."

If you believe that marriage as an institution is between a man and a woman - as an overwheming majority of this country outside of this Board seems to think - then his statement is patently true.

What is your point?

Sidd Finch · 10-26-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Wow, yeah. So much for the press accounts of 4-3. The three were dissenting from providing actual gay marriage, and merely allowing the legislature to consider it.

No, the three were dissenting from allowing the legislature to consider it, I think.

The unanimous opinion was that the state constitution required this level of equal protection.

Those activist Republican judges, huh?

Shape Shifter · 10-26-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you believe that marriage as an institution is between a man and a woman - as an overwheming majority of this country outside of this Board seems to think - then his statement is patently true.

What is your point?

If you believe marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, why is the state involved in the first place?

Sidd Finch · 10-26-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
If I remember that movie correctly, (and who doesn't - it was great), the dog scouted out and brought home the young females for the guy, so it really has no relevance here.

And then they ate her together. Not in a sexy way.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 10-26-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Given the number of very young people I've run into or seen who are virulantly racist and/or homophobic, I fear that your "over time" is going to be measured in geologic terms.

The polls on gay marriage in Massachussetts moved from the 50-55% range right after the decision to the 60-65% today; there is a huge split by age, with the young being overwhelming in favor and the over 65 crowd being overwhelming opposed.

It will be a curve. There will probably still be opposition 100 years from now, but I'd guess it will cease to be a major legal issue over the course of a generation. Unless, of course, President Frist or President Romney reverses the trend.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-26-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you believe that marriage as an institution is between a man and a woman - as an overwheming majority of this country outside of this Board seems to think - then his statement is patently true.

Since the New Jersey Supreme ruled that gay civil unions must receive the same benefits and privileges as married couples, but declined to rule that gays could marry, I'm not getting the "patent" part. Anyhow, Hank has my proxy as to what Bush was implying.

Quote:

What is your point?

You should ask all the people who are OK with civil unions but not gay marriage. There are lots of them.

SlaveNoMore · 10-26-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Shape Shifter
If you believe marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, why is the state involved in the first place?

You tell me. I don't think the state should be marrying anybody in the first place. If anything, people should be rallying AGAINST the right of the state to be involved, not the other way around.

You want marriage, go to church.

You want to sign a contract, get a lawyer.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-26-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No, the three were dissenting from allowing the legislature to consider it, I think.

Right. I was very inarticulate in what I said. Those 3 would have ruled the state was immediately obligated to start granting licenses to marry to gay couples, and that anything short of that, such as civil unions created by the legislature, would be constitutionally sufficient.

Shape Shifter · 10-26-2006, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You tell me. I don't think the state should be marrying anybody in the first place. If anything, people should be rallying AGAINST the right of the state to be involved, not the other way around.

You want marriage, go to church.

You want to sign a contract, get a lawyer.

A contract is only good between the contracting parties. Legal marriage comes with a bundle of rights that must be respected by third parties as well.

sebastian_dangerfield · 10-26-2006, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
By lying? Have you found that to be an effective court tactic?

Quite. But to address your first point, it wasn't a lie.