Brontoforumus Archive

Discussion Boards => Thaddeus Boyd's Panel of Death => Topic started by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on October 20, 2008, 01:23:13 PM

Title: LGBT
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on October 20, 2008, 01:23:13 PM
Man, has anyone else seen these Yes on Prop 8 adds lately?

Yes on 8 TV Ad: It's Already Happened (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4#)

If that goes through, I might have to ask my boss if I can have a day off to get sloshed.

And those people have obviously never seen Utena. Of course a princess can have a bride!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kashan on October 20, 2008, 01:26:29 PM
And those people have obviously never seen Utena.

Those lucky lucky people.  :endit:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Niku on October 20, 2008, 01:58:13 PM
Those lucky lucky people.  :endit:

get off my boards.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Classic on October 20, 2008, 02:07:51 PM
Somehow, I liked Princess Tutu.
Somehow, I did not like Utena. As much as the overdone imagery and ... "allegories" compelled me to watch in an omg-it-is-a-trainwreck kind of way, I couldn't finish it.

I was excited about seeing it too.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Disposable Ninja on October 20, 2008, 02:13:22 PM
That little girl is probably the most mature person in that entire commercial.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kashan on October 20, 2008, 04:59:42 PM
 My experience with Utena was odd. I was loving it, like really really loving right up until it ended. Queue   :oh: :THATWAY: :enraged: :angry:  :scanners: :tears:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kayma on October 20, 2008, 07:55:50 PM
VOTE YES ON PROP 8. VOTE NO ON PRINCESS PRINCESS MARRIAGES
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on October 20, 2008, 07:59:26 PM
Man, has anyone else seen these Yes on Prop 8 adds lately?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4

If that goes through, I might have to ask my boss if I can have a day off to get sloshed.

And those people have obviously never seen Utena. Of course a princess can have a bride!

Whoever made that ad sucks at fearmongering.  That piano is way too cheerful.  Where's the ominous mood?  It comes off as either a sitcom pilot or an infomercial.

"Vote Yes on 8 now and you'll receive this free tube of miracle putty!  Watch as it holds this yappy chihuahua to the wall and bonds within seconds."
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on October 20, 2008, 08:04:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjkKqjkq1r4

Warning: This clip features images of violence against inanimate yard signs that some viewers may find disturbing.

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE SIGNS?

Someday our society will get to what's important, like being terrified of being "forced to accept" gay marriage, and put these tragic and spiteful acts of intolerance against pieces of lawn posterboard behind us.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on October 20, 2008, 09:01:19 PM
There's a certain grim irony underlying the "Is it Okay For the Opponents of Prop 8 to Tear Down Signs?  Vote Yes" one.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Rosencrantz on October 21, 2008, 12:23:16 PM
My girlfriend, who was appalled by that Vote Yes On Prop 8 commercial, found this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exPoH1JX0Q8
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: sei on October 21, 2008, 01:21:47 PM
Isn't the argument against gay marriage basically appeal to tradition?
(I'll risk putting up a potentially unpopular opinion on the matter.)

Yes and no.  Marriage is ultimately a religious institution and it's shitty that we integrated it with our legal system in the way that we did.  If marriage held no legal import (beyond perhaps getting married automatically giving a couple some kind of SEPARATE legal status I'll call Coupled) then I myself'd probably say that the government can fuck right off with whether or not it gets to tell religious institutions who can qualify as holding a union specific to (a group of) religion(s).

Thing is that it doesn't work that way.

I'm not sure whether quibbling over the language is meaningful.

If the government gives one set of rights to married couples and then purports to give that same set of rights to long-term homosexual couples, but later decides to grant or remove some property from one or the other, the equality has been broken.  I think the idea is that using the same terminology from both might protect homosexual couples from discrimination.

I also think that assumption might prove wrong.  There may eventually be separate things written into law regarding "homosexual married couples" and "heterosexual married couples," at which point there's no point over bickering whether or not the term "marriage" is used, as the homosexual couple is again without equal rights to the heterosexual couple.  I don't know about you, but I'd be hesitant to take anyone's word that there'll never be any legal language to differentiate between the two (or three) types of marriage that go through.

That said, I don't think we have enough information on the mental health of children who have been raised by one kind versus children who have been raised by the other kind to decide whether the heterosexual couples and homosexual couples should have equal rights in any and all matters.

(The hospital visitation rights are a fucking no-brainer; I'm not informed enough to comment on taxes or family matters.)


I'll still vote up gay rights as best possible, including supporting gay marriage, but that's me putting the gay couples ahead of religious institutions, which I'm generally happy to erode.  If they want to change the language later, that's fine.  (Homosexual union usurping the term "marriage" is the church/synagogue/etc.'s just desserts for getting in bed with the government.)


Major sidetrack.  It's probably not an appeal to tradition so much as appeal to authority (God or will of the church) which is almost the same thing.  However, trying to keep your terminology consistent isn't fallacious.  If anything, they're being good kids and trying to avoid future equivocation (another fallacy) on the term "marriage."

(SRY WIL TRY 2 EDIT LATAR)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Catloaf on October 21, 2008, 01:40:36 PM
So would all this be solved if we called gay marriage "civil unions", then changed all legal use of the word "marriage" to "civil unions" as well, so that straight married couples would have the same terminology used as gay 'married' couples legally, but not in their churches?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kazz on October 21, 2008, 01:50:08 PM
No, because that policy doesn't discriminate enough.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: on October 21, 2008, 02:28:41 PM
Isn't the argument against gay marriage basically appeal to tradition?
It's a religious thing, too. See, God doesn't want certain people loving each other.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on October 21, 2008, 03:21:13 PM
I've been telling people to take the word "marriage" out of the legal language for years.  It's literally one step away from needing a license from the American government to be baptized.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Sharkey on October 21, 2008, 04:52:19 PM
I'm game for that. You all couldn't play nice, so we poke a hole in your ball.

In fact, the way it works now you're pretty much getting a kickback from the government for MARRY AND REPRODUCE. Fuck it. No marriage. No civil unions, either. Any such domestic arrangements shall be made through your own goddamn contracts. Or contracts drafted by your church's lawyers, if you're a fucking clownskull.

And yeah, that pretty well covers marriage, gay marriage, legal polygamy, and hooking up with your fucking toaster if you're feeling fun about it. You just don't get a break on your taxes, jerkass.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on October 21, 2008, 04:55:54 PM
Social Security requires an ever expanding workforce.

(http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/4134/photomatthewleskogq6.gif)

Get fuckin' and the government will give you money! There are billions of dollars waiting around for people just like you!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Sharkey on October 21, 2008, 05:01:59 PM
11th Doctor: Revealed!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on October 21, 2008, 05:31:59 PM
In fact, the way it works now you're pretty much getting a kickback from the government for MARRY AND REPRODUCE. Fuck it. No marriage. No civil unions, either. Any such domestic arrangements shall be made through your own goddamn contracts. Or contracts drafted by your church's lawyers, if you're a fucking clownskull.

To be fair, it used to be kind of important that married people get treated like a single person with a single income.  This sort of thing would have been updated for the modern world long ago if it weren't for people like the ones screaming about not having "married" on a piece of U.S. documentation even though they've obviously got two breadwinners and no natural dependents.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on October 22, 2008, 11:14:49 PM
Man, has anyone else seen these Yes on Prop 8 adds lately?

Enough to switch back to giving No the majority again (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage23-2008oct23,0,4937128.story), apparently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIL7PUl24hE

what the hell arizona has an identical prop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Proposition_102_(2008)) what the hell
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on October 22, 2008, 11:26:16 PM
See what I was saying?  That's how you use an emotional piano.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on October 31, 2008, 12:44:09 PM
A familiar voice...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj-0xMrsyxE

I've had it with these motherfuckin' homophobes on this motherfuckin' campaign!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on November 01, 2008, 05:13:50 PM
Good for him.

A friend of mine tried to blather out the "states' rights" argument on marriage a few years back.  I responded that a few decades back "states' rights" would have prevented my uncle from marrying my (African-American) aunt.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on November 05, 2008, 04:21:58 PM
Civil liberties groups trying to overturn Prop 8 already. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27557521/)

Not surprising, but isn't the point of a constitutional amendment that it can't be overturned by the courts?  It would seem like the only way to reverse it is to repeal the amendment through another vote.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: king_tut22 on November 05, 2008, 04:27:16 PM
Civil liberties groups trying to overturn Prop 8 already. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27557521/)

Not surprising, but isn't the point of a constitutional amendment that it can't be overturned by the courts?  It would seem like the only way to reverse it is to repeal the amendment through another vote.
Yeah, that's basically the only way.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on November 05, 2008, 04:54:49 PM
Or federal action, probably.

They have an interesting argument, though.  It's a procedural one - saying that you can't just have a referendum to amend the constitution, you have to follow a particular procedure that wasn't followed.  If that's got merit, it could nullify Prop 8, and push it back at least for a couple years, where reconsideration might go better.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on November 05, 2008, 09:11:08 PM
Civil liberties groups trying to overturn Prop 8 already. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27557521/)

Not surprising, but isn't the point of a constitutional amendment that it can't be overturned by the courts?  It would seem like the only way to reverse it is to repeal the amendment through another vote.

Except if it's unconstitutional.  As in not allowed under the United States Constitution.

Since the entire measure at its most benevolent (with "Domestic Partners") is basically Separate But Equal, and we know how that turned out, it's a matter of time.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on November 05, 2008, 09:49:38 PM
Civil liberties groups trying to overturn Prop 8 already. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27557521/)

Not surprising, but isn't the point of a constitutional amendment that it can't be overturned by the courts?  It would seem like the only way to reverse it is to repeal the amendment through another vote.

Except if it's unconstitutional.  As in not allowed under the United States Constitution.

Since the entire measure at its most benevolent (with "Domestic Partners") is basically Separate But Equal, and we know how that turned out, it's a matter of time.

The trouble is that the current SCOTUS will NEVER make that ruling.  We basically need to wait until Kennedy or Scalia retires.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on November 05, 2008, 10:11:30 PM
Exit polls on prop 8. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1)

The most significant finding is the 70% approval from blacks.  This is the highest margin by any group that is not conservative or Republican by a long shot (even higher than Catholics).

Ironically, the high turnout by blacks for Obama may have made the difference.  Obama has given support to gay rights in his speeches (while rejecting gay marriage), should he have done more?  I'm not even sure why blacks are more against gay marriage than any other ethnicity.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on November 05, 2008, 10:18:41 PM
Something something something culture blah blah thread slowly descending into White Kids Talk About Race.

Linking of youtube clips using the phrase "no homo"

kitten macros

mutual acceptance of terms and agreement to not produce copies for non-personal usage.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on November 05, 2008, 10:24:16 PM
Something something something culture blah blah thread slowly descending into White Kids Talk About Race.

...I'm fairly confident we don't have anybody here who supported 8.

...Which I think means Guild has to do a 180 on it now just so he can start an argument.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on November 05, 2008, 10:27:00 PM
Black people have an unfortunate tendency to discriminate against whoever they can.  I can't entirely blame them.  If I had to spend my entire life getting kicked in the head, I'd jump at the chance to do it to whoever I'm told it's okay to do it to.

Like I said before, I expect a repeal vote to go up in 2010 and pass, once the country as a whole has been pulled back away from the right and California realizes that this is really, really embarrassing.

...and Guild already tried to start an argument about this.  You jailed him for it.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on November 05, 2008, 10:31:51 PM
Surprised men voted slightly more than women for prop 8. You'd think "LESBIANS!" would be entirely sufficient as a vote against 8 for many men.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on November 05, 2008, 10:34:34 PM
Something something something culture blah blah thread slowly descending into White Kids Talk About Race.

Linking of youtube clips using the phrase "no homo"

kitten macros

mutual acceptance of terms and agreement to not produce copies for non-personal usage.

Way to contribute to the discussion you fuck.

This doesn't have to revolve around race but I noted it because I thought it was significant.  I'm not black and I don't live in California, so I'm mystified as to why one race (predominantly Democrat to boot) would be overwhelmingly anti-gay compared to, say, hispanics which were just over 50%.

If you have nothing of substance to add, then kindly shut the fuck up.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on November 05, 2008, 10:38:40 PM
I would expect men to be way more homophobic than women in general.  I mean no matter how open-minded you are, you meet a gay man and you have to think, "There is a possibility this guy wants to penetrate my anus."  A chick in the same situation would be like, "Oh no, she's going to... finger me?  Maybe?"
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on November 05, 2008, 10:39:20 PM
Surprised men voted slightly more than women for prop 8. You'd think "LESBIANS!" would be entirely sufficient as a vote against 8 for many men.

Honestly?  Doesn't surprise me at all.  It seems more men are offended by homosexuality to the point where most use it as a derogatory slur.

I wouldn't think "zomg lesbians" factors into it at all.  I don't think many men have empathy for the subjects of their sexual fantasies, if that's what you're suggesting.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: SCD on November 05, 2008, 10:40:10 PM
Question:  Do married couples gain benefits under your tax system?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on November 05, 2008, 10:40:43 PM
Yes, and they're set up assuming you're going to naturally conceive children.  This is the problem.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on November 06, 2008, 07:19:33 AM
Like I said before, I expect a repeal vote to go up in 2010 and pass, once the country as a whole has been pulled back away from the right and California realizes that this is really, really embarrassing.

I'd like to believe that, but two other states in this election voted their own anti-gay amendments, but only California's got any real attention (most likely because of the liberal nature of the state and oh yeah they said it was okay a few months ago).  What I do feel like is this is an opening salvo in the civil rights battle for homosexuals in the country that's going to be waging over the next few years.  President Obama may actually have to come out and take a definitive stance on this, and he could be hailed as a civil rights hero one way and a monster the other.

And it'll be a long time before states like Texas can accept homosexuals, so the federal government is going to have to step in and force them, kicking and screaming, to accept it.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Koah on November 06, 2008, 10:17:18 AM
Not to derail things or anything, but Amendment 2 was approved in Florida (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/758471.html), so America's Foreskin is pretty much in the same boat as California, except with less possibility of it being overturned.  Although I'm not sure how relevant it's going to be to the discussion seeing as how many people live in Cali as opposed to... well, here.  Just tossing that out, is all.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on November 06, 2008, 10:25:23 AM
I think, like a generation ago, the main problem will be cloaked as an argument over technicalities.

I'm pretty sure that while discrimination against homosexuality per se is against the law, but tax laws relating to marriage/reproduction, state consitutional skullduggery, and other nonsense will bog this down for a while.

At least the starting point is better. There isn't a 200-year history of enslaved gay men and no state flag happens to feature a rainbow with a big "NO" symbol superimposed on it (that the state legislature argues is only there because the state hates good weather).

 :imagination:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Transportation on November 06, 2008, 10:32:07 AM
Yes, and they're set up assuming you're going to naturally conceive children.  This is the problem.
Not really, we let infertile couples get married. Married couples don't have children frequently enough.

And why are adopted children inferior to naturally born ones? They can even do artificial implantation if it's that big a deal. Homosexuals like families too.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on November 06, 2008, 10:44:44 AM
Yes, but the amount of legal wrangling required for gay couples to adopt, or to have equal custody of a child who is only related by blood to one parent, is prohibitive.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on November 06, 2008, 11:04:38 AM
See, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Kemo Sabe up there is getting to the crux of the matter, the grounds for the right to marriage, while Thad's rightly pointing out that on the surface there's a smorgasboard of bullshit that hides or distorts that fundamental truth.

I don't think Slippery Slope applies, because if you have a healthy, intact, loving family where a child has been raised by two gay parents that mirrors the effect on society as a child raised by straight parents. Sure, there are studies that will be trotted out by the right that suppose that a child raised by a gay couple is at some kind of disadvantage as opposed to a straight couple, but how many children have been raised by batty (or friendly) old uncles or aunts? By single parents? By grandparents? By orphanages or foster homes? Yet none of those are unconsitutional.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on November 06, 2008, 11:27:24 AM
In fact, gay couples are statistically BETTER parents than straight ones -- because they have to REALLY, REALLY WANT TO BE PARENTS.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on November 06, 2008, 11:42:49 AM
Didn't we go through something similar with interracial marriage and miscegenation?

I really don't know what to say. I thought we were like the gay capital of the world or something. Guess not.

So, congratulations, Prop 8 supporters! You made some lesbians cry, while simultaneously protecting the sanctity of my Las Vegas drive-thru marriage and eventually messy divorce.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on November 06, 2008, 11:48:27 AM
In fact, gay couples are statistically BETTER parents than straight ones -- because they have to REALLY, REALLY WANT TO BE PARENTS.

To say nothing of individual variability. Sometimes being raised by the crazy 3rd cousin will give a kid the best childhood they could ever hope for.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Pacobird on November 06, 2008, 11:56:23 AM
Exit polling suggests this will look very different in ten years.  The times, they are a-changin'.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on November 06, 2008, 12:45:44 PM
10 years is a shitty amount of time to wait if you want to get married now.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Lady Duke on November 06, 2008, 12:51:24 PM
In fact, gay couples are statistically BETTER parents than straight ones -- because they have to REALLY, REALLY WANT TO BE PARENTS.

I'd like to see those studies :3
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Shinra on November 06, 2008, 01:33:44 PM
In fact, gay couples are statistically BETTER parents than straight ones -- because they have to REALLY, REALLY WANT TO BE PARENTS.

I'd like to see those studies :3

It's less that 'they really really want to be parents' and more 'they're scrutinized much, much, much more'. When your primary means of getting a child is through adoption, you're a lot less likely to get a kid as a complete waste of humanity. My brother makes 40k/yr through the military and has a wife who was willing to be a full time mom and they weren't able to adopt. If a gay couple isn't beating that by a lot, they're never going to get a kid in the first place.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on November 06, 2008, 02:18:12 PM
My brother makes 40k/yr through the military and has a wife who was willing to be a full time mom and they weren't able to adopt.

That's... very interesting.  What was the specific reason?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Pacobird on November 06, 2008, 02:25:01 PM
10 years is a shitty amount of time to wait if you want to get married now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJk

Not that I disagree with you.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Guild on November 06, 2008, 02:39:24 PM
My brother makes 40k/yr through the military and has a wife who was willing to be a full time mom and they weren't able to adopt.

That's... very interesting.  What was the specific reason?

It's cannibal discrimination. They don't even eat their children unless there's a food shortage! This country needs social reform.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on November 06, 2008, 02:56:35 PM
My brother makes 40k/yr through the military and has a wife who was willing to be a full time mom and they weren't able to adopt.

That's... very interesting.  What was the specific reason?

Perhaps it was deemed that a household with only one parent reliably present, trying to support three people on $40k/year, wasn't the best place to put a child.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Guild on November 06, 2008, 03:02:17 PM
40k is a lot in some areas of these United States. In Oklahoma I saw a four bedroom house for rent: 300 bucks a month.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: on November 06, 2008, 03:51:09 PM
Can Gays still drink out of the same water fountains as straight people?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Guild on November 06, 2008, 03:51:45 PM
This was in a nice, mildly populated area: Full half-acre yards, convenience store down the street... I disagree with your weird, unfounded bias.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Guild on November 06, 2008, 03:52:22 PM
Can Gays still drink out of the same water fountains as straight people?

THAT'S HOW YOU CATCH IT

 :imagination:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kashan on November 06, 2008, 04:10:31 PM
Could you point me to the 300 a month 4 bedroom house? I mean Oklahoma is cheap but I've not seen anything close to that.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Guild on November 06, 2008, 04:12:55 PM
This was five+ years ago and I took a bus...

I was in a (shallow, too physical) relationship with a girl there while stationed in San Diego in the Navy and went there once for three weeks on leave. I don't even know the name of the town.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on November 06, 2008, 04:21:27 PM
I'd like to see those studies :3

You know, a quick Google doesn't turn up any evidence to support that, and I can't remember where I read it, so I'm going to back down from that claim.

However, a quick Google DOES find numerous studies that suggest same-sex parents are no different from heterosexual parents, and WebMD (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids) cites studies suggesting that two gay parents are better than one straight parent.

It's less that 'they really really want to be parents' and more 'they're scrutinized much, much, much more'. When your primary means of getting a child is through adoption, you're a lot less likely to get a kid as a complete waste of humanity. My brother makes 40k/yr through the military and has a wife who was willing to be a full time mom and they weren't able to adopt. If a gay couple isn't beating that by a lot, they're never going to get a kid in the first place.

That's a fair point too.  Maybe I should be looking at studies of adopted versus natural parents.

Anecdotally, my grandparents have neighbors who are a lesbian couple; each one has a natural daughter (I assume via artificial insemination but I haven't asked) and they're currently working to finalize the adoption of three more kids.  It's been a very difficult process for them, but they've really worked hard and have done a great job and by all accounts the adoption agency has scored them very high and really gone to bat to help them get approval.

So again, that's anecdotal and I can't exactly say they're representative, but I'm willing to bet that, at least in as gay-unfriendly a state as Arizona, their story's a common one and you really have to kick a lot of ass to get to adopt.  (They also say it's gotten a lot easier since Napolitano took office.)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on November 06, 2008, 05:11:44 PM
The problem with qualifying gay parenthood is that it's very subjective what makes a better parent.  I mean about 55% of the state here would probably give gay parents bad marks for not teaching their children that being gay is awful.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Pacobird on November 06, 2008, 08:50:37 PM
I think if we replaced "gay" with "black" in this thread, we would be getting much closer to understanding the real problem here.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Guild on November 06, 2008, 08:51:39 PM
gj paco way to fix the thread


Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: on November 06, 2008, 08:58:53 PM
I think if we replaced "gay" with "black" in this thread, we would be getting much closer to understanding the real problem here.

Can Gays still drink out of the same water fountains as straight people?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Fredward on November 06, 2008, 09:10:28 PM
But that's silly! Blacks have always been allowed to marry blacks! :slow:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Pacobird on November 06, 2008, 09:59:37 PM
Point is that the whole question of whether homosexuals make good parents or not is irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed to adopt.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on November 06, 2008, 10:12:37 PM
Well, that's the thing.  Adopting in general is a fucking hellish process.  Most of the heavy stuff I had to do during my stint as a notary was that sort of bullshit.  It pisses me off and I really want to get a dialog going about it, because I've mentioned a few times that the adoption system in this country is horribly, horribly strained, mainly because the requirements for adoption are far stricter than... well, anything.  You're sooner likely to join the Secret Service than adopt a needy child.  'course nobody gives a shit about that 'til they find out their own eggs ain't hatching, but they'll talk a good line about the importance of adopting.  Mumble grumble grumble.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Pacobird on November 06, 2008, 10:17:39 PM
I have absolutely no problem with how strict the adoption process is.  The problem is "dudes who like dick" is apparently a strike.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: JDigital on November 06, 2008, 10:23:54 PM
Point is that the whole question of whether homosexuals make good parents or not is irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed to adopt.

Isn't that the entire benchmark on adoption?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Fredward on November 06, 2008, 10:25:36 PM
Yeah, I was going to say, a better wording would have been "Whether or not prospective parents are homosexual is irrelevant to whether or not they should adopt." But I could think of no way of saying that that would not make me look like a  :thad:.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on November 07, 2008, 04:48:01 AM
I think if we replaced "gay" with "black" in this thread, we would be getting much closer to understanding the real problem here.

been doing that since the Yes on 8 ads started.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on November 11, 2008, 11:28:35 PM
Dan Savage (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12savage.html?ref=opinion) notes a lesser-known but even more potentially dangerous law that's just passed, one in Arkansas that prevents unmarried couples from adopting.

That would need some tweaking to pass here, but I think it could: the reason Arizona failed to ban gay marriage in '04 was that that bill was so broadly-written that it could be interpreted as applying to unmarried straight couples too.  If, however, it simply said "gay people can't adopt", that would have more of a shot of passing.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on November 12, 2008, 07:43:04 AM
This thing has me wondering: How can the Mormon church still possess its tax exempt status?  And how are they not in any trouble for financing a political proposition in California from Utah?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on November 12, 2008, 09:58:45 AM
Because the multiple lawsuits alleging exactly that are only getting started.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Defenestration on November 12, 2008, 10:04:56 AM
I came across this last night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

Very moving.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on November 12, 2008, 10:13:46 AM
The entire response to this is going to be "Okay let's find out which of Keith Olbermann's relatives is gay."
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on November 12, 2008, 10:31:59 AM
"Okay let's find out if Keith Olbermann's relatives is gay."

:suave: Single. No children. Never married. Turns 50 in January.

Time to find out, and take one for the team. By which I mean myself, and that $7.5 million a year (http://tvdecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/msnbc-olbermann-renew-contract/?hp) just waiting to be grifted.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on November 12, 2008, 01:13:59 PM
Damn, not bad.

The issues just keep on giving. For years I've been dying for an end to soundbites and a return to oratory of some quality. This political season has been like manna from heaven. Well, in other countries anyway. Well okay, just the US.

...

YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL FUCKIN' TAKE WHAT I CAN GET THOUGH.

 :victory:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kazz on November 12, 2008, 01:22:59 PM
He can't be gay.  He loves football too much.

... perhaps too much.

 :ohshi~:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on November 12, 2008, 06:45:01 PM
He's a sucker for a good tight end.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kazz on November 12, 2008, 08:38:18 PM
When he doesn't pitch it to the fullback.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: JDigital on November 13, 2008, 08:28:27 AM
But he said he wasn't gay!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on November 13, 2008, 09:21:59 AM
What are you going to believe, his word or various jokes about him being gay?   :wat:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on November 13, 2008, 09:46:22 AM
After Clay Aiken?  The jokes.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on November 24, 2008, 06:55:06 AM
Princeton is not too subtle with their metaphors. (http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/princeton-proposition-8-to-protect.html)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on November 24, 2008, 12:15:13 PM
...That's better than the Affirmative Action Bake Sale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_bake_sale).

There was an ad for one of those in a student newsletter once.  It was immediately followed with an apology and essentially an admission that the person who puts them together just copies and pastes and doesn't bother to read what she's sent.

I think that was before I was rooming with the President of the Campus Republicans.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on November 25, 2008, 01:29:50 PM
Not California news, but some good news for a change! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081125/ap_on_re_us/gay_adoptions)

...this is good news, right? I didn't misread that or anything?

Quote
A judge on Tuesday ruled that a strict Florida law that blocks gay people from adopting children is unconstitutional, declaring there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting.

I'll have to remember that when my dad decides to go into bigot-mode.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: JDigital on November 26, 2008, 09:41:23 AM
The hypothesis would go that since children take a lot after their parents, children raised by homosexual couples are more likely to become homosexual themselves. While we can't fairly begrudge existing gay people the right to be who they are, especially since we don't know how to change it and most wouldn't want to if we could, we'd be encouraging the kid to grow up gay in a world that doesn't always accept them.

In other words, the only reason for people not to accept gay adoption is that they don't accept gays.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on November 26, 2008, 10:02:28 AM
Not to mention that that attitude presupposes that Homsexuality has no genetic component.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Beat Bandit on November 26, 2008, 10:30:04 AM
Isn't there a statistic out there somewhere that says that gay couples are more likely to raise a straight child?

We should only allow gays to adopt, and in a few generations it wont be a problem anymore.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on November 26, 2008, 12:11:07 PM
They're probably not going to raise their children to follow the letter of the Bible, though.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Rosencrantz on December 01, 2008, 10:03:27 PM
I forgot about this until now, but on Thanksgiving there was a guy in my town, standing on a bridge that goes over Highway 50, with a big homemade yellow sign that read "CELEBRATE PROP 8".  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on December 01, 2008, 10:05:15 PM
What a fag.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on December 03, 2008, 12:22:39 PM
Prop 8: The Musical (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones).
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on December 03, 2008, 12:37:14 PM
if anyone who lives in the SoCal area is interested in:


please contact me, I'm laying the groundwork for an idea my friends had.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on December 03, 2008, 03:59:39 PM
Crap, I forgot about that already. Better find a good recipe for fake blood... and maybe an avatar to match.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on December 03, 2008, 04:46:47 PM
Crap, I forgot about that already. Better find a good recipe for fake blood... and maybe an avatar to match.

Shouldn't your current avatar do just fine?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on December 03, 2008, 05:12:51 PM
I guess it'll do in the meantime. I'm just using it since it encapsulates my feelings about all the madness in the news these days- WAIT WHAT THE FUCK (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/jonahs-latest.html)

Quote from: Andrew Sullivan
After a vote in which a minority of two or three percent were denied civil equality under the law and in which many thousands of couples had their legal marriages voided, Jonah Goldberg thinks the real victims are Mormons

Quote from: Jonah Goldberg
It’s just that Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m78/yoji_00/headexplode.jpg)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on December 03, 2008, 06:16:16 PM
Hey, Mormons love being victimized.  Let 'em have it.  Hell, we can even define what they can and can't do in their Temples if they want.  That sort of thing is totally okay to do now.

(I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that we start with "must wear pants at all times.")
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Classic on December 03, 2008, 06:35:46 PM
They're protestants to protestants, the most victimized kinds of Christians.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Fredward on December 03, 2008, 07:15:25 PM
I'm pretty sure the early Christians win the award for "Most Victimized Christians". I mean, we aren't feeding the Mormons to lions, at the behest of cheering crowds.

Although... :profit:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Koah on December 03, 2008, 07:19:51 PM
They're protestants to protestants, the most victimized kinds of Christians.

Actually, the Mormons are a church entirely separate from the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches, having been formed in the wake of the great religious awakening that took place in the US during the late 18th/early 19th century.  It was started out of a general belief that everyone else was doing it wrong and that a return to what the Mormons (as well as other like-minded groups, collectively called Restorationists) considered to be "original Christianity" was entirely necessary.

Although the fact that they're not in any of the three most well-known branches of Christianity does, I suppose, result in them being singled out (or feeling singled out), and they do tend to make themselves targets with a great deal of the things they do and say.  I'd go on, but it's all :holy: and :blahblahblah: and I'm not entirely comfortable with talking about religion around here when video games aren't involved.  This aside is barely relevant to the conversation at hand as it stands.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on December 03, 2008, 07:31:11 PM
They've also got their own prophet who, in always a bad sign, has actually claimed to be a prophet.  Among other things.

I'm pretty sure the early Christians win the award for "Most Victimized Christians". I mean, we aren't feeding the Mormons to lions, at the behest of cheering crowds.

Although... :profit:

They'll tell you a different story.  Early Mormons were subjected to verbal abuse, discrimination, unlawful shutdown of their presses, a few near-Waco police attacks, general oppression and more or less an atmosphere that precipitated their mass migration to Utah, which they literally chose because nobody else wanted to fucking live there.  How much of that was actually warranted (Mormons are very... aggressive in their undertakings, then and now) is a point of considerable debate, but the facts remain: they do live out in the buttcrack of the U.S.A., they were forced there for whatever reason, and they definitely have a cultural inferiority complex that lies somewhere between the Jews and the Koreans.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on December 03, 2008, 08:27:44 PM
Aside: watching Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.  The undertones were never very subtle, but man-oh-man does the whole thing take on a new meaning this year.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on December 19, 2008, 11:30:58 PM
Jerry Brown asks California Supreme Court to void gay-marriage ban (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage20-2008dec20,0,3628665.story?track=rss)

Quote
The state attorney general, who had earlier vowed to defend Prop. 8, offers a novel legal theory for why it should be overturned. The action surprises some legal experts.

Quote
Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles -- California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the state Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate the voter-approved ban on gay marriage, declaring that "the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."

Quote
The issue "is whether rights secured under the state Constitution's safeguard of liberty as an 'inalienable' right may intentionally be withdrawn from a class of persons by an initiative amendment."

Quote
In an interview, Brown said he had developed his theory after weeks of consultation with the top lawyers in his office. "This analysis was not evident on the morning after the election," he said.

Quote
In an interview, Andy Pugno, the lawyer for Protect Marriage, called Brown's argument "an astonishing theory." He added that he was "disappointed to see the attorney general fail to defend the will of the voters as the law instructs him to."

Quote
Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state high court, said Brown's argument "turns constitutional law on its head." Uelmen said he was unaware of any case law that supported Brown's theory.


I feel like I woke up in opposite world.  What the FUCK is this?
The idea that you can't set up laws that take rights away from a specific group just because there's a majority approval is novel?  Shocking?  There's no precendence for this?  Nobody expected this argument whatsoever?  Because I thought it was not only obvious, but echoed in pretty much every fucking civil rights case in American history.

There's even precedent in laws about marriage itself.  It's 2008 and the people running our governments can't even wrap their heads around what happened with that whole "miscegenation" thing.

I'm going to go lay down.

Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on December 19, 2008, 11:41:13 PM
Do not attempt to understand the reptilian thought processes of lawyers.  They are not people.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on December 19, 2008, 11:48:38 PM
I think it's the who that's throwing people off, not the "oh hey someone actually read the Bill of Rights" part.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on December 20, 2008, 12:11:09 AM
It's clear that there's a bit of "Hey, the Attorney General is saying that, wacky" and "Hey, he was defending Prop 8 a while ago", but there's just as much if not more "What a ridiculous idea!"
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on December 20, 2008, 12:41:24 AM
Well, legally, it is weird; he's essentially suggesting a double standard for constitutional amendments, depending on the seriousness of the change. And it's not echoed in classic civil rights cases; generally speaking, your landmark civil rights cases (Brown v. Board of Education, for example) found that certain previous rulings (i.e. Plessy v. Ferguson) and laws based on them were unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. The constitution trumps everything, and the 14th amendment is part of the constitution.

What Brown is arguing here is essentially that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional, under the constitution it's amending. That's a) unprecedented and b) ludicrous; if a constitution can't be amended in such a way to change things in the constitution, then amendments can do nothing except add new, non-contradictory law. For example, the 21st amendment would unconstitutional when it was proposed/ratified, because it was seeking to change something in the constitution - namely, the 18th amendment.

People keep confusing law with morality. Do you want to know why the law works the way it does, instead of simply being based on what's right? Because a significant portion of the United States of America thinks it's right that gay people can't marry.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kazz on December 20, 2008, 12:48:46 AM
And that may have nothing to do with the people themselves.  It's ridiculous, of course, but that segment of people will never be convinced that gays are their equals; therefore, they will never support that they be afforded equal rights.  Even worse, I'm positive that their argument goes like this:

"Well, I don't care what they do, but I don't want my kids to grow up and believe that being gay is okay."

And of course my answer to that is "then don't have kids, you tremendous fuckwad."
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on December 20, 2008, 12:54:35 AM
Well, my point is that one of those people might be the guy in charge of deciding what's Right.

(And your suggestion would infringe on their right to have children.)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on December 20, 2008, 12:58:09 AM
What Brown is arguing here is essentially that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional, under the constitution it's amending.

Apparently this is what he's arguing, which is kind of silly.  It would be easier to say that the constitutional amendment is unconstitutional under the constitution that it is under, which sounds redundant but is pretty unequivocally true.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on December 20, 2008, 01:01:57 AM
I just had a thought: the California Supreme Court doesn't have the jurisdiction to make a ruling on grounds of federal law or U.S. constitution, do they? If I'm remembering my polysci right, it has to go through the state courts system before it can go to the federal appeals courts (and, ultimately, SCOTUS), in which case his intent may simply be to hurry up and lose so he can make an appeal on a level that can override the state constitution.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on December 20, 2008, 01:04:01 AM
I don't think he gets to appeal with a completely different argument, though.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kazz on December 20, 2008, 01:26:04 AM
Don't you have to contend that the court mishandled the case (and not just go in saying "hey, I don't like this result") in order to appeal the decision?  Or is that just for criminal trials?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on December 20, 2008, 01:32:45 AM
I just had a thought: the California Supreme Court doesn't have the jurisdiction to make a ruling on grounds of federal law or U.S. constitution, do they? If I'm remembering my polysci right, it has to go through the state courts system before it can go to the federal appeals courts (and, ultimately, SCOTUS), in which case his intent may simply be to hurry up and lose so he can make an appeal on a level that can override the state constitution.

At this point, the California Supreme Court is much more likely to rule in favor of gay marriage than the current US Supreme Court.  That may be a few decades off.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on December 20, 2008, 01:40:09 AM
Kazz: You're probably thinking of a mistrial, which can happen anytime something screws up the due judicial process; a mistrial just means you all have to start over again, at the beginning, from scratch. An appeal really is "I don't like this result".

Brentai: Sure, he does; he can't argue here that it's in violation of the United States constitution, because only the SCOTUS has the authority to find things unconstitutional under the United States constitution; however, if the case then goes to SCOTUS, he can make that argument.

An appeal is a new trial, plain and simple; you get a different judge, a different jury, and possibly different lawyers. "You can't change your argument" would thwart one of the basic scenarios for an appeal - namely, you realized you had a bad lawyer.

At this point, the California Supreme Court is much more likely to rule in favor of gay marriage than the current US Supreme Court.  That may be a few decades off.

Certainly true, but the California Supreme Court still needs to have some shred of legal grounds for making a ruling. The precedent that Brown's argument would set could have dire consequences for California's legislation; precedent means that the slippery slope is a very real thing in law.

I seem to recall hearing arguments to the effect that Prop 8 needs to go uncontested for exactly this reason - when the Supreme Court rules on something, it's pretty damn hard to get them to change that ruling, and so there's a theory that the best way to ensure high-level legality of gay marriage is to wait a few years until Obama's appointed a few new judges, and then challenge something to bring before the court.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on December 20, 2008, 02:13:58 AM
Ok, I see it now.  I thought he was simply proposing that this shit was, you know, unconstitutional under the federal constitution, not whatever dumb archaic crap passes for our state constitution.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on December 20, 2008, 03:06:32 AM
What Brown is arguing here is essentially that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional, under the constitution it's amending. That's a) unprecedented and b) ludicrous; if a constitution can't be amended in such a way to change things in the constitution, then amendments can do nothing except add new, non-contradictory law. For example, the 21st amendment would unconstitutional when it was proposed/ratified, because it was seeking to change something in the constitution - namely, the 18th amendment.

Not quite.  The problem with the Prop 8 amendment, and why this is a legitimate argument that's also almost completely devoid of precedent, is that it's adding contradictory material to the state constitution, which is thus unconstitutional.  The 21st Amendment, and the rest of the federal amendments, have repealed or overwritten the parts of the Constitution that they conflicted with.

In Re Marriages was based on California's equivalent of the 14th Amendment, so to change the California constitution, you'd have to amend their equivalent of the 14th Amendment.  Something like "Except for the matter of marriage, in as much as it is hereby defined as being between one man and one woman, <equal protection>."  This didn't do that.  This kept their equal protection amendment exactly as it was, with the language on which the case was decided exactly as it's been, and then added stuff later that contradicted it.  It'd be like passing an "It's okay to enslave illegal immigrants" amendment without altering the 13th Amendment, and it doesn't fly.

Prop 8 was a clusterfuck, thrown together by idiots who put dogma ahead of jurisprudence.  This is far from the only procedural problem with it, and they're all grounds to throw it out.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on December 20, 2008, 03:24:17 AM
I seem to recall hearing arguments to the effect that Prop 8 needs to go uncontested for exactly this reason - when the Supreme Court rules on something, it's pretty damn hard to get them to change that ruling, and so there's a theory that the best way to ensure high-level legality of gay marriage is to wait a few years until Obama's appointed a few new judges, and then challenge something to bring before the court.

Pretty much this.  Any matter brought before the current Supreme Court needs to be a matter that the Pope doesn't have an opinion on, because if he does, the five Catholics will rule lockstep in accordance with that geriatric ex-Nazi, even if they have to defy all legal precedent and basic reasoning to do so.  Just look at Gonzales v. Carhart.

Until either Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, or Kennedy gets booted off, equal rights in marriage are dead in the water, as far as the US Constitution is concerned.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on December 20, 2008, 02:34:29 PM
But judges are supposed to be impartial otherwise the whole idea behind their role is a failure, right?  :whoops:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on December 20, 2008, 03:36:12 PM
Whenever religion shows its ugly face in government, it rapidly fucks things up.  Catholicism especially.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: François on December 20, 2008, 03:47:16 PM
Whenever government shows its ugly face in religion, it rapidly fucks things up. Monarchy especially.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on December 20, 2008, 11:13:07 PM
I seem to recall hearing arguments to the effect that Prop 8 needs to go uncontested for exactly this reason - when the Supreme Court rules on something, it's pretty damn hard to get them to change that ruling, and so there's a theory that the best way to ensure high-level legality of gay marriage is to wait a few years until Obama's appointed a few new judges, and then challenge something to bring before the court.

We may not have a liberal majority on the Supreme Court during the Obama Administration.

Ages of the current Justices:

Stevens: 88
Ginsberg: 75
Scalia: 72
Kennedy: 72
Breyer: 70
Souter: 69
Thomas: 60
Alito: 58
Roberts: 53

Rehnquist died at 80, O'Connor retired at 75.  As for other justices who've retired in the past couple of decades, Blackmun was 85, White was 76, Marshall was a few days shy of his 83rd birthday, Brennan was 84, and Powell was 79.

Lots of justices stick around until after they're 80 -- while it's possible that Kennedy or Scalia may retire before that age, it's not certain by any means.  It's very unlikely that either of them will retire during Obama's first term, and it's pretty damn early to be talking about whether he'll have a second.

And barring something very unexpected, Thomas and Alito won't be leaving during Obama's administration OR his successor's, and Roberts later still.

Obama's certainly going to be nominating Stevens's replacement, and probably Ginsberg's, but there's no guarantee anyone else's seat will open during his administration.  Kennedy and Scalia may stick it out longer than Souter or Breyer simply for strategic reasons -- let's not kid ourselves and say Stevens is still on the court for any reason besides waiting until Bush is out of office.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on January 13, 2009, 10:58:46 AM
Some jerk at my office decided to turn the email service into a soapbox. The moving transcript goes something like...

Quote
Do you know what happened this week back in 1850, 158 years ago?

             California became a state.
             The State had no electricity.
             The State had no money.
             Almost everyone spoke Spanish.
             There were gunfights in the streets.
               So basically, it was just like California today....
                 Except  the men didn't hold hands.

Why is it that all the homophobic sentiment seems to be about the proverbial "two gay guys?" It looks like when two women are involved, the response seems to go from "Ya damn gheys!" to "Oh, hotness!"

I'd protest this sooner if it weren't for the sender being one of our sales reps, i.e. the guys who are responsible for our having work in the first place...
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on January 13, 2009, 11:19:04 AM
You know that the federal government protects your right not to have to work in an awful work environment, right?


PS Your sales rep just sent you primo material to get him fired.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on January 13, 2009, 12:21:08 PM
And it's timestamped and everything.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Dooly on January 15, 2009, 01:40:26 AM
Also, he probably sent it to a large group of employees, if not the entire company, so those wheels should already be turning right now.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on January 15, 2009, 01:07:22 PM
Also, he probably sent it to a large group of employees, if not the entire company, so those wheels should already be turning right now.

It was sent to everyone with an email address at the company, so I'd think and hope so. Unless I'm the only one who isn't conservative and/or Mormon, which I doubt with all the younger staff in Tech Support.

What's got me more worried is that if he's anything like my dad, he'll pull some bullshit about defending this kind of thing as "free speech" or whatever.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on January 15, 2009, 06:26:50 PM
Free speech isn't allowed on company e-mail addresses.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on January 15, 2009, 06:31:15 PM
The company basically gets in trouble if they don't fuck him.

I've always felt a little uncomfortable about that but it is sort of necessary to get through the legal jumble of trying to tell people that the workplace is not the proper type of environment to say that sort of thing.  Because otherwise the company would get in trouble if they decided for themselves that it was inappropriate and took action.

Free speech makes my head hurt sometimes.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on January 15, 2009, 06:34:15 PM
It's actually mostly a top down kind of protection.  The lower level workers have a legal recourse from things like sexual harassment or discrimination with a threat of termination if they dislike it.  But it's also handy to protect people from their fellow workers who don't know limits.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: sei on February 23, 2009, 09:20:31 PM
Eh. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/proposition-8-e.html)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Transportation on February 24, 2009, 05:31:37 AM
Eh. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/proposition-8-e.html)
In addition to that being incredibly old. I'm going to assume your post is in reference to
Quote
The proposition was trailing among white voters, but was ahead among black voters. Latino voters were closely divided.

As opposed to the stronger correlation
Quote
Voters older than 65 voted mostly for the proposition, while those in the 18-29 range voted against it.
Please see here:
538 on Prop 8 Myths. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/prop-8-myths.html)

In short, the Baby Boomers/Greatest Generation need to hurry up and die so social progress can actually get somewhere. Unless the younger generations decide to Weimar Republic on us or something equally unexpected.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on March 14, 2009, 10:28:25 PM
Fucking goddamn finally, California is trying to strip marriage from the law entirely, instead providing domestic partnerships for all couples regardless of orientation. (http://www.dompar.org/).
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on March 14, 2009, 10:46:25 PM
So, someone wants to get rid of marriage itself and slap another name on it?

...FINE BY ME ::D:

I've always thought that this whole "traditional marriage" BS was endorsement of a religion by the state and a violation of the First Amendment, anyway.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on March 28, 2009, 07:20:34 PM
Congratulations, New Hampshire! (http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090327/FRONTPAGE/903270359)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on March 28, 2009, 07:32:56 PM
This just in, New Hampshire more progressive than California.

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m78/yoji_00/headexplode.jpg)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on March 28, 2009, 07:37:59 PM
Congratulations, New Hampshire! (http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090327/FRONTPAGE/903270359)

Quote
The bill, which will now head to the Senate, passed by a seven-vote margin. Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, has said he opposes same-sex marriage, but he has not said whether he would veto a bill allowing it. He supported legislation two years ago that legalized civil unions for same-sex couples, and a spokesman for Lynch indicated yesterday that the governor was satisfied with the status quo.

Two more hurdles to go.  Can we wait for the thing to become law before handing out medals?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Beat Bandit on March 28, 2009, 08:05:38 PM
No, because we all know it wont get there.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on March 29, 2009, 03:47:56 PM
This just in, New Hampshire more progressive than California.

That remains to be seen.  I don't know how things work in NH, but I'm guessing a ballot initiative to overturn it is just around the corner.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on April 03, 2009, 08:07:12 AM
And Iowa's Supreme Court unanimously overturns the state's ban on gay marriage. (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010/1001)

This is significant not just for Iowa being a "heartland" state, thought of as indicative of the state of the entire country, but also because Iowa has no residency requirement to get legally married there.  Anyone can roll in, get hitched, and then sue their own state in federal court to recognize it.  And I'd expect that to start happening.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on April 03, 2009, 10:17:55 AM
Another state overturns gay marriage, and then my roommate tells me he's considering trying Homeworld and Eve Online.

You ever get one of those days where you feel like you woke up on a different planet?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on April 03, 2009, 12:05:04 PM
Your avatar's always relevant, Yoji.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kazz on April 03, 2009, 12:14:07 PM
Homeworld and Eve Online

off-topic, but... let him know that these games are complete opposites.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on April 03, 2009, 03:13:55 PM
Summary and analysis of the decision. (http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/our-liberties-we-prize-and-our-rights-we-will-maintain/)

Some really great quotes there, worth a read.  They're not fucking around with this.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on April 07, 2009, 10:00:57 AM
Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage, Overrides Governor's Veto (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/07/vermont-legalizes-gay-mar_n_184034.html)

Quote from: HuffPo
Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

...

Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

Damned activist judges politicians.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: yyler on April 07, 2009, 10:07:27 AM
What the hell is wrong with California
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Friday on April 07, 2009, 10:09:18 AM
Like, I totally don't have a clue.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: McDohl on April 07, 2009, 11:21:30 AM
Like, fer shure.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on April 07, 2009, 11:41:33 AM
New Hampshire? Iowa? Vermont? That's great, but... I thought... San Francisco... we... gay capital... uh...

:scanners:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on April 07, 2009, 11:49:00 AM
♪ GOOOOOO WEST!

IT IS PEACEFUL THERE!

GOOOOOOO WEEEESSSST!

LOTS OF O-PEN AIR! ♪
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on April 08, 2009, 10:40:01 AM
I should probably find something better than Wonkette to read, but I can't help it thanks to stuff like this (http://wonkette.com/407650/queer-hurricane-to-kill-everyone).

Quote from: Wonkette
“There’s storm gathering. The clouds are dark, and the wind is strong. And I am afraid.” Well maybe you shouldn’t stand in an open field during a lightning storm DUH.

:happy::lol:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on April 09, 2009, 07:22:12 AM
For something so afraid of homosexuals, that ad was incredibly gay.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on April 10, 2009, 12:09:21 PM
Apparently Youtube had the greenscreen audition tapes for those "real people", but they've been pulled from a copyright claim.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on April 10, 2009, 05:06:07 PM
Oh man, this is great.  Apparently the National Organization for Marriage or whatever (the people behind the "Gathering Storm" commercial) are calling their anti-gay campaign 2M4M (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/anti-gay-rights-calls-its-marriage.php), completely unaware of what M4M means.  NOM is the best gift conservatives could have given us since Glenn Beck.  Christmas came early this year!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on April 10, 2009, 06:27:53 PM
2M4M

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/manwich.jpg)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on April 11, 2009, 07:44:06 AM
Apparently Youtube had the greenscreen audition tapes for those "real people", but they've been pulled from a copyright claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDaIQTWowL0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-owFysc0gs
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on April 12, 2009, 04:07:17 PM
Amazon has decided that any book about homosexuality (well, not anti-homosexuality) is "erotic" and must be removed from their rankings (http://markprobst.livejournal.com/15293.html).  I think that's a little ridiculous.  It's also silly that Amazon needs to block certain works from their rankings anyway.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on April 12, 2009, 04:31:37 PM
And meanwhile, the searches with those books removed ...

(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/124/homob.png)

 :endit:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kazz on April 12, 2009, 05:03:56 PM
:endit:

this is precisely what most kids end up doing, faced with this shit
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on April 12, 2009, 05:23:25 PM
And for my next impression, chocking outrage!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Lady Duke on April 12, 2009, 05:44:09 PM
That kaneda screenshot look sort of squished.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Beat Bandit on April 12, 2009, 05:46:32 PM
I knew it was all made up.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on April 12, 2009, 08:17:58 PM
Amazon claims it was an accident. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2009/04/amazon-responds-to-adult-queries-blames-a-glitch.html)

Take that with as much salt as you like, but it did seem like an out-of-character move in the first place.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on April 12, 2009, 08:41:27 PM
Hard to go one way or the other on this one.  On the one hand, doing something like this does seem weirdly out of character for Amazon (notably as people who like money and haven't really expressed any desire to censor).

On the other hand, this 'glitch' did target a really specific set of books.

Also, the other of the original article points out that a service representative supports the "Gay = Adult" line.  Of course, as in any company there's probably a chance that service representatives have no fucking clue what the rest of the company might be doing at any moment.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on April 12, 2009, 08:57:49 PM
I'm curious.  Is it possible that this was someone within the company doing shit they weren't supposed to?  Could one stupid-enough person screw with the database that easily?  JD or someone might know.

PR makes sense even if that happened, most PR reps seem to just be trained to make up anything to excuse whatever the hell they think the company may be doing.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: sei on April 13, 2009, 01:28:33 AM
The culprit wouldn't necessarily need to touch the database; he could also just fuck with part of the application.

If something were categorized as "gay," and any logic-based filtration mechanisms exist on the application level, it'd be pretty trivial to add a line of code (or add "|| book.category == category.find_by_name('lovesthebutt')" to some existing line) that'd result in hiding things normally not hidden.

like salami
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: JDigital on April 13, 2009, 02:01:52 AM
My guess: They put a block on adult category books, which caught everything in a search for "homosexual" except for Christian and self-help books.

Of course, it's also possible that some self-righteous employee removed individual books. It's feasible that Amazon has the ability to remove individual books from search listings.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on April 13, 2009, 06:38:14 AM
My guess: They put a block on adult category books, which caught everything in a search for "homosexual" except for Christian and self-help books.

Well, the official story from Amazon is that they put a block on "adult books".  The question is why this is inextricably linked with gay books that don't have adult content at all.  Any why the Christian self-help books don't seem to be affected at all.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on April 13, 2009, 07:02:20 AM
Lynne Cheney reported to be furious over the news. (http://whitehouse.georgewbush.org/administration/sisters.asp)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: JDigital on April 13, 2009, 02:25:22 PM
A guy on Livejournal claims he hacked Amazon to do it (http://community.livejournal.com/brutal_honesty/3168992.html). Another guy on Livejournal says the first guy is trolling (http://bryant.livejournal.com/672165.html).
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on April 13, 2009, 03:41:23 PM
Where else would you find hackers sophisticated enough to break into one of the biggest e-commerce sites in the world?

Current Mood: Anarchistic


(Actually he claims to have abused a feature of Amazon, not actually hacked into it.  But still, no.)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on April 14, 2009, 06:05:37 AM
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/skelegay.jpg)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on April 20, 2009, 09:40:15 AM
So my birth state (that'd be New York, yes I'm not really a West Coast person) is making some very loud noises about being the next to give the greenlight to gay marriage.  It's almost as if California managed to start a movement by not being free-thinkers.  This side of the country is so damned weird.

Don't have a good article to link to, but it's been on and off the front page for a while so just go look for yourself.

Oh, and Rudy Giuliani is of course against it (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21451.html)... wait what?

OH SHIT RUDY YOU'VE GOT THE SAME DISEASE MCCAIN HAD!!!  GET YOURSELF TO A DOCTOR BEFORE YOU START THINKING SARAH PALIN IS A QUALIFIED PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!!!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on April 20, 2009, 10:01:59 AM
That disease is like herpes.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on April 20, 2009, 12:08:35 PM
I am still waiting to see a huge important political type figure standing up to talk about protecting the sanctity of marriage who hasn't been divorced or cheated on their wife multiple times.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on April 20, 2009, 12:49:40 PM
My thoughts exactly. And it doesn't fill me with hope when I remember that this so-called "sacred union" can have it's future predicted with the toss of a coin.

...sweet hemorrhaging Christ, this guy's on his third marriage?? Okay, that does it. Time to go punch someone in the throat. Where did I leave my power fist?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on April 20, 2009, 12:59:43 PM
I deem-mand a dee-vorce in Reno!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on April 20, 2009, 01:20:40 PM
Murmurs go that the backlash against Giuliani in particular (who may simply be the worst advocate against gay marriage in the country, seeing as how it makes him some kind of a... a... double-hypocrite) will be so severe that it may force Clinton and Obama to upgrade their "civil union" stance to full-out "marriage" just to distance themselves from Rudy bringing their half-commitment into his arguments.

Since I already accused Beck of being accidentally brilliant, I guess I should give everyone a fair shake: is gay marriage so important to Rudy that he's willing to to give his last dying political breath for it?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on April 20, 2009, 03:29:51 PM
Don't make fun of poor Giuliani, he had to experience 9/11 everyday for the past 8 years.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on April 20, 2009, 03:33:36 PM
Indeed, and every time the second plane hits his eyes go all :profit:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on April 20, 2009, 03:38:49 PM
Miss California is on board with the rest of the state. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517215,00.html)

You know, I really do kinda miss NY sometimes.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on April 20, 2009, 03:41:00 PM
I am hope she doesn't ruin the honor and integrity that comes with the Miss California title.  As a pageant participant, she is on the fast track to becoming governor.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on April 20, 2009, 03:45:25 PM
This... we aren't Alaska, man.  Give us at least that much.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on April 20, 2009, 03:47:31 PM
God, those women look scary.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: François on April 20, 2009, 03:53:55 PM
I'll say. I could point to a good number of more-than-21-year-olds in a three block radius around my house who look hotter than that, mostly on account of not being horribly skinny.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on April 20, 2009, 04:31:05 PM
I am hope she doesn't ruin the honor and integrity that comes with the Miss California title.  As a pageant participant, she is on the fast track to becoming governor.
This... we aren't Alaska, man.  Give us at least that much.

You do know what Arnold did before becoming an actor, right?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on April 20, 2009, 04:34:37 PM
 :whoops:

Arnold wasn't the only one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan).
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on April 29, 2009, 03:10:23 PM
Congratulations, New Hampshire! (http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090327/FRONTPAGE/903270359)

Quote
The bill, which will now head to the Senate, passed by a seven-vote margin. Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, has said he opposes same-sex marriage, but he has not said whether he would veto a bill allowing it. He supported legislation two years ago that legalized civil unions for same-sex couples, and a spokesman for Lynch indicated yesterday that the governor was satisfied with the status quo.

Two more hurdles to go.  Can we wait for the thing to become law before handing out medals?

Update: Senate hurdle cleared, NH governor has not made a decision yet. (http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/04/breaking-new-hampshire-state-senate-votes-in-favor-of-marriage-for-same-sex-couples/)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on April 30, 2009, 11:42:13 AM
Maine Senate Passes Gay Marriage (http://www.americablog.com/2009/04/maine-senate-passes-gay-marriage.html)

Then onto the House, and then on to the 'guv.

New England? Moar like NEW ETERNAL SIN.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on April 30, 2009, 11:55:52 AM
this whole Representative Democracy thing comes up with some real wonderful people (http://www.rollcall.com/news/34425-1.html?type=printer_friendly)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on April 30, 2009, 12:00:55 PM
Quote
She argued Democrats are only using it “as an excuse for passing these bills [broadening protections against hate-crimes].”

:pop: What fiends!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Romosome on April 30, 2009, 12:05:10 PM
the bills are just hoaxes to unfairly prosecute people for beating innocent youths to death
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Zaratustra on April 30, 2009, 12:07:06 PM
Quote
During the trial, Chastity Pasley and Kristen Price (the pair's then-girlfriends) testified under oath that Henderson and McKinney both plotted beforehand to rob a gay man.

It wasn't because he was gay, it was just that they rob gay people. That's their thing. Like the Wet Bandits.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kashan on April 30, 2009, 03:58:38 PM
It's especially odd since one of the defendant used the supposed incident of Matthew Shepard touching his leg setting off an extreme homophobic episode due to his supposedly having been gay molested as a child as an excuse for the murder.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on May 03, 2009, 10:43:58 AM
 I take back the nice things I said about New Hampshire. (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Transgender+rights:+No,+24-0&articleId=e535b7d6-5638-4374-b951-1af4337fd169)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on May 03, 2009, 10:50:10 AM
24-0 in favor of "making it illegal to fire people for being transgendered would make it easier for guys to sneak into locker rooms."

Sometimes I forget that 100 is the average IQ by definition.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on May 03, 2009, 11:02:23 AM
Miss California is on board with the rest of the state. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517215,00.html)

You know, I really do kinda miss NY sometimes.

Update: She's actively campaigning against gay marriage now. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jXbpPgZ9rkS-z8Prv2lT2YREFXzgD97SPGHG1)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: François on May 03, 2009, 11:41:37 AM
(http://zedpower.dreamhosters.com/images/misc/arm.jpg)

 :goggles:

Dang, my arm is sexier than hers.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Alex on May 03, 2009, 11:53:44 AM
I bet her sister is just  :facepalm: on the inside now.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on May 03, 2009, 12:04:10 PM
I'll be honest, I actually sort of respected her for being perfectly honest on a national stage like that, especially knowing that she was pretty much speaking to a room full of incredible faggots.  I thought at the time that it was kind of gutsy.

Now it just seems like it was always kind of her Agenda.  Fuck that woman with a strapon.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Friday on May 03, 2009, 01:44:34 PM
OK!

 :gay4: :whoops:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on May 03, 2009, 01:47:56 PM
24-0 in favor of "making it illegal to fire people for being transgendered would make it easier for guys to sneak into locker rooms."

Sometimes I forget that 100 is the average IQ by definition.

Is there any way to just replace all my posts with :scanners:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on May 03, 2009, 07:03:35 PM
Psst, Yoji.  Look to the left of your posts.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on May 04, 2009, 01:31:12 PM
Some Wonkette article about that Jim Inhofe guy completely missing the topic with the NYT (http://wonkette.com/408323/jim-inhofe-arlen-specters-defection-shows-that-republicans-will-win-all-elections-or-something) got me reading about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

...what the freakin' hell. Israel is more tolerant of the gosh darned gays in their military than the US?

Oh well, at least we stand by other awesome examples! Egypt, Turkey, Iran, the Koreas, Syria...

:endit:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on May 05, 2009, 04:00:06 PM
Miss California may have her title stripped for being anti-gay and also going around half-naked when she was underaged. (http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12300858)

Clearly she's misrepresenting this state.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on May 06, 2009, 08:53:27 AM
Maine Senate Passes Gay Marriage (http://www.americablog.com/2009/04/maine-senate-passes-gay-marriage.html)

Then onto the House, and then on to the 'guv.

Signed. (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/maine-governor-baldacci-signs-marriage-equality-bill.html)

New Hampshire is slaaaackin'.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Zaratustra on May 06, 2009, 11:37:04 AM
Miss California may have her title stripped for being anti-gay and also going around half-naked when she was underaged. (http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12300858)

Clearly she's misrepresenting this state.

A victory for pro-gay rights or anti-naked rights? YOU DECIDE
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on May 08, 2009, 09:10:07 PM
...what the freakin' hell. Israel is more tolerant of the gosh darned gays in their military than the US?

BARRY GOLDWATER was more liberal on the subject than our current fucking Democratic Party.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on May 09, 2009, 04:44:02 AM
Miss California may have her title stripped for being anti-gay and also going around half-naked when she was underaged. (http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12300858)

Clearly she's misrepresenting this state.

A victory for pro-gay rights or anti-naked rights? YOU DECIDE

I'm afraid hypocrisy gets the gold here.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Rosencrantz on May 13, 2009, 01:05:35 PM
I'm probably really late with this (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224789/april-16-2009/the-colbert-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriage-ad), but  :wat: does it again.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on May 13, 2009, 03:31:04 PM
Psst, Yoji.  Look to the left of your posts.

It's awesome how your post is still valid in spite of DOOMSDAY.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Spram on May 14, 2009, 05:46:21 PM
I wonder how  :wat: hasn't been excomulgated by the Catholic Church yet.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Rosencrantz on May 14, 2009, 08:30:30 PM
I wonder how  :wat: hasn't been excomulgated by the Catholic Church yet.

By the way, the National Organization for Marriage loves Colbert for airing their ad and for parodying it (http://nomblog.com/?p=55). Their president actually said:

Quote
I've always thought Stephen Colbert was a double-agent, pretending to pretend to be a conservative, to pull one over Hollywood. Now I'm sure.

 :wrong:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on May 14, 2009, 09:09:46 PM
Hurrr, and here I thought the same thing about NOM NOM NOM.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on May 14, 2009, 09:19:45 PM
Wait, so... pretending to pretend... Is that like a double-negative? Carry the two...

They're just completely misunderstanding his sarcasm for earnest wingnut beliefs, aren't they?

:endit:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on May 14, 2009, 09:33:25 PM
I'm sure they think we are, too.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on May 14, 2009, 10:03:56 PM
Where's the link to that study?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on May 15, 2009, 03:10:28 AM
Not the study but still relevant. (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=784.msg76219#msg76219)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on May 18, 2009, 11:27:45 AM
Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/16/bill-maher-god-gave-miss_n_204230.html) and be thou ravished always with her love.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on May 18, 2009, 12:19:46 PM
Hurr, not only did the pageant allow fake breasts, they paid for them.

Welcome to the fabulous world of Completely Missing the Fucking Point.   :imagination:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on May 18, 2009, 12:23:52 PM
Who mentioned anything about the pageant?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on May 18, 2009, 12:24:59 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30495983/
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on May 18, 2009, 12:34:42 PM
Right, but

Welcome to the fabulous world of Completely Missing the Fucking Point.

Who is this directed toward?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on May 18, 2009, 12:47:55 PM
Er, the Pageant.  Not you.  I was sort of going off on my own tangent.  Pageant tangent.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on May 18, 2009, 01:27:55 PM
And here I was, about to fly off and label you as a Point Fucker.

Now, back to the calming tunes of misscaliforniausa.com (http://misscaliforniausa.com/), and the newly promoted Chelsea Gilligan.

aaaaahhhhh
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on May 20, 2009, 01:22:12 PM
Well, shit (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54J6BK20090520).
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on May 20, 2009, 03:55:32 PM
Well, shit (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54J6BK20090520).

What makes me angry is that the headline makes it seem much worst than it actually is.

Quote
The House vote against the governor's amendment means the bill will be sent to a committee that will try to resolve the differences between the two chambers. It remains unclear how the governor would respond to any changes to his wording.

So it goes back to committee, it's not dead by any means.  Plus there were more than 20 absentees to the vote, so it's very possible that the measure would pass if everyone just showed up.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on May 20, 2009, 03:59:23 PM
I take back the nice things I said about New Hampshire.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on May 26, 2009, 10:25:21 AM
Oh for fuck's sakes. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052600363.html)

How's New York for living conditions these days?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on May 26, 2009, 10:44:41 AM
The last Ghey is in captivity. The California is at peace.

Can't say I'm surprised. At the very least, the people who got married before the re-banning are still married in an incredible display of doublethink. I guess this means the New England area has ousted California as the LGBT capitol of the Inner Solar System?

:exasperation/frustration emote of your choice:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on May 26, 2009, 10:50:26 AM
I think it's just one more poignant reminder to the Coast that they still have to share a government with the Vineyards.

Because, you know, a complete economic breakdown over the fact wasn't enough to get the point across.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Catloaf on May 26, 2009, 10:51:20 AM
I was just listening about this on NPR and the priest speaking in favor of it......

My reaction: :tldr: :oic: :painful: :loser: :enraged: :khaaan: :MENDOZAAAAA: :wrong: :HUGE: :fuckyou: :scanners: :fukit: (in that order)

He fucking claimed that everywhere that same-sex marriage is legal, personal freedoms are lost and then sites "parents rights to a child*" and some guy in Europe who got arrested for reading the bible (Romans, I think it was) aloud ( on which he is obviously omitting important details).  

He went on with the "Don't call me a bigot" line they love with "Just because I believe in things that people have for 5000 years."  Guess what?  Not only do you have the wrong interpretations of what people believed back then, but most of what people have believed for those 5000 years has been amazingly bigoted!!!  Like "It's not murder to kill a gentile."  Or "Ours is the superior race and culture."


*Something that only comes up when there's evidence that the parents something harmful to the child!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: yyler on May 26, 2009, 10:51:54 AM
Well, good thing my boyfriend still has residency in Massachusetts, I guess.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Arc on May 26, 2009, 11:00:36 AM
This sets a terrible precedent. Now boyfriends across the country will have to listen to their boyfriend nagging even further about marriage, hollering about 'legal windows'.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on May 26, 2009, 11:03:37 AM
Meanwhile, more and more straight people are turning to the lazy convenience of common-law marriages every day.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on May 27, 2009, 01:27:15 PM
Lead attorney for Bush in 2000 Florida recount makes a push against Prop 8. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/same.sex.marriage.court/)

Not even close to bringing him back into positive karma.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on June 03, 2009, 03:28:20 PM
Well, shit (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54J6BK20090520).

What makes me angry is that the headline makes it seem much worst than it actually is.

Quote
The House vote against the governor's amendment means the bill will be sent to a committee that will try to resolve the differences between the two chambers. It remains unclear how the governor would respond to any changes to his wording.

So it goes back to committee, it's not dead by any means.  Plus there were more than 20 absentees to the vote, so it's very possible that the measure would pass if everyone just showed up.

I love being right. (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/03/us/AP-US-XGR-Gay-Marriage-New-Hampshire.html?_r=2&hp)  I honestly didn't expect it to go through in only two weeks.  Now I can make Kazz an honest man :wuv:
Title: Re: Prop 8/Them Gosh-Darned Gays
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on June 08, 2009, 10:27:37 AM
/spit take! (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gY0fGi1hLfp2_NW6yO6Iblm2l16QD98MKANG0)

(THAD EDIT: Link is to article titled "Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'")

A toast to unit cohesion, the translator drought, and homophobic ass-dickery! :endit:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on June 08, 2009, 12:11:16 PM
I got as far as the faggot invoking Godwin before I stopped caring that much.

I still want to know what it is about the Arabic language that makes dudes want to make out with other dudes though.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Doom on June 08, 2009, 12:13:05 PM
The customs and culture, natch.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: SCD on June 08, 2009, 12:22:25 PM
Alexander the Great is the starting point you're looking for.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on June 08, 2009, 12:37:41 PM
Oh Bucephalus!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on June 22, 2009, 01:18:39 PM
Chicago gay bar bans bachelorette parties. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/boystown-gay-bar-bans-bac_n_215872.html)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on June 22, 2009, 03:38:36 PM
It's a good gesture, but we're going to need more than that if we want to get heterosexual marriage banned.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Niku on June 22, 2009, 07:44:34 PM
KILL ALL BACHERLORETTES
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on June 22, 2009, 09:45:27 PM
Way ahead of ya.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on July 01, 2009, 01:57:34 PM
Bar raid in Fort Worth that I somehow didn't hear about. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/forty-years-after-stonewall.html) I swear, I turn my back for a goddamned weekend, and look what happens.

Still, I've gotta agree with the police's use of excessive force, considering how them fags are a bigger threat then the Muslin terrorists and Islam :hurr:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Ted Belmont on July 01, 2009, 02:08:16 PM
Muslin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslin) terrorists
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Disposable Ninja on July 01, 2009, 02:32:46 PM
For fuck's sake. Seriously, Home State, what the fuck is the matter with you?

Don't answer that.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on July 01, 2009, 02:38:35 PM
Muslin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslin) terrorists

Don't worry, that was on purpose. Haven't you heard of this fine example of America (http://wonkette.com/402743/typical-florida-person-creates-years-best-campaign-sign)?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Ted Belmont on July 01, 2009, 02:56:22 PM
Hahaha, I have not! Good show, sir. Good show.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on July 01, 2009, 03:20:57 PM
Not as soft as Percale!









Also, I love that the wiki page for Muslin ACTUALLY SAYS "Not to be confused with Muslim."
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on July 01, 2009, 08:16:15 PM
Not as soft as Percale!

Oh please. You haven't lived until you've worn taffeta.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on July 01, 2009, 08:17:31 PM
I concede to your experience in the matter.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on July 02, 2009, 04:32:26 AM
You better.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on August 08, 2009, 12:54:33 PM
They tried to warn us, but we didn't listen! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5972632/Woman-getting-married-to-fairground-ride.html)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: yyler on August 08, 2009, 01:06:19 PM
She's in a bizarre documentary about women who fall in love with inanimate objects that made me kind of uneasy the entire time. I think it's called I Married the Berlin Wall or something. I watched it on Veoh once but it got taken down.

It's really unsettling. Also kind of depressing, because they fall in love with the Berlin Wall or the WTC and then those things get torn down.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on August 09, 2009, 06:32:20 AM
Better than marrying 12-year-old anime characters.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: JDigital on August 09, 2009, 07:21:18 AM
Punchline: "There's twelve of them!"
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on August 10, 2009, 05:08:02 PM
If I still worked for Tim Hortons, this (http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/urge_tim_hortons_to_stop_supporting_anti-lgbt_group) would probably make me quit.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Cobalt on August 10, 2009, 05:16:32 PM
Tim Hortons back out of anti-gay marriage event (http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/08/10/tim-hortons-marriage023.html)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on August 10, 2009, 05:21:19 PM
Apparently Dunkin Donuts has a similar track record.

You'd think an industry based around the consumptions of holes...
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on August 11, 2009, 02:54:05 AM
Nothing to get very worked up over. I read in the news LAST WEEK that they had cancelled their sponsorship (which just goes to show that readng mainstream papers is not always a bad thing).

Apparently it was just one of those retarded instances where a corporation threw some money at a nice-sounding 'local community organization', without bothering to, you know, actually do any research on what it is that that organization actually supports.
Title: Re: Prop 8 and Other Gay Stuff
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on September 14, 2009, 09:15:19 PM
I've heard some wacky reasons to keep them gosh darned gheys out of the military, but Roman rape tales (http://wonkette.com/411076/kennedy-memoir-includes-hilarious-account-of-robert-byrds-opposition-to-gays-in-the-military)? News to me and, apparently, to everyone else present.

I'm getting kind of tired of the whole "New Rome" argument that I've heard about how decadent the US has become. Sure, we profess all that abstinence until marriage while giving anal on the first date and all that. We write rap lyrics about it. But it's not like we feed people to lions for fun or burn people alive just because they say something we don't like... actually, scratch that last one. Some crackpots still do that.

Anyway, can we just give the Rome anecdotes a rest? Please?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Alex on September 14, 2009, 09:47:43 PM
Everyone knows that buttsex in the military builds a sense of camaraderie because no one wants to see their fuckbuddy get axed!

That's totally how the Romans did it!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on September 16, 2009, 11:18:31 AM
Respect for Marriage act introduced in House, 93 co-sponsors. (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3567ih.txt)

The full text of the bill:
Quote
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Respect for Marriage Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY
              SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

    Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed, and the
table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to that section.

SEC. 3. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.

    Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 7. Marriage
    ``(a) For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status
is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that
individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was
entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any
State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the
marriage could have been entered into in a State.
    ``(b) In this section, the term `State' means a State, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or
possession of the United States.''.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Sharkey on September 21, 2009, 05:25:27 PM
Isn't there some kind of law against bills I can read and comprehend within thirty seconds?

... which would be the awesomest if it could be read and understood in thirty seconds.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Catloaf on September 21, 2009, 05:53:34 PM
So... "Anyone married in a state where the marriage is valid, is married in the eyes of the federal government."  And probably also in all other states in the union, but that I'm not sure about.

So, go get gay married, then lord it over your bigot neighbors that it's just as sacred in the eyes of the government as their traditional marriage which can yield children.

Then have gay sex in front of their children.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on September 21, 2009, 06:53:37 PM
Well no, don't do that last part.  That's still illegal. :mahboi:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Disposable Ninja on September 21, 2009, 07:00:50 PM
For now. Getting that out of the way in #6 on the Gay Agenda.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on September 21, 2009, 07:05:07 PM
Is that before or after the sexing up the straight people to make them gay?  I forget.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on September 21, 2009, 07:56:58 PM
That's how you make them gay. Indoctrinate them while they're young.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on September 21, 2009, 08:05:56 PM
Only thing that can make you gay is perfectly heterosexual pornography (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/19/coburn-schwartz-pornography/).
Title: Re: Prop 8 and Other Gay Crap
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on September 21, 2009, 09:35:37 PM
So lemme get it strai- er, am I getting this right? When you look at porn, your sexual drive "turns inwards." Which means you involve yourself in whatever fantasy the porn is facilitating. Since you involve yourself, and therefore your own same sex, that makes you gay regardless of the pornographic material or involved fantasy.

...did I get it? Because this slope I've found myself on seems to be providing rather substandard traction.

And while I'm at it:
Quote from: Tom "Totally Straight" Coburn
If it doesn’t turn you homosexual, it at least renders you less capable of loving your wife.
I somehow see that situation playing out differently...

:suave:: So... whatcha think?
:confused:: Sounds nice, but there's no such things as tentacle monsters, I'd need to dye my hair, we'd have to find a bulk supplier of KY Gel, and I have no idea how we'd do position "34"...
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on September 21, 2009, 11:48:41 PM
no such things as tentacle monsters
:;_;:

Next you'll tell me Santa Claus isn't real!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Friday on September 22, 2009, 12:49:58 AM
hi
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on September 22, 2009, 02:02:38 AM
i'm sorry i'm not into vore :nyoro~n:
Title: Re: Prop 8 and Other Gay Crap
Post by: Ted Belmont on September 22, 2009, 04:12:54 AM


Quote from: Tom "Totally Straight" Coburn
If it doesn’t turn you homosexual, it at least renders you less capable of loving your wife.

Sounds to me like he's setting himself up with an excuse for when he inevitably gets caught cheating on his wife.

PORNOGRAPHY MADE ME DO IT
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Catloaf on September 22, 2009, 07:01:09 AM
Well at least according to Yoji's explanation of it, as I'm not reading the article, All Masturbation Is Gay.  Even if you're jacking off to an actual woman in the room.  So... EVERYONE WHOSE EVER USED THE INTERNET IS GAY.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on September 22, 2009, 07:47:19 AM
I thought that was a foregone conclusion. :wat:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: yyler on September 24, 2009, 02:45:56 PM
This isn't specifically Prop 8 related but where else do I put gay news articles? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/magazine/27out-t.html?pagewanted=1&%2359&_r=4&8au&%2359;emc=au)

It's a nine page piece about how kids are realizing they are gay or bi and coming out long, long before kids used to. Used to be that kids didn't come out until after college, sometimes, or never at all, and now they are doing it when they are 12 and 13. Kind of amazing.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on September 24, 2009, 03:18:20 PM
Well, I've heard ample stories from people that they knew they were gay since they hit puberty, they just never discussed it or tried to "change", so to speak.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on September 24, 2009, 03:24:35 PM
Yeah, it seems kind of a no-brainer that more vulnerable groups (younger kids) are just feeling more comfortable to speak the truth at an earlier time, rather than there being any underlying social or biological change (other than the social change of homosexuality just being more accepted, I mean).
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: yyler on September 24, 2009, 03:27:44 PM
Well, of course they know; everyone knows, or suspects, and if they say otherwise they are lying. I just wanted to remark on how good it is that we live in a world where 12 year old kids will come out, even if the adults in their situation won't support them, because they know someone will. I like that a lot.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on September 24, 2009, 03:34:59 PM
It'll probably make it easier for the newer generations to be less homophobic, too, as they will begin to see that dudes can be gay without raping everything in sight.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on September 24, 2009, 03:47:03 PM
I've seen stories of kids realizing they're transgendered at comparable ages, but I don't know if that's the exception or the rule. I do think being TG has a larger impact on one's ability to socialize than homosexuality. At least gay people can get away with the "but I'm still the same person inside" line and not look like a hypocrite... most of the time, anyway.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on September 24, 2009, 03:53:47 PM
Curiously, this is starting to encroach on that thread we had about the child who was being raised "genderless".
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on September 24, 2009, 04:21:46 PM
Which began in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX07j9SDFcc
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on September 24, 2009, 04:29:23 PM
No, this started the thread.

If that goes through, I might have to ask my boss if I can have a day off to get sloshed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytxooM3YnM8
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on September 24, 2009, 06:07:52 PM
"Hey! We don't serve your kind here!" (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-14177.html)

'Your kind' is anyone who doesn't present as the gender on his or her ID and 'here' is a gay bar in Chicago.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on September 24, 2009, 06:14:08 PM
Easy answer: Get the trannies to dress up in Burquas.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on September 24, 2009, 06:36:24 PM
You must be THIS gay (but not THIS gay) to ride.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Misha on September 24, 2009, 07:46:09 PM
to be fair in a bar where they have to legally card you to know whether they can serve you alcohol it's kinda important that you resemble the picture on your id
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on September 24, 2009, 07:50:15 PM
In theory, yes, but there are significant problems with that sort of thing.  Like, what if the photo was taken when I had Alan Moore's hairdresser, and now I have cancer?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: JDigital on September 25, 2009, 06:24:13 AM
The question is whether acceptance of gay culture is encouraging young people to decide they're gay, or just encouraging those who are to be more vocal about it.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Norondor on September 25, 2009, 12:36:37 PM
That's actually not the question, unless you are a shithead.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on September 25, 2009, 12:41:17 PM
Just because shitheads are more likely to ask it does not make it an invalid question.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Norondor on September 25, 2009, 01:10:02 PM
It does make it more likely to be a good idea to ignore it and the people asking it.

That is to say, homosexuality has, to most reasonable people's satisfaction, been shown not to be a matter of choice. Ergo if kids are claiming to be gay earlier in life, the debate, if you are not a shithead who thinks that people are corrupted into the "gay lifestyle," is if they are being honest. If you are really, seriously worried that children might by lying about something to get attention, you should probably go lie down for a while.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: JDigital on September 25, 2009, 01:34:05 PM
I said none of those things. I'm not applying any moral judgement here.

I'm asking if a person's sexuality can be influenced by the culture they grow up in.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Norondor on September 25, 2009, 01:38:06 PM
Oh, well, i didn't mean to >imply that you were saying that. It's just the reaction i expect the moral guardians to inflict on everyone.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Shinra on September 25, 2009, 02:53:40 PM
Quote from: JDigital
The question is whether acceptance of gay culture is encouraging young people to decide they're gay, or just encouraging those who are to be more vocal about it.

The problem JD is that you worded this very poorly.

"Decide to be gay" vs "turn out that way" - there may be a subconcious decision, but decision implies the actual act of choice.

Having said that, I do agree that it's a valid question - nature vs nurture, etc. It's hard to give a definitive answer to. A lot of things during childhood are said to have an effect on how you turn out as an adult - from the people you were raised around to the attidues of your parents to the traumas you experienced growing up. Hence why those molested as children often end up child molestors and why a girl whose dad was a drunk who slapped her around is more likely to end up marrying a drunk who slaps her around. On the positive end, this might also be why a kid with a single mom might be attracted to an independant woman.

Now someone might interpret this more as me saying "gays are going to raise gays"; this isn't what I'm saying. But I would say that somewhere there, in childhood, there is a switch and I think at some point that switch gets flipped. What flips the switch is open to debate. I don't think anyone's born gay anymore than anyone is born liking bubble butts, redheads or legs.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: yyler on September 25, 2009, 06:11:30 PM
I have to remember to never actually bring this up again
Title: Re: Prop 8 and Other Gay Crap
Post by: Thad on September 26, 2009, 11:45:45 PM
I've heard some wacky reasons to keep them gosh darned gheys out of the military, but Roman rape tales (http://wonkette.com/411076/kennedy-memoir-includes-hilarious-account-of-robert-byrds-opposition-to-gays-in-the-military)? News to me and, apparently, to everyone else present.

Not me!  I saw it in Sandman!

So... "Anyone married in a state where the marriage is valid, is married in the eyes of the federal government."  And probably also in all other states in the union, but that I'm not sure about.

It reads to me like it's just federal -- filing for income tax and such.  Can't expect the Democrats to be TOO progressive, now.

I had a friend pull the old "states' rights" argument on me back in college and say the federal government shouldn't force a state to recognize another state's marriage.

I pointedly responded that my aunt and uncle's interracial marriage would have been illegal in a whole lot of states 50 years ago.

(oh hi Sharkey.)

So lemme get it strai- er, am I getting this right? When you look at porn, your sexual drive "turns inwards." Which means you involve yourself in whatever fantasy the porn is facilitating. Since you involve yourself, and therefore your own same sex, that makes you gay regardless of the pornographic material or involved fantasy.

Jon Stewart said pretty much this.  Good show.

I have to remember to never actually bring this up again

No, see, Yyler, this is an example of you starting a GOOD, CONSTRUCTIVE tangent in a conversation.  That is the sort of thing you SHOULD be doing.

...anyway.  As far as kids coming out in early puberty, that's good to hear; it's a tough fight right now but in the end progress always wins.  I think a big part of it is an increase in positive gay role models in popular culture -- I'm not kidding when I say I think JK Rowling is going to have a real impact here.  (I'm kinda of two minds on the whole "Oh, by the way, Dumbledore's gay" thing -- on the one hand, it kinda seems a copout that it's never actually stated in the books; he doesn't strike me as the type to be closeted and at any rate his more-than-friends affections for Grindelwald should have at least been suggested by Skeeter, but on the other hand the fact that it's just an afterthought, something that makes no difference to who he is as a character any more than Neville eventually marrying Hannah Abbott, serves to emphasize how trivial a distinction it really is in the scheme of things.  Seems to me that the Brits are way ahead of us on this; I can think of several eps of Doctor Who that introduced LGBT characters and didn't make a big deal out of their sexuality.  Course, the head writer for the past 4 seasons was the Queer as Folk guy, so that's to be expected.)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Niku on September 30, 2009, 08:54:05 AM
http://kotaku.com/5370694/neir-screenshot-shows-more-flesh-than-it-should
 ::(:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Friday on September 30, 2009, 09:51:28 AM
no, you see, it shows a penis, but it's a female penis, so it gets around japan's dick censorship laws
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Friday on September 30, 2009, 09:52:13 AM
but seriously why do i live in a world/country that has the global mental maturity of a 10 year old
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Catloaf on September 30, 2009, 10:39:42 AM
Because most adults nowadays were born during the cold war era, where thoughts beyond the world ending in thermonuclear death was frowned upon, then those just slightly younger than them learned to act similarly and then everyone else actually is as physically immature as they're minds are...?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on September 30, 2009, 10:43:50 AM
That's an areola?  It looks more like an unfortunate shadow on a nipple-less character model.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: McDohl on September 30, 2009, 10:55:32 AM
nipple-less
Please put it on your bust.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on September 30, 2009, 11:00:22 AM
I wish more folks would run around butt naked. People's rabid fear of bare human skin has always amused me to no end.

I mean, it's a tragic sort of amusement, but no less funny for being so.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: McDohl on September 30, 2009, 11:06:21 AM
We wear clothes today because two people, way back in the day, wanted to be as(s) gods.

God got all huffy and kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden because he saw that they were wearing clothes they made out of fig leaves.  Which leaves one to wonder just why did God didn't just tell them, "Hey, cover your naughty bits."

...

CLOTHES ARE AN INVENTION OF SIN.

WHO WANTS TO START A NEW RELIGION WITH ME?!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on September 30, 2009, 11:23:45 AM
MCE is already Pope, so I guess we're set!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on September 30, 2009, 11:43:11 AM
...if that is a nipple/areola, it's gotta be one of the tiniest I've seen. You have to zoom in to get a good look!

And isn't that character a hermaphrodite? I thought that'd cause more outrage than anything else. By this point I've concluded that people must like being outraged, and the pettier the subject the better.

MCE is already Pope, so I guess we're set!

You mean the one where the only article of clothing allowed is a black choker collar?

:pop::ohshi~:


...


:want:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on September 30, 2009, 01:08:32 PM
I don't think they added nipple texture to the model. That's a shadow.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Shinra on September 30, 2009, 01:33:21 PM
I don't think they added nipple texture to the model. That's a shadow.

Yeah, looks like a shadow to me.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on September 30, 2009, 02:22:37 PM
I don't think they added nipple texture to the model. That's a shadow.

Yeah, looks like a shadow to me.

Now if this were a Queen's Blade game...
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Norondor on September 30, 2009, 04:45:46 PM
it still wouldn't be an areola because there'd be a sword swooshing past her boobs to obscure them

(well, that's at least true in the card game.)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on October 28, 2009, 01:27:27 PM
Huh, that was easy (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/). (MATTHEW SHEPARD ACT SIGNED BY OBAMA WOOO)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Cyan Prime on October 28, 2009, 02:35:33 PM
 :itsmagic:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on October 28, 2009, 02:36:48 PM
THOUGHT CRIME THOUGHT CRIME FASCISM NOOOOO  :MENDOZAAAAA: :MENDOZAAAAA: :MENDOZAAAAA:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on October 28, 2009, 03:22:27 PM
Ugh, sounds like that John Derbyshire fartsack longing for the days before women's sufferage or civil rights (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/30/derbyshire-female-suffrage/).

Quote
Later in the interview, Derbyshire said there’s also a case to be made for repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you “shouldn’t try to force people to be good.”

It's not so much about keeping people from saying bad things or forcing people to be nice, but about reminding people that it's not cool to crack someone's skull in half, tie them to a fence post, and leave them to die.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on October 28, 2009, 03:27:34 PM
I like how the logical end of that line of reasoning is to abolish criminal law entirely.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Catloaf on October 28, 2009, 06:37:10 PM
No, it's to abolish all laws and morals.

The guy's just a racist/chauvinist  SoB.  Screw him.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on October 28, 2009, 08:51:00 PM
Huh, that was easy (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/). (MATTHEW SHEPARD ACT SIGNED BY OBAMA WOOO)

:imagination:


Also,  :8D:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: PhilosopherDirtbike on October 28, 2009, 11:02:09 PM
Always nice when people too stupid to be taken seriously make that fact blatently obvious by opening their mouths within earshot of journalists.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on October 29, 2009, 10:00:50 AM
Huh? Why do I feel like I've seen this before (http://wonkette.com/411879/stop-those-gay-teachers-in-maine-from-making-the-gay-kids-come-out)...?

Quote from: Bigotty Bigots
(http://brontoforum.us/Themes/default/images/post/prop8.gif)
LET THE GAYS MARRY, UTENA'S COOL

I'd normally try to use more words and project a (misleading??) image of intelligence and civility, but OH GODDAMMIT DON'T START THAT SHIT AGAIN!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on November 04, 2009, 05:40:00 AM
Maine gets on the anti-civil liberties bus, too (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/politics/05maine.html).

Just when I began thinking it's time to treat some of my friends as fully equal human beings, Maine shows me that they are in fact inferior.  They also pay the same taxes, despite not getting all the same benefits.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on November 04, 2009, 10:44:19 AM
Yet they passed something to protect the rights of medical pot dispensaries. :wat:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Catloaf on November 04, 2009, 11:00:12 AM
I guess they just like glorifying the concept of marriage because they've all been brainwashed to believe things about the institution that have been not so subtly portrayed in our culture for ages and ages to keep the women in their place.

But hey, if you go back to the old definition of marriage--systematic sexual slavery with the positive byproduct of continuing society --it really doesn't make any sense to allow people of the same gender who have no obvious culturally supported way of oppressing one another or plopping out snacks for Friday to marry.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: SCD on November 04, 2009, 11:52:54 AM
...  That is if you don't really care about the benefits that you and your partner, same sex or otherwise, are not entitled to because you don't abide by that rather silly institution.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on November 04, 2009, 12:03:26 PM
...  That is if you don't really care about the benefits that you and your partner, same sex or otherwise, are not entitled to because you don't abide by that rather silly institution.

...Welcome to Quebec?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Catloaf on November 04, 2009, 07:01:45 PM
...  That is if you don't really care about the benefits that you and your partner, same sex or otherwise, are not entitled to because you don't abide by that rather silly institution.

...Bienvenue a Quebec?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on December 13, 2009, 09:53:50 AM
So Houston has a gay mayor. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1213/Houston-mayor-race-shows-progress-and-limits-of-gay-rights)

Making my one reservation about moving to Texas - that it's full of Texans - kinda bullshit, as they've proven to be several orders less fuckheaded than the people I'm surrounded with now.  At least in that one city anyway.

EDIT: Yeah okay I see what you guys mean now about visited links being indistinguishable from normal text.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Niku on December 13, 2009, 11:39:13 AM
GANBARE HOUSTON-CHAN
Title: Re: Those Darn Gays
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on December 15, 2009, 02:53:30 PM
In other news... wait, what? Really? You're not puttin' me on? (http://wonkette.com/412753/everyone-in-washington-get-a-gay-fiance-before-theyre-all-taken)

(EDIT BY THAD: DC passes gay marriage.  See?  Not fucking hard.  Four words.)

...

Quote from: Jim Newell
HOWEVER, while Father Congress is not expected to go all “Home Rule” and block this sucker, we’re about 99.9% sure that one congressman or another representing some salty swamp in the middle of nowhere will make a half-assed attempt to ruin this, score a few points with the folks back home, etc.

...yeah, most likely. I guess I'll enjoy it while I can.

OH MY STARS UPDATED: A Mormon steps up to the plate, not a swamp troll (http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_14003914) (same diff, amirite?).
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on January 08, 2010, 03:00:31 PM
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/statesmarriagecousin.jpg)

Forget about getting married to your gay first cousin.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji on January 08, 2010, 03:26:26 PM
 :wat::ohgod:(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m78/yoji_00/sob.jpg?t=1262992747)

Please please PLEASE tell me that image is from The Onion.

...?

In other news... wait, what? Really? You're not puttin' me on? (http://wonkette.com/412753/everyone-in-washington-get-a-gay-fiance-before-theyre-all-taken)

(EDIT BY THAD: DC passes gay marriage.  See?  Not fucking hard.  Four words.)

:rolleyes: Excuuuuuse me, Princess!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Burrito Al Pastor on January 08, 2010, 05:27:12 PM
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/statesmarriagecousin.jpg)

Forget about getting married to your gay first cousin.

No, no, look at the map. You're fine in Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on January 08, 2010, 07:10:37 PM
Oh sweet, too bad all my first cousins are already married or in mental institutions.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Dooly on January 09, 2010, 12:35:14 AM
No one's fine in New Jersey.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on March 03, 2010, 02:38:40 PM
This just in, the Catholic Church is run by people who would rather foster discrimination than continue to run social programs jerks. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/01/AR2010030103345.html)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Saturn on April 16, 2010, 02:17:45 AM
 Obama instructed his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments.  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/obama-directs-hhs-to-esta_n_539866.html)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on April 16, 2010, 07:08:21 AM
Nice.  About ding-dong time.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on May 04, 2010, 10:36:41 AM
Another massive homophobe leader turns out to be secretly gay (http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-06/news/christian-right-leader-george-rekers-takes-vacation-with-rent-boy/).  Is that even surprising anymore?  Remember when you use to joke with your friends about how homophobes were all really just huge faggots?  Remember when it was a joke?

This time it turns out to be George Alan Rekers, a rabid anti-gay activist.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on June 11, 2010, 05:21:01 AM
Panel to consider lifting ridiculous ban on homosexual blood donors (http://www.philly.com/philly/health_and_science/20100609_Panel_studies_lifting_ban_on_gay_men_donating_blood.html)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Smiler on June 11, 2010, 06:07:26 AM
I don't want any GAY BLOOD getting into my veins and saving my life.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kashan on June 11, 2010, 08:46:14 AM
I find the gay rights thing kind of silly at this point considering how stupid it makes people look when they talk about it. It's all religious or liberal mumbo jumbo depending of which flavor of lollipop you suck. Then there is the middle who I don't wish to talk about out of sheer annoyance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10288820.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10288820.stm)-US tries to solve drug cartel NORTH of the border

Please die.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Dooly on June 11, 2010, 10:00:29 AM
The article states that in 1983, when the ban on gay blood donors was enacted, they had no way to screen blood for HIV.  I suppose at the time it made a bit of sense to bar people with a statistically higher chance of infection, but now that blood screening is entirely possible, it just looks like they're saying "no buttfuckers allowed."
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on June 28, 2010, 06:56:36 PM
So, the Christian Legal Society, a student group at California's Hastings Law School, has an official policy excluding homosexual members.  You can't be gay, or tolerate gays, and join up.  Hastings said fine, if you want to be a pack of homophobic shits, you're welcome to it, but as a State University we're not giving you funding or letting you meet on-campus, because you're violating our nondiscrimination policy.  The CLS, of course, sued.  In a surprising turn of rationality, this time the 5-4 Supreme Court decision came down on the side of not forcing the state to subsidize bigotry. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37975223/ns/politics/)  To quote Stevens's concurring opinion, "Other groups may exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks, and women—or those who do not share their contempt for Jews, blacks, and women. A free society must tolerate such groups. It need not subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access to law school facilities."

Opinion here (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf).
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on June 28, 2010, 09:22:37 PM
Good for Kennedy (though the AP writer referring to him as "moderate" is full of shit).  Stevens nailed it -- I'm going to miss that guy.

Fact remains that we've still got four people who think universities should subsidize hate groups.

(I'm pretty nonplussed by Kagan, but this is one issue, at least, where she's shown she's on the side of schools with non-discrimination policies.  Amazed-but-not-really at the outrage against the military recruitment ban.  It's simple, guys: the school has a policy against employers who discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.  You want military recruiters on-campus?  Repeal DADT.  Done, military recruiters are allowed on-campus now.)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on July 20, 2010, 10:06:44 AM
Teen at the centre of the High School prom cancellation awarded settlement. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/lesbian-teen-accepts-35000-settlement/article1645952/)

:goodnews:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: teg on July 21, 2010, 07:19:42 PM
Good for her.
I mean, the school made a fake prom and didn't tell her about the real (private) one just for the sake of excluding her.


I wish I could have gone to prom.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Ted Belmont on July 21, 2010, 09:36:32 PM
Meh, you didn't miss much. The best part of my prom was when my friend who had graduated the year before showed up out of nowhere and we pretended to slow dance but really just kept bumping into the other couples.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 04, 2010, 01:37:53 PM
BAM! (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-mew-prop-8-10042010,0,7711145.story)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on August 04, 2010, 01:42:10 PM
I enjoyed the fact that the the attorney for the plaintiffs is a conservative and the judge who passed the ruling was a Bush Sr. appointee.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Fortinbras on August 04, 2010, 01:45:05 PM
Must resist rubbing a victory like that in the losers' faces.  But only because the losers have guns.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Pacobird on August 04, 2010, 03:01:30 PM
So refreshing to see somebody come out and say, "no, your doomsday bullshit about the End of Marriage does not constitute a rational basis."

I'd love to gloat but I will be satisfied with the knowledge that the State of California explicitly declined to legally defend a popularly-passed Proposition.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: SCD on August 04, 2010, 03:36:44 PM
I enjoyed the fact that the the attorney for the plaintiffs is a conservative and the judge who passed the ruling was a Bush Sr. appointee.

Actually to be more accurate, the guy was originally a Regan Appointee who was carried on by Bush Snr, was a conservative champion at the time, and an enemy of the "Rights" activists (because as an attorney, he ran the case on behalf of the IOC of banning the term "Gay Olympics".  My source to this is CATO (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/04/reagan-appointed-judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban/), my 2nd-favorite american think tank (first being RMI).  If anything, that should super-size the humble pie going down.  This is a Regan-judge boyos

I'm not a big fan of direct democracy;  Tyranny of the masses and all that junk.  This is probably why I'm happiest about this ruling.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on August 04, 2010, 11:44:59 PM
Also, he's openly gay himself.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker
Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee  in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[4]  Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. Years later, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the irony of this opposition due to Walker's sexual orientation.[5]

All the other hilarious ironies are going to be buried under the seemingly black and white fact that, oh look, a fag in power just gave popular representation the middle finger so that he and all the other fags could keep fagging up Fagmerica.  It's honestly going to be exceedingly ugly and may honestly raise the question of whether or not freedom and democracy can truly coexist.

All of this shit because people are still using that old desert survival guide from the -400's.  A poignant case study for the importance of keeping your documentation up to date if there ever was one.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on August 05, 2010, 02:59:44 AM
It wasn't a desert at the time  ::(:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: clutch on August 05, 2010, 09:08:33 AM
Fat lot of good the Bible did for them then.

From Fox News: (http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/05/californias-prop-8-still-in-effect/#ixzz0vkgLiNi8)
Quote
A White House spokesman says President Obama may not support gay marriage personally, but he believes Prop. 8 is "divisive and discriminatory."

:???:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: McDohl on August 05, 2010, 10:48:22 AM
Well, the man might not agree with someone's lifestyle choices, but he can still respect their right to choose it, can't they?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: SCD on August 05, 2010, 11:03:05 AM
Obama has been a fan of the "civil union compromise" back in 07/08, or at least to the audience of the world. 
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Pacobird on August 05, 2010, 11:12:18 AM
I'm not a big fan of direct democracy;  Tyranny of the masses and all that junk.  This is probably why I'm happiest about this ruling.

Well, California had discredited direct democracy in some of the most spectacular ways possible a few years before Prop 8.

When you require your state legislature to drum up a supermajority to raise taxes but only a simple majority to increase spending, only good things can result!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: SCD on August 05, 2010, 11:23:23 AM
The fact that some northerner like me already is familiar with that (and some of the nitty gritty) is exactly why I enjoy it when another branch gets to pop up a middle finger like what we just experienced.. 
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on August 06, 2010, 09:33:53 PM
It's honestly going to be exceedingly ugly and may honestly raise the question of whether or not freedom and democracy can truly coexist.

Not pure democracy, no; at least not until the human race evolves a bit.

Of course, it's usually the right-wingers bellowing reminders that this is a republic, not a democracy.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on August 06, 2010, 09:53:01 PM
Well, thank God for that.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on August 19, 2010, 08:53:03 PM
Politically Erect: What Your Opposition to Gay Marriage Really Means (http://www.madatoms.com/site/blog/what-your-opposition-to-gay-marriage-really-means)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: PhoenixUltima on August 20, 2010, 02:09:01 AM
Ugh. I didn't really care for that, seeing as it took so many words and pictures just to say "people who hate gays must secretly be gay themselves! ROFL!" Yes, I'm sure there're people who hate gays for that reason, but I'm equally sure there're at least just as many who hate gays because they can't understand (and therefore fear) them, or because their friends do too and nobody wants to be the odd man out (so to speak), or because they were just raised that way, or any number of other reasons. This just comes across as needlessly immature.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on August 20, 2010, 04:39:09 AM
I can't say it applies 100% either, but I honestly can't think of another reason someone would claim being gay is a choice unless they had gay urges themselves.  But maybe that's asking them to be way too rational about their opinions.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on August 20, 2010, 11:43:46 AM
They think it's a choice because the Bible seems to imply that it is.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Catloaf on August 20, 2010, 11:56:55 AM
If someone thinks being gay is a choice:
A)The logically sound route
        They're bisexual and think everyone else is.
B)The legally unjustifiable, but still valid*, although ignorant, opinion route
        They have been raised to look down upon homosexuality and they're just parroting what they have heard the bisexual next to them say.

*In terms of their rights and freedoms, not in terms of logic.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kashan on August 20, 2010, 05:18:22 PM
They think being gay is a choice because some stuff in the old testament says it's an abomination and they're trying to retrofit the incompatible Christian cultural concept of an all loving god onto that. This sort of makes sense in that it's more wrong for god to damn people to hell for being gay if it's genetic than if it's a choice, but it ignores the fact that it's evil either way, and that the old testament god was a tribal mountain war god who had some rules for you to follow and really didn't give a shit about how you felt about them, especially if you weren't a fucking member of the chosen people.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on August 20, 2010, 06:01:21 PM
a tribal mountain war god who had some rules for you to follow and really didn't give a shit about how you felt about them, especially if you weren't a fucking member of the chosen people.

Conan's Prayer to Crom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5K3AKl5qpc#)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on August 20, 2010, 10:14:48 PM
The part that doesn't really make sense is when it is taken as a given, almost by both sides, that if homosexuality were a choice, this sort of discrimination would be okay.  Just because something is a completely voluntary choice does not mean that such a choice is not a fundamental aspect of your character and humanity and deserving of at least as much consideration and respect as, say, your choice of religion.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on August 20, 2010, 10:19:38 PM
I don't think that last part is as strong as an argument as you would like it to be.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on August 20, 2010, 10:27:26 PM
Let me rephrase, then.  Deserving of at least the consideration and respect with which those who keep proclaiming homosexuality to be a choice want their choice of religion to be treated.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Kayin on August 21, 2010, 01:41:17 AM
One funny thing I experienced. A few folks on a design forum were shooting the shit about this and we were talking about gay being a choice sometimes Now we were doing this not because of the issue (Like TA, we all basically agreed that it didn't matter for our own personal assessment and it definitely isn't a choice most of the time), but out of just interest in the realms of sexuality and what 'choice' even means. Some people freaked out as if we were attacking gay rights or something. I kinda hate how stuff like this is so politicized. Obviously those people meant the best, but it was really unfortunate, especially considering how clear it was that no one was against gay marriage. I also thought it was funny because the implication was almost as if they were inflicted by some incurable illness and no one would WANT to be gay.

Oh well, you can mean well and still be painfully ignorant.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Catloaf on August 21, 2010, 09:43:40 AM
The part that doesn't really make sense is when it is taken as a given, almost by both sides, that if homosexuality were a choice, this sort of discrimination would be okay.  Just because something is a completely voluntary choice does not mean that such a choice is not a fundamental aspect of your character and humanity and deserving of at least as much consideration and respect as, say, your choice of religion.

I file this phenomenon under "stupid fucking centrists."   I've seen people argue with a tone that did largely imply that if it were a choice then homosexuality would indeed be immoral.  But I've also seen people argue using virtually the exact same wording with a different tone that more felt like they had made the logical decision "This person hates gay people; I can't make him not be stupid; I'll attack the assertion that can be argued over logically rather than argue exactly why being gay is immoral at all because I'm sure his argument will boil down to 'because the bible said so.'"

There are people who look at is as if it's an issue semi-analogous to anti-discriminatory measures for the handicapped.  They're idiots who are afraid of butt sex with more than one penis in the room unless the penises belong the two consenting mental patients.  This is also the kind of person who never considers the fact that women can be legitimately gay and not just drunk attention-whores, or that the institution of marriage and the 'nuclear family' concept are just arbitrary societal constructs.

Then there are people who are conscious enough to realize that there's no valid moral argument against homosexuality but can't find the words powerful enough to convince a never-read-or-analyzed-but-often-invokes bible thumper.  Then there are the problems with arguing about it legalistically because similar fuckwads will insist that puritanism is a just and valid basis for law because of the puritanical history of this country.  So the conscious people put their efforts elsewhere leaving the implication of choice yielding immorality as a casualty.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on August 24, 2010, 02:36:51 PM
Church group 'prays' outside home of gay couple, neighbours all come out to tell the church group to buzz off. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/residents-confront-church-group-praying-outside-gay-couples-home/article1683855/)

Well okay. I like my city a little better now.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on August 24, 2010, 05:48:00 PM
Weren't they just bothering the neighbors too?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on September 12, 2010, 08:29:58 AM
Two positive pieces of news: New York passes LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying law (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/09/08/n-y-governor-signs-anti-bullying-bill-into-law/) and 'Don't ask, don't tell' ruled unconstitutional (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/dont.ask.dont.tell/?hpt=T2).
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on September 22, 2010, 09:51:59 AM
An anti-gay slur was IP-traced to the offices of a US Senator (http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/09/21/a-traced-slur-in-the-aftermath-of-a-debate-over-%E2%80%98don%E2%80%99t-ask-don%E2%80%99t-tell%E2%80%99/) after Republicans filibuster the repeal of DADT. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/09/21/2010-09-21_senate_republicans_use_filibuster_to_block_repeal_of_dont_ask_dont_tell_policy.html?r=news)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on November 01, 2010, 07:47:46 PM
Megachurch Pastor Comes Out of the Closet (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25568419/detail.html)

Quote
The now-divorced couple kept their secret for 21 years, but earlier this year, Swilley said Debye told him it was time to stop living a lie.

She said he should practice what he preaches and follow the church’s motto, "Real people experiencing a real God in the real world."

So, Swilley came out to his kids and his congregation. He said he knew he might risk everything, but the recent rash of gay teen suicides pushed him over the edge.

I don't know anything else about the guy besides this.  I don't know his background, the particulars of his church, or his politics.  But based on this, he seems like a pretty good guy.

He's got a blog (http://www.bloginthenow.blogspot.com/).  I stopped in and gave him some words of encouragement.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on November 05, 2010, 08:28:42 AM
George Takei :smile:

George Takei Calls Out Anti-Gay Arkansas School Board Member (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UACK93xF-FE#)
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on December 09, 2010, 01:55:22 PM
So the Senate just blocked the repeal of DADT. Vote was 57 for 40 against. It's probably going up on most major news sites as we speak.

EDIT: Maybe we'll get another George Takei video as a small consolation?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on December 09, 2010, 03:41:59 PM
And here is where the most fundamental difference between the Democrats and the Republicans might come into play.  Ideology is ideology, but this is attached to the defense spending authorization thinger.  If this doesn't get passed, then my understanding is that the military is completely unfunded and risks shutting down.  So we have the Republicans refusing to pay for the military at all if the repeal's in there, and the Democrats facing the choice of either pulling DADT from the bill, or letting a major and essential part of the government grind to a halt.

And ultimately, I don't think the Democrats are willing to shut down the government to bully people into capitulating, because that has massive negative consequences for everybody.  And it doesn't work in the other direction, because Republicans are psychotic enough to see government shutdown as a bonus.  This is why the Democrats work with Republican majorities to try to make the best of a bad situation, while Republicans filibuster everything that risks coming in front of a Democratic majority.  This is why the Democrats are seen as weak.  Because as a group, they don't want to let millions of other people suffer so they can make ideological points for the cameras, and the Republicans are not only willing, but eager to do so.

It'd be nice to see the Democrats take that angle in the media.  The Republican party is so afraid of the gays that already serve doing so openly, that they'd rather not have a military than have one with open gays in it.  But then, while I'm not one of the people who'd be directly hurt by the delay, I am aware they exist and am not a sociopath, so it's hard to support the hard line.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on December 09, 2010, 05:37:01 PM
This is why the Democrats are seen as weak.  Because as a group, they don't want to let millions of other people suffer so they can make ideological points for the cameras, and the Republicans are not only willing, but eager to do so.

Or maybe the Republicans know the Dems will cave every time and therefore see no risk in doing so.  Seems smart to me.  Maybe if the Dems stood their ground once in awhile the Republicans would be less eager to shut down the government over stupid shit.

Though I honestly don't see the point here.  Over half of conservatives polled support the repeal of DADT, but I would assume they are not passionate about it.  Maybe Republicans figure that if they can block a piece of legislation that SHOULD pass easily, and that a lot of the Democratic base is passionate about, it would make Obama and the Democrats look even more impotent and useless, especially to their base.

Maybe I DO see the point.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on December 18, 2010, 09:59:32 AM
DADT repeal passes cloture, 63-33. (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/12/dadt-vote.html)

Final vote scheduled for 3pm today.

edit: and passed, 65-31.  I wonder who the two senators were that voted against cloture, but for the repeal?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on December 18, 2010, 03:07:08 PM
Obama manages to keep one of his big campaign promises almost against his will!
Now gays are allowed to openly serve in the most corrupt, violent and wasteful arm of the government, spreading murder and imperialism at their will!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: on December 18, 2010, 03:59:47 PM
....please tell me you're doing some kind of...highbrow joke I'm not getting. Or mocking other people. Please tell me that you're not actually...

:;_;:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on December 18, 2010, 04:07:37 PM
you don't read many of Constantine's posts on this board, do you?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: on December 18, 2010, 04:11:35 PM
I keep hoping it's some kind of performance art.

I already had to spend today dealing with someone who admitted after years of being friends with a few people that he more or less agrees with the position of Clint McCance.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: JDigital on December 18, 2010, 04:42:14 PM
Now gays are allowed to openly serve in the most corrupt, violent and wasteful arm of the government, spreading murder and imperialism at their will!

There weren't already gays in the Republican party? :lol:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Detonator on December 18, 2010, 04:55:22 PM
Now gays are allowed to openly serve in the most corrupt, violent and wasteful arm of the government, spreading murder and imperialism at their will!

There weren't already gays in the Republican party? :lol:

OPENLY is the key word
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Bal on December 18, 2010, 05:19:41 PM
Log Cabin Republicans are a well known and perennially confusing constituency of the Republican party.

I'm just bored of this whole non-controversy. Every side that has anything cogent to say agrees that DADT is stupid, even people who don't like homosexuals think having a law requiring a soldier to lie to their commanding officer is fucking retarded, not to mention all the consequences of getting found out.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on December 19, 2010, 12:28:39 AM
If you think my post was insulting gays, you're way off the mark.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: on December 19, 2010, 01:18:28 AM
No, I understood it was against the military.

The additional comment was more or less "I already had to deal with one person who has full tilt crazy hatred against something why does it have to be two"
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Joxam on December 19, 2010, 06:24:31 AM
I. Um. So, am I the only one that thinks Constantine is just a very constant user of hyperbole? At the very least I know he's not full tilt crazy, this isn't catloaf or shinra we're talking about.

Also I guess I should tack on the thought that we might not be able to say the military is the most corrupt arm of the government, but it is certainly, by definition, the most violent and, by budget, the most wasteful.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Classic on December 19, 2010, 07:10:49 AM
I didn't think catloaf or shinra were full tilt crazy. They're just... When they're outraged about something, they're outraged about it. And maybe have unreasonable expectations of human behavior?

Constantine's not always using hyperbole joxam. Sometimes he just uses superbole, which is in his rights because he took home the cup in '06.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on December 19, 2010, 07:19:01 AM
My hatred of the military has to do with 60% of deaths in Iraq being against civilians (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-109000-deaths-iraq-war/story?id=11949670).  But I've long felt that the military has been used for imperialist aims, whether it was the invasion of Korea, of Vietnam, the strikes against Kosovo, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.  People who always fear that the government would take our property or force us to do things at the barrel of the gun never realize that maybe we should just take away the government's guns.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Niku on December 19, 2010, 08:31:05 AM
But .. then they might take our guns!
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on December 19, 2010, 08:43:42 AM
I always did think it was weird that people were fighting so hard to get IN to the armed forces.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Thad on December 19, 2010, 03:54:00 PM
Have been out of town not listening to the news for 2 days; this came as a rather big surprise when I heard it on NPR shortly before getting home.

It's a win, and makes me feel better about the tax cut deal -- though I still don't think the tax cut extension for the rich was necessary to get a guy from Massachusetts to vote for gay rights.

EDIT:
I wonder who the two senators were that voted against cloture, but for the repeal?

Quote from: http://voteview.spia.uga.edu/blog/?p=591
Six Republicans voted to impose Cloture: Brown (R-MA), Collins (R-ME), Kirk (R-IL), Murkowski (R-AK), Snowe (R-ME), and Voinovich (R-OH).
Quote from: http://www.8newsnow.com/story/13709188/senate-roll-vote-to-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell
Republicans Yes
Brown, Mass.; Burr, N.C.; Collins, Maine; Ensign, Nev.; Kirk, Ill.; Murkowski, Alaska; Snowe, Maine; Voinovich, Ohio.

So Burr and Ensign.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Ted Belmont on December 20, 2010, 12:58:37 PM
Lady Gaga DADT - Be careful what you rally for (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTzpBVTcF-k#ws)

 :itsatrap:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on December 20, 2010, 01:01:56 PM
AHAHAHA OH DEAR.

Fearmongering at its amusing best.

EDIT: You know, it may be a total pipe dream, but the thought of 4 out of 10 Marines just up and ragequitting gives me the happy shivers all over.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: François on December 20, 2010, 01:19:59 PM
so, guys, how 'bout that semper fidelis now, huh ::D:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on December 20, 2010, 03:15:06 PM
:troll:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: François on December 20, 2010, 03:19:21 PM
oh! oh!

the straight, the few, the marines

:whoops:
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on December 20, 2010, 03:22:21 PM
In the Na-Vy
You can sail the Seven Seas
In the Na-Veeee
You can put your mind At Ease...
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Joxam on December 20, 2010, 03:51:42 PM
Lady Gaga DADT - Be careful what you rally for (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTzpBVTcF-k#ws)

 :itsatrap:

Its pretty fucking sad that that video has the most coherent comments I've seen in a youtube video in forever. Of course, most are people telling the OP he's a stupid fucker, but whatever.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Friday on December 21, 2010, 09:50:00 AM
I like how the fearmongering isn't even coherent. It goes from implying that the terrorists will win to YOU WILL GET DRAFTED AND MY GOD YOU DON'T WANT TO GET DRAFTED.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Rosencrantz on December 21, 2010, 10:28:36 AM
I like how the fearmongering isn't even coherent. It goes from implying that the terrorists will win to YOU WILL GET DRAFTED AND MY GOD YOU DON'T WANT TO GET DRAFTED.

It's a stupid video, but their logic sort of works: they're saying that if 4/10 Marines quit, then we'll be fucked in the war, so the draft will return.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Royal☭ on December 21, 2010, 10:35:52 AM
It would be a tragedy if marines quit because they have to serve with gays, and not because of endless war.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on December 21, 2010, 10:37:16 AM
Can people even resign on that basis? I mean, this isn't exactly a regular job we're talking about, IT'S THE MILITARY.

Last time I checked, soldiers weren't allowed to just quit because they didn't like their squaddies.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Büge on December 21, 2010, 11:00:58 AM
And anyway, aren't marines supposed to endure hardships far worse than The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: McDohl on December 21, 2010, 01:23:00 PM
While members won't be all like "Yep, I'm out" the second a LGBT serviceman/woman sets foot in the command, those homophobes who were on the fence about reenlisting won't.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: JDigital on December 21, 2010, 02:27:15 PM
Every US military person I've spoken to has no problem serving alongside gays, but I can't say it's a representative sample.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: McDohl on December 21, 2010, 02:55:08 PM
It was a broad thing in my command in the Navy.  Some were giant, burning homophobes, and some were totally cool with it.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: TA on December 21, 2010, 03:28:24 PM
While members won't be all like "Yep, I'm out" the second a LGBT serviceman/woman sets foot in the command, those homophobes who were on the fence about reenlisting won't.

Well, let's be fair.  There's gonna be a lot of homophobes that would be "Yep, I'm out" if they could, but desertion is still a crime*, so they can't.

*unless you find a senator to lie on your behalf



THAD EDIT for 4-point text.  Don't do that.
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Brentai on December 21, 2010, 03:47:55 PM
So basically, all the intolerants - who never should have been given arms in the first place - will peacefully remove themselves from the service.

Is there something we can do to make sure this happens?
Title: Re: Prop 8
Post by: Mongrel on December 21, 2010, 08:46:34 PM
It's okay, they can always join militias instead.  :oh:
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on December 21, 2010, 08:54:19 PM
Hey, new thread title.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Royal☭ on December 22, 2010, 09:55:40 AM
Obama says DOMA must go... (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/obama-doma-should-be-repealed-lawyers-looking-at-whole-range-of-options.php?ref=fpi)

...while simultaneously giving himself an "As long as I don't have to do it" out.

It's good that the man is at least saying the law is bad, which is a marked change from his support of it and call for civil unions during the campaign.  This is an issue where Obama actually seems to be moving more to the left.

In an ideal world, the government wouldn't recognize marriage at all, just civil unions.  Which would basically be defined as the union between any number of consenting adults.  Marriage would simply be a ceremony performed by those who want it for those who want it, but at the end of the day you'd still need to get a civil union to get benefits under the state.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on December 22, 2010, 10:41:36 AM
I like that he also would prefer to do it legislatively.

I know that's not the best from an "ends justify the means" sort of view and it seems bad at first, but here in Canada when the Supreme Court ruled that marriage could be same-sex, they refused to overturn the definition out of hand, instead referring the matter to Parliament for resolution on the basis that any new law allowing same-sex legislation would carry infinitely more weight if it had actually been introduced and debated in parliament instead of imposed in a way that would leave them open to claims of judicial activism. As cockeyed as it seems, it's the right decision for the Justice department to continue defending the act until it's struck down.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on December 22, 2010, 09:15:03 PM
My spirituality manifests itself in odd ways.

For example, I am actually offended by the idea of marriage as a legal state.  Marriage is essentially a religious rite of passage, and as such should not be touched by the laws of man.  If the government ever tried to tell somebody whether or not they were "legally" baptised, shitfits would rightfully be thrown.

Of course whenever I bring that up in any context it is interpreted as an opinion regarding homosexuals, which really has jack shit to do with this.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Bal on December 22, 2010, 09:38:10 PM
It strikes me as odd that I'm against polygamy but not against polyamory. This is probably because I live in Arizona and know too much about Mormons.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Catloaf on December 23, 2010, 08:57:47 AM
For example, I am actually offended by the idea of marriage as a legal state.

As am I, but I also feel that it's an outdated institution that only serves as nostalgia for the days when women were property.  That said, there is no reason why any two consenting adults should be barred from it.  Unfortunately, I can't think of how to deal with a hypothetical rise in incest caused by the destruction of the legal institution of marriage.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on December 23, 2010, 09:21:15 AM
As am I, but I also feel that it's an outdated institution that only serves as nostalgia for the days when women were property.

Aye.  When people talk about "traditional marriage, like in the Bible" I'm always quick to respond that yes, marriage should be defined as being between one man, his two cousins, and their slaves.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on December 23, 2010, 09:22:12 AM
Well, the purely mathematical government perspective says that you want to have [X] rate of population replacement through native births (the desired rate can of course vary greatly, based on circumstances). From the government's point of view, a formalized arrangement whereby two people agree to a contract where they will generate offspring and care for said offspring gives the government a basis for recognizing such agreements and providing incentives to encourage the desired rate of [X].
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on December 23, 2010, 09:26:02 AM
Which is swell and all, but I don't know of any state that defines marriage as an agreement to produce and care for offspring.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on December 23, 2010, 09:55:13 AM
In know that what I posted is not what actually happens. Marriage does not guarantee offspring in and of itself (though it is strongly implied).

I was just pointing out that an official, formalized marriage can and does serve a blandly functional purpose to the modern state and that there are sound reasons that marriage is not a purely spiritual matter.

Of course history and accreted weight of tradition mean that in practice the spiritual angle and the functional angle are sort of haphazardly kludged together into a beast that serves neither completely. But what can ya do.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on December 23, 2010, 10:04:10 AM
I don't really think most places have a problem with population growth, though, is the thing.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Detonator on December 23, 2010, 10:33:17 AM
Unfortunately, I can't think of how to deal with a hypothetical rise in incest caused by the destruction of the legal institution of marriage.

I don't think incest is legal whether the participants are married or not.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on December 23, 2010, 10:40:37 AM
Okay, I'm assuming you mean "most places don't have a problem with insufficient population growth", given my post above. So the reply below is on that basis:

The US doesn't. But most Western nations and some developing nations have crashing birthrates. Some countries like Canada fully supplement the losses through immigration; others don't. Some are fine with that and others try desperately to encourage native births.

I'm not going to speak of the cultural implications here, just that it's rarely in a nation-state's interests to have a declining population (sure, it may be better for the world in the long run - I think we all agree there - but I'm talking about the desires of national governments, not what's responsible or good for the planet).

More relevantly, population growth has been something that governments have almost always tried to encourage, historically. Even now, world economies are still largely based on growth tied to population growth.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on December 23, 2010, 11:15:12 AM
My point, more than anything, is that people still fuck regardless of the marriage rate.

If population growth is declining in the developed world, it's because of access to education and contraception.  If they're declining in the undeveloped world, it's because people are dying.  I doubt marriage has much to do with the former case, and it almost certainly has little to do with the latter.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on December 23, 2010, 11:28:04 AM
That's absolutely correct. But in an age of easy contraception, personal economics has a clear and direct impact on how many children people choose to keep.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on December 24, 2010, 12:28:38 AM
Or have in the first place.  Also, if I recall correctly, birth rate in the US would also be crashing if not for immigration.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on January 23, 2011, 09:18:42 AM
http://microaggressions.tumblr.com/ (http://microaggressions.tumblr.com/)

Wasn't sure where to put this. We don't really have an "Oppression" thread. Basically, people post anecdotes of small things that happen that make them feel marginalized.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Pacobird on January 26, 2011, 03:37:22 AM
Which is swell and all, but I don't know of any state that defines marriage as an agreement to produce and care for offspring.

I've heard bizarre and provocative but not completely irrational arguments from the Religious Right that say the government ought not provide the legal benefits of marriage to the "deliberately childless".  Obviously the position falls apart on issues of enforcement alone, but it at least constructs a more consistent view of what marriage ought to legally represent even if it isn't a view you necessarily share; when feeling generous, I say "okay, but in return the government needs to shoulder quite a bit more of the financial burden of child-rearing even if this means higher taxes for everybody, whether a parent is married or not", which ends up being a pretty popular compromise in my experience.*

The short version is that leaving aside the issues of individual liberty, cost, enforcement, and pretty much everything else, society does have a pecuniary interest in promoting childbirth and child-rearing, assuming you don't have a seemingly endless stream of immigrants falling all over themselves to replenish your population.  If you disagree, ask Japan how it's working out for them.  Or the Midwest.





*not that this would have any bearing on anything outside of rhetorical fantasyland between me and evangelicals
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Kashan on January 26, 2011, 03:12:22 PM
I don't understand why the state recognizes marriage at all, it should be a purely religious institution.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on January 26, 2011, 03:31:01 PM
There are pretty good reasons for marriage as a legal contract, but if you're going to call it a "civil union" for gays you should call it the same thing for straight people.

There are also arguments to be made that such a legal arrangement need not be between two people, or between sexual partners, and those arguments are a lot easier when you stop using the word "marriage".  (Heard a story a few years back about a couple of elderly sisters in England who had lived together all their lives and relied on each other and felt that as such they should be entitled to the same legal considerations as a married couple, and I think it's a compelling argument.)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on January 26, 2011, 03:52:10 PM
Probably sounding like a broken record by now, but I'm still amazed most religious people don't have a problem with the government somehow superseding the church on the matter of whether or not you have completed a holy rite.  Imagine the hell that would be paid if they started telling people they weren't "officially" baptized.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Friday on January 26, 2011, 05:11:34 PM
Quote
Imagine the hell that would be paid if they started telling people they weren't "officially" baptized.

Warlocks eating babies left and right
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Royal☭ on January 26, 2011, 10:51:18 PM
NEWS @ 11: BREAKING HEADLINE: Brentai Shocked That Evangelicals Actually Theocratic Assholes

This guy lays out why most evangelicals only care about the government interfering with homosexual marriages (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgmt9s_we-need-a-christian-dictator_news#from=embed&start=2)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Classic on January 27, 2011, 02:42:27 AM
Wait... That was... was that a satire?
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on January 27, 2011, 02:59:17 AM
He quotes my father pretty much word for word, except replace "Faithful" with "Rich".
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Classic on January 27, 2011, 03:16:11 AM
Oh, that mumble prior to, "crush families with heavy taxation" was, "reducing the ability to..."

Mishearing that kind of put me in the wrong mindset.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on August 03, 2011, 09:37:50 AM
http://talkaboutequality.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/if-a-married-lesbian-couple-saves-40-teens-from-the-norway-massacre-and-no-one-writes-about-it-did-it-really-happen/ (http://talkaboutequality.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/if-a-married-lesbian-couple-saves-40-teens-from-the-norway-massacre-and-no-one-writes-about-it-did-it-really-happen/)

huh.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on August 03, 2011, 10:17:13 AM
Yeah, saw that on BoingBoing.

On the one hand, their sexuality should of course be irrelevant.

On the other, it's not precisely because there's a large and powerful movement claiming that marriage equality is incompatible with strength of character.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on August 10, 2011, 11:23:55 AM
Santorum: Marriage is like water, not beer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLbAFNbVSEE#)

what a story mark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhXz60f0HLU#)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Saturn on August 10, 2011, 12:08:36 PM
Sometimes I think santorum should mean something worse than post-sex ass froth
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on August 10, 2011, 12:12:22 PM
Purportedly Dan Savage has threatened that if Santorum doesn't shut his mouth, he'll come up with a new definition for "Rick" too.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Pacobird on August 10, 2011, 12:55:41 PM
B..but the collateral damage!
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Royal☭ on August 10, 2011, 03:41:42 PM
You'll just have to live with Rick Rolling being even more vile.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on August 11, 2011, 07:50:26 AM
I'd say "Well, at least they'll still have 'Rich'", but apparently that's being phased out in favor of "Job Creator".
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on August 11, 2011, 10:21:04 AM
Jobcreator Poopfroth doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on August 11, 2011, 11:14:11 AM
QUEER BBQ DOESN'T CREATE JOBS.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: McDohl on August 11, 2011, 08:01:12 PM
"Job Creator" is some Ayn Rand-ian nonsense.  It makes me sick to my stomach.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on August 11, 2011, 08:48:08 PM
I love it, honestly.  Or at least, I would love it if someone finally stood up and said "Wait, so it's you guys and not Barack Obama who's in charge of job creation then?  Okay!  You can start explaining now."

What were we even talking about that this has to do with fags?  Oh right, Rick Santorum's first name.  I propose "one or more granules of feces too small to be called a nugget".  Ex: "Fuck, I just sharted and now there's all this rick dribbling down my pantlegs."
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Saturn on August 12, 2011, 06:28:44 AM
Rick should be a modifier for santorum

Santorum is ass froth
Rick Santorum is ass froth with I dunno, bits of corn in it.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: JDigital on August 12, 2011, 11:11:12 AM
I don't know that making his name gay slang is really having an effect on his politics.

Also, I'm pretty sure there's already a slang word of a shortened version of Richard.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on August 12, 2011, 11:12:32 AM
http://www.towleroad.com/2011/08/anti-gay-indiana-gop-lawmaker-phillip-hinkle-caught-offering-male-teen-money-for-sex.html (http://www.towleroad.com/2011/08/anti-gay-indiana-gop-lawmaker-phillip-hinkle-caught-offering-male-teen-money-for-sex.html)

Oh come on, not another one
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Norondor on August 12, 2011, 11:50:05 AM
HEY finally we can reset elephantcloset
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Beat Bandit on August 12, 2011, 12:53:24 PM
Also, I'm pretty sure there's already a slang word of a shortened version of Richard.
Dick santorum... so smegma?
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: TA on August 12, 2011, 12:55:27 PM
I don't know that making his name gay slang is really having an effect on his politics.

Also, I'm pretty sure there's already a slang word of a shortened version of Richard.

It does go completely, violently counter to the premise Savage's entire anti-bullying thing, though.  So, there's that.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Royal☭ on August 12, 2011, 03:26:17 PM
Are you equating a bunch of gay guys making fun of a politician to bullying? Nice false equivalency.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: JDigital on August 12, 2011, 05:02:15 PM
Would lol if Santorum turned out to be gay, and after a homosexual tryst his partner used the word "santorum" without realizing. He probably isn't, though, and if that did happen we wouldn't hear about it.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on August 12, 2011, 07:51:08 PM
Quote from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/opinion/we-want-cake-too.html?_r=2
More than a few transgender people feel they’ve been sold out by the gay-rights movement and lament the way the “T” in “L.G.B.T.” always comes last. It makes me think, “A bunch of straight people in a room? That’s a conversation. A bunch of L.G.B.T. people in a room? That’s an argument.”
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on August 12, 2011, 08:48:58 PM
I don't get it, do transsexuals not have the right to marry where gay people do?  Or is the TS community just annoyed about their "and Zoidberg!" status?
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Misha on August 12, 2011, 10:40:32 PM
making santorum mean something is one thing, but trying to get rick changed to something terrible is just fucking mean to everybody else with that name
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Lottel on August 12, 2011, 11:25:32 PM
Then that will be their decision. They can go by like 6 other names instead of Rick.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on August 13, 2011, 02:58:33 PM
...fuck's sake, guys, I'm pretty sure it's a joke.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on September 20, 2011, 12:19:03 PM
As of today, DADT is history.  Good riddance.

MSNBC's got some feel-good stories of soldiers and sailors coming out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44596987/ns/us_news-life/).

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Kashan on September 20, 2011, 07:01:01 PM
As of today, DADT is history.  Good riddance.

MSNBC's got some feel-good stories of soldiers and sailors coming out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44596987/ns/us_news-life/).

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

Is this why there were hot lesbians in the student union cos-playing as captain america and some WWII era military commander handing out gay pride ribbons? If so they should end DADT every day, my life is better with lesbian captain americas in it.

Seriously though, it's about time.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Ziiro on November 01, 2011, 09:57:18 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Wp6Iw.jpg)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: NexAdruin on November 01, 2011, 11:05:19 AM
Fuck humanity.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Ziiro on November 01, 2011, 11:10:25 AM
That pretty much covers it, yeah.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on November 01, 2011, 11:31:10 AM
I had a teacher in high school who I generally liked but who was some kind of uptight Mormon-offshoot religious and not very good at concealing his virulent homophobia.

I had a friend who was in the closet, due mostly to having fundamentalist parents.  He was kind of an odd dude, not just because he was gay but because he was nerdy and socially awkward.

Anyhow, he was a year younger than me, so I wasn't around for this, but purportedly the teacher just took an instant dislike to him -- before he even had him as a student, he apparently badmouthed him in front of one of his other classes.  Just weird, passive-aggressive hostility.

Telling kids to just act more butch is a milder version of the same problem.  Some people are legitimately uncomfortable around students who are outliers in general and gay in particular.  It's something that I believe will fade over the years, but obviously that's not something we should wait for; newspaper headlines shaming those attitudes are absolutely the correct approach here.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Pacobird on November 03, 2011, 10:16:58 AM
Michigan anti-bullying legislation passed in wake of suicide of bullied gay teen contains exception to bullying prohibitions for "sincerely held moral or religious beliefs". (http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20111103/NEWS04/111030326/State-Senate-OKs-anti-bullying-proposal?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s)

Me, I'm almost more offended by how lazy the loopholes have gotten, all ignoring the fact that this is basically the state sanctioning religious persecution in a fumbling attempt to keep the fags down.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on November 03, 2011, 10:20:12 AM
Well, don't you see, Paco?  It's WE who are being intolerant of the CHRISTIANS by saying they shouldn't harass people for being different!
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on November 03, 2011, 10:42:35 AM
That's like adding a clause to Megan's Law that says the law doesn't apply if the girl's name is Megan.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: JDigital on November 03, 2011, 10:58:55 AM
Bullying wasn't illegal in Michigan already?
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on December 14, 2011, 01:46:03 PM
NY Daily News: Identical twin teenage boys tell story of one taking path to become a girl (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/identical-twin-teenage-boys-story-path-a-girl-article-1.991407)

I find it fascinating because, given that they're identical twins, it clearly (if anecdotally) implies that genes aren't the only component in gender identity.

(Simpsons has already offhandedly addressed the related issue of identical twins with different sexual orientations.  Granted, Simpsons is not real.)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: yyler on December 14, 2011, 06:59:07 PM
it clearly (if anecdotally) implies that genes aren't the only component in gender identity.
Or it calls into question what we know about what creates identical twins.

In fact, it's possible for twins to be born as half- or semi-identical. Wouldn't be surprised if that were the case here, and at any rate, though I don't particularly subscribe to either notion (nature/nurture) I find it grossly ridiculous that so many people are instantly jumping to that conclusion.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on December 14, 2011, 07:42:01 PM
Right -- I think blaming it exclusively on either genetic OR environmental factors is reductivist, and certainly more study is required.

But cases like this present a unique opportunity for study.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on December 14, 2011, 08:59:36 PM
Diablo Barbarian tells it like it is. (http://truemeaningoflife.com/oldwisdom.php?topid=9532&responses=2)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on December 14, 2011, 09:03:29 PM
A full minute of inappropriate laughter.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on December 19, 2011, 08:50:29 PM
Mississppi Republican Mayor outed as gay after submitting a receipt for sex toys from a gay sex shop in Toronto in his expense reports (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/republican-mayor-outed-after-spending-taxpayer-money-at-gay-sex-store-in-toronto/article2277216/)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on December 19, 2011, 09:15:21 PM
(laugh track)

Here, have probably the most heartwarming coming out story ever (http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-me/telling-partner-youre-transgender-janet-mock)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on December 21, 2011, 09:27:17 PM
Newt Gingrich to gay man: If you want marriage equality, vote for Obama (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/12/20/393663/newt-gingrich-tells-gay-iowan-to-vote-for-obama/)

That level of honesty takes you by surprise sometimes.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on December 21, 2011, 09:35:28 PM
Hunh.  That's a rather shocking level of civility from Gingrich, though between him and his sister it really sounds like he's just politically locked into his position on marriage rights.

Or he just really, really, really does not want to get into a rhetorical debate that could possibly veer into the "sanctity of marriage" line of argument.


ADDENDUM: Really honestly, if you think about it, people who view gay marriage as their primary focus should vote for Newt Gingrich.  Obama is on record as saying he's personally opposed to it but will pay lip service to it as long as he's a Democratic politician.  That's hardly helpful if not outright damaging.  But Newt Gingrich - his very presence in the White House would completely topple any non-pedantic argument his supporters might have against it.  And if the political winds start to blow against them, he'll stand aside and let them be toppled over like on every other issue that might entail him standing up for something widely unpopular.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm putting too much stock in Newt's ability to screw over his own party and sometimes I wonder if I'm making a mistake by not taking that ball and shoving it down the net.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on December 22, 2011, 07:51:48 AM
He'd screw his own party in a heartbeat but you can't predict HOW.

It's true that he's in it for himself and will do whatever he thinks will benefit him personally.

But he also doesn't have a very good grasp of what that is exactly -- he was doing pretty well for himself up until he shut down the government over a seat assignment.

Put another way: if his sister says don't vote for him if you want marriage equality, then you should probably listen to her.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on December 22, 2011, 11:33:33 AM
GLAAD took out a full-page ad in Variety to protest the new sitcom Work It. (http://www.glaad.org/workit)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on December 22, 2011, 11:51:30 AM
Curious to hear your thoughts and those of the other TG folk on the forum.

I haven't seen the thing, so I can't make any specific judgements on it.  Speaking in general, I'm not inherently opposed to "man dressed as woman" comedy (Tootsie, Mrs. Doubtfire, absolutely every British comedy show ever), but stuff like this has to be viewed in the proverbial "broader cultural context", and that context is a near-total lack of positive depictions of transgendered people in American popular entertainment.  (And the only reason there's a "near" in there is Chaz Bono, who the media would pay absolutely no attention to if he didn't have famous parents.)

Proposed solution: have one of their coworkers turn out to be an actual transgender who is less than amused by their ruse.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on December 22, 2011, 12:25:31 PM
I hadn't even heard of it until I saw the ad. As a transgender person I think this show is not only offensive but tiresome. The drag-disguise comedy ran out of steam after Bosom Buddies. Why is it that any kind of gender nonconformity is still ridiculed in mass media?

Proposed solution: have one of their coworkers turn out to be an actual transgender who is less than amused by their ruse.
Or why not have one of the main characters realize that they're actually transgender and make the audience realize what a dick move it is to laugh at someone experiencing that struggle.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Ziiro on December 22, 2011, 12:36:12 PM
Season Finale involves the character stuck going on a date with a doctor in order to secure a contract. Over the course of the episode they have flashbacks to previous episodes in the season and realize how it's more than the work reason that they're dressing up like a woman.

Laugh track and/or audience "oooOooo" when they actually kiss. Character rushes runs away.

audience goes "Awww" when depressed character turns the lights off back in their apartment

fade to credits

show cancelled
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: yyler on December 22, 2011, 12:37:54 PM
Proposed solution: have one of their coworkers turn out to be an actual transgender who is less than amused by their ruse.
That's not a proper solution. It's pandering.

In addition to hating this show based on the reasons GLAAD puts forth, it also seems to be an inherently sexist idea and on top of that a good way to lampoon "women in the workplace" without actually using women, thus making it seem okay. It's a huge clusterfuck of Hollywood bullshit. Not like this is the only shitty, sexist show on this fall, though. (http://jezebel.com/5841168/critics-fall-tv-lineup-is-really-sexist)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on December 22, 2011, 01:03:05 PM
That's not a proper solution. It's pandering.

Well, yes.  I was restricting myself to options that could conceivably actually happen in the world of prime time network TV; pandering is pretty much the best-case scenario and the phrase "proper solution" does not make the list.

In addition to hating this show based on the reasons GLAAD puts forth, it also seems to be an inherently sexist idea and on top of that a good way to lampoon "women in the workplace" without actually using women, thus making it seem okay. It's a huge clusterfuck of Hollywood bullshit.

Yeah, that too.  "This company only hires women; men just can't get ahead!" is a pretty bullshit premise.  Unless it's for that episode of King of the Hill where Dale interviews at Hooters so he can sue them for discrimination, because of course HE'S the one who comes out looking like an asshole.

Not like this is the only shitty, sexist show on this fall, though. (http://jezebel.com/5841168/critics-fall-tv-lineup-is-really-sexist)

Playboy Club, at least, got canceled almost immediately.  Not sure about the others.  And yes, that last zinger pretty much sums it up; "People hated terrible thing with x in it = we shouldn't make any more things with x in them" is pretty much how Hollywood thinks.

...and dammit, I just got through purging Jezebel from my history.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on December 22, 2011, 02:41:33 PM
I think Pan Am was tanking fast. No idea if it's actually been cancelled outright yet.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on January 11, 2012, 07:16:50 AM
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/09/401001/pope-benedict-future-of-humanity-itself-threatened-by-same-sex-marriage/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/09/401001/pope-benedict-future-of-humanity-itself-threatened-by-same-sex-marriage/?mobile=nc)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Disposable Ninja on January 11, 2012, 09:02:24 AM
Little do we know that a time traveler came from the future to warn Pope Benedict that the only thing keeping humanity from destroying itself is acceptance of homosexuality. He was warned of...

The Santorum Wars.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on January 11, 2012, 09:11:37 AM
Papists gonna... pape.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Ziiro on January 11, 2012, 09:30:22 AM
Every time I see Pope Benedict he looks more and more like Palpatine. The similarities were funny at first but this is getting out of hand.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on January 11, 2012, 10:29:06 AM
I don't think Palpatine has especially strong views about homosexuality.

If anything he'd probably be pleased that they're so interested in "the Dark Side".
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on January 11, 2012, 10:39:56 AM
There's a reason Palpatine always wears such voluminous robes.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Lottel on January 11, 2012, 11:40:58 AM
You can't spell Palpatine without papal.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: on January 11, 2012, 11:41:40 AM
I don't think Palpatine has especially strong views about homosexuality.

If anything he'd probably be pleased that they're so interested in "the Dark Side".

In-universe, Palpatine (and everyone under him, because of it) was racist as the ku klux klan against anything nonhuman.

Not sure if that means anything here.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on January 12, 2012, 08:16:45 AM
King Steve has decided on the nuclear option against foreign-based gay marriages (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/despite-legal-about-face-harper-has-no-intention-of-reopening-same-sex-marriage/article2299574/page2/)

Man, this is so ridiculous I don't even have words. I can only pray the courts strike this down, though I suspect this will only end months or years from now, in another Supreme Court-administered spanking for Harper.

If this doesn't earn us another condemnation from the UN, I'll be surprised. They may be irrelevant, but Stevey seems to want to collect 'em like they were pokemon. 
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on January 12, 2012, 11:04:33 AM
Updates: yeah the shit is hitting the fan over this one (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/former-toronto-mayor-decries-ottawas-sneaky-reversal-on-gay-marriage/article2300179/)

Might turn good in the long run though:

1) The legal opinion offered by the Justice department is obviously idiotic and will probably be overturned. If it were true, marriages between people like interracial couples or other people denied marriage in their home countries who come to Canada to marry would also be null. It also implies our laws are overruled by foreign laws. Who makes Canadian law? Canadians, or Florida state? To say nothing of this not being an established opinion for the past seven years and everything being seen as perfectly legal since 2005. I'm pretty sure LOLSURPRISE is not going to hold up well legally.
2) This is just on the heels of a Harper MP trying to sneak in anti-abortion legislation. They're pulling out all the stops to go backwards.
3) This makes Chrétien look like a genius soothsayer. The Liberals had him do a fearmongering fundraising letter a month ago threatening that Harper would begin a culture war. At the time, I thought it made a good pitch, but that Harper was disciplined enough not to play into Chretien's hands. Guess he really just can't let go of that lever.
4) No matter how much Harper protests, no matter how hard he brings this to a stop, it will be extremely difficult for him to ever again shake the "The Harper conservatives have a secret agenda and have always had a secret agenda" meme. He's brushed it off before, but I think it'll stick this time. And if he doesn't put in a damn good show of fighting this ruling, all bets are off on his future.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on January 12, 2012, 03:09:50 PM
So it looks like the legal opinion may possibly be technically correct but was framed in an incredibly bad way.

In Ontario, you must be a resident of the province for a year before a divorce is granted, same-sex marriage or regular kind. With non-same-sex marriages, this is a non-issue because they're generally recognized equally everywhere.

Some people are saying that the opinion ONLY states that people must meet the residency requirements. That the bit about "HO HO! Your marriage was never legal in the first place, homos! TROLOLOLOL!" Is just the lawyer's "Editorial comment".

However, until we actually see the text of the opinion, we won't know the full intent. Regardless, this should give the opposition fuel for a while.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on January 13, 2012, 11:16:20 AM
Well, that was mercifully quick at least. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justice-minister-declares-all-same-sex-marriages-legal-and-valid/article2301691/)

As always, Harper's instincts for political survival trump his desire for incredibly stupid shit. Which is basically the only check on his power now.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on January 13, 2012, 12:47:59 PM
Quote
Speaking at a Toronto luncheon Friday, Mr. Nicholson blamed the Liberal government that preceded his for not filling a “legislative gap” that has left thousands of same-sex couples in an agonizing position of being unable to divorce should they feel a need to.

The situation has been “completely unfair to those affected.” Mr. Nicholson said. “I want to make it clear that in our government's view, these marriages are valid.”

Wow. A flip-flop and blaming the previous administration in two paragraphs.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on January 13, 2012, 01:02:27 PM
Hey give us our President back
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on January 13, 2012, 01:17:12 PM
God, you can fuckin' have him.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Cthulhu-chan on January 13, 2012, 01:43:58 PM
nooooo we changed our mind
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on January 13, 2012, 02:17:02 PM
You should see the other guy.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: François on January 13, 2012, 02:22:31 PM
I'd much rather we keep Harper up here where he can do the least harm than send him down to you guys where he'd be free to run roughshod over the entire world. We are talking about a "George W. Bush with a non-zero IQ" kind of person here.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on January 13, 2012, 03:28:35 PM
True. He's so devious, he could even make Congress work.

... I'm not even being sarcastic there.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: François on January 13, 2012, 03:52:25 PM
He's got the malicious cunning of a Vlad Putin; the only reason the world is safe is that he's stuck running a country that has a history of being the Earth's boy scout. A history that he is, of course, quite intent on betraying.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on January 20, 2012, 08:58:02 AM
From a friend:

Quote
Microsoft is now lobbying the state of Washington to legalize gay marriage on the grounds that they are not able to hire gay talent because they don't want to move there.

I've been comfortable with thinking of Apple as a "BAD GUY" for a while now, but I must admit it still feels strange to think of Microsoft as the White Hat.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on January 20, 2012, 09:04:14 AM
Quote
Microsoft is now lobbying the state of Washington to legalize gay marriage on the grounds that they are not able to hire gay talent because they don't want to move there.

That's... good?

 :???:
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on January 20, 2012, 09:19:56 AM
I've been comfortable with thinking of Apple as a "BAD GUY" for a while now, but I must admit it still feels strange to think of Microsoft as the White Hat.

It's probably best we separate corporate strongarm tactics from political advocacy.  MS is still pretty fucking rotten when it comes to software patents and the like.  And Apple is pretty admirable on the subject of gay rights (they offer domestic partner benefits, for example).
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on January 20, 2012, 10:39:06 AM
They're advocating because they have determined it's financially beneficial to them, not because of any feeling of moral obligation.  It's still definitely a Good Thing and to be fully supported, but the heroes in this picture aren't the bean counters at Microsoft*, it's the legions of talented gay programmers who help to push social advancement by offering an attractive and productive reason to do so.

* Well, actually, they are too, but only because being open-minded in the interest of not crippling oneself is actually an exceptional standard in this country.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on January 20, 2012, 10:56:55 AM
That's one way of looking at it.  Certainly Microsoft itself is an amoral corporation interested in profit more than social good.

But I'm willing to bet there are people at the company who felt strongly about this on ethical grounds and then decided to pitch it on pragmatic ones.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on January 20, 2012, 11:29:55 AM
Of course, but I wasn't talking about people.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on January 20, 2012, 02:21:24 PM
Silly Brentai, corporations are people.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on January 23, 2012, 01:29:13 PM
On the subject of Washington State legalizing Gay Marriage: Don't count your chickens before they're hatched, but enough state senators have issued formal letters or statements of support for the upcoming vote that it looks like it's gonna pass.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Zaratustra on January 23, 2012, 04:07:17 PM
They're advocating because they have determined it's financially beneficial to them, not because of any feeling of moral obligation.  It's still definitely a Good Thing and to be fully supported, but the heroes in this picture aren't the bean counters at Microsoft*, it's the legions of talented gay programmers who help to push social advancement by offering an attractive and productive reason to do so.

* Well, actually, they are too, but only because being open-minded in the interest of not crippling oneself is actually an exceptional standard in this country.

Just as you can do bad things with good intentions, you can do good things with bad intentions.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: patito on January 23, 2012, 04:19:18 PM
It seems to me like they're doing good things with good intentions. Namely they want to endorse gay marriage so they can hire gay programmers. I really fail to see the bad here.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Pacobird on January 23, 2012, 04:38:12 PM
Yeah I'm with patito on this one.  Microsoft wants to legalize gay marriage in washington so it will have an easier time hiring gay programmers.  Gay washingtonians want to legalize gay marriage in washington so they can get married to other gay washingtonians.  Sympathetic heterosexuals want to legalize it because they feel it's the right thing to do and doing the right thing is awesome.  None of these are ulterior motives.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on January 23, 2012, 04:49:21 PM
Replace "bad intentions" with "not exactly noble" ones, because in the end it's still about some pencilneck's bottom line and not basic social rights.  And that's fine.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on January 23, 2012, 04:52:21 PM
Businesses care about business. That's basically how our economy works. I don't think anyone out there - so called green companies like Apple included - really does anything 'out of the goodness of their hearts'. (If they did, you would have never have heard about it.)

Every charity dollar donated in just about the history of corporate America wasn't done so to contribute to a good cause. It was to make their business look more socially conscious. So, yes, Microsoft has ulterior motives, but that's why they're an industry leader and not a small business in somebody's garage. At least their ulterior motive is "hiring gay programmers" and not "supporting exclusionism to attract more business from the religious right"
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on January 23, 2012, 06:27:46 PM
I think the other thing to remember is that once the pioneers of a social change fight the good fight, you see more supporters with very mundane reasons like this once the fight becomes much more mainstream. And that's actually a very good sign!
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on January 23, 2012, 07:58:21 PM
Just as you can do bad things with good intentions, you can do good things with bad intentions.

(http://corporate-sellout.com/img/suik-priceless.gif)

(via (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVkd0trrm2U#))
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on January 28, 2012, 06:51:10 PM
Mayor Booker Responds to Question about NJ Marriage Equality Referendum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Z7tl7Vy8U#ws)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on February 07, 2012, 10:32:08 AM
Prop 8 unconstitutional (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57372620/court-calif-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/), again.

Not over, of course.  Expect this one to land in the Supreme Court.  And given that I don't expect the current SCOTUS to uphold this ruling, I expect that we'll see it eventually repealed with another ballot initiative.  As Evanier (http://www.newsfromme.com/2012/02/07/verdict-watch/) put it, "Public sentiment on this issue has only ever evolved in one direction."
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Pacobird on February 07, 2012, 01:50:16 PM
To the victor, the spoils:

To the gays and lesbians of California, marriage rights.

To everybody else, hilarious right-wing apoplexy.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: McDohl on February 07, 2012, 02:18:00 PM
*bluster*
HURBLBRURLBL THEY'RE LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH HURBLRLBLUBRL
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on February 07, 2012, 02:54:06 PM
(http://deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/dole5.png)

Gay marriage for some, miniature American flags for others!
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on February 07, 2012, 03:03:36 PM
Gays got my teenage daughter pregnant!
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on February 07, 2012, 07:30:01 PM
To the gays and lesbians of California, marriage rights.

Not yet.  According to the article I linked (and also to what I heard on NPR on the way home), the ban stands until SCOTUS weighs in or it gets repealed by ballot initiative.

People are already trying to get it on the ballot for November, which, if it passed, would make the appeal rather moot.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: NexAdruin on February 08, 2012, 07:14:08 AM
https://twitter.com/#!/RickSantorum/status/167024630052294656

Quote
7M Californians had their rights stripped away today by activist 9th Circuit judges. As president I will work to protect marriage.

I... I... I think I'm going to throw up now.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Pacobird on February 08, 2012, 11:51:46 AM
oh please dude

there are certain expectations that come with being rick fucking santorum so slow your roll, the man has a job to do
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Ted Belmont on May 08, 2012, 07:26:35 PM
Surprising absolutely no one, North Carolina double-secret bans gay marriage. (http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11604355-north-carolina-oks-constitutional-same-sex-marriage-ban?lite)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on May 11, 2012, 02:21:06 PM
Lincoln Nebraska proposed LGBT protection ordinance: Best In Show! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMANMIe0ZZI#)

Children will be blessed for Killing Of Educated Adults Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous Gays Same Earth Rotation.


the best part about this video is the guy behind her losing his shit the entire video.


Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Classic on May 11, 2012, 03:08:32 PM
... Did I just watch a youtube troll make a legislative hearing?
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on May 22, 2012, 04:58:26 PM
Pastor gives sermon calling for gay & trans death camps (http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/shocking-video-pastor-advocates-for-concentration-camps-to-kill-off-gays-an)

*clears throat*

Well now.



EDIT:

Quote
it's cool how he stops exactly one link in the chain away from "and if they can't reproduce, but they turn up in your population all the time anyway, then... wait..."
Quote
Oh, but they recruit, you see, like vampires.
Quote
ooooh right. in the schools. i forgot.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on June 08, 2012, 01:55:49 PM
Andrej Pejic models push-up bras for Dutch department store campaign. (http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/male-model-fronts-campaign-for-push-up-bras.html)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on June 08, 2012, 02:11:46 PM
I think it's fair to say that Andrej Pejic is objectively the most attractive person on the planet. While his particular look might not be your preference, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who didn't find them attractive without context altering their perceptions.

What I'm trying to say is that if you showed a picture of him to a hundred redneck intolerant shitkickers all of them would have to eat their words about leviticus.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: PhoenixUltima on June 08, 2012, 03:31:04 PM
Hey, power is beautiful, and he's got the power!

Also, why are you just now posting something that's 6 months old?
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on June 08, 2012, 03:47:10 PM
Because no one else has?
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on June 08, 2012, 05:52:25 PM
Hey, power is beautiful, and he's got the power!

Also, why are you just now posting something that's 6 months old?

(http://beendelayed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Crying-Baby-Natural-High-for-Some-Moms.jpg)

BUT THIS ISN'T NEW CONTENT

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rCk74vgzal8/TS83XZu2MzI/AAAAAAAAAqg/JXRfSeDLdqc/s1600/crying+baby.jpg)

IF YOU WEREN'T GOING TO POST IT WHEN IT WAS NEW, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE POSTED IT AT ALL

(http://medtips.in/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/baby-cry.jpg)

IT'S NOT FAIR THAT I SHOULD HAVE TO HEAR ABOUT SOMETHING SIX MONTHS AFTER EVERYONE ELSE DID

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_P07uaGtMQn4/SxV-YwjEDRI/AAAAAAAACIo/o0ykuQFrJ_E/s1600/crying+baby.jpg)

HOW DARE YOU GIVE ME LESS THAN 100% FRESH INTERESTING CONTENT
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Niku on June 09, 2012, 10:12:08 AM
REALTALK you forgot the part with also complaining about when something gets posted twice
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: PhoenixUltima on June 09, 2012, 11:09:25 AM
I was just curious, you make it sound like I pitched a huge fit or something.

Though I guess overreacting to stuff people say is a staple of the internet.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on June 13, 2012, 08:00:29 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/06/13/ontario-gender-equality.html?cmp=rss (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/06/13/ontario-gender-equality.html?cmp=rss)

Finally, transgender people are protected under the law in Ontario!
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Ted Belmont on June 26, 2012, 12:29:52 PM
Two lesbian teens shot, one killed, in Texas. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-lesbians-shot-20120626,0,5851118.story)

Jesus fucking Christ.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on June 26, 2012, 12:31:32 PM
Two lesbian teens shot, one killed, in Texas. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-lesbians-shot-20120626,0,5851118.story)

Jesus fucking Christ.

I would love to think that it was just a robbery gone wrong or something, but I have a sick feeling in my stomach this guy is going to be a shitkicker with an axe to grind and this might not be his last killing if he isn't caught quickly.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on July 02, 2012, 10:47:01 AM
Anderson Cooper finally comes out and says it. (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/anderson-cooper-the-fact-is-im-gay.html)

It's a nice, heartfelt piece and deserves to be read in full.  In short, I respect his earlier choice to keep it private and his reasons for doing so (nobody's business/he wants to be a reporter, not a celebrity), as well as his choice to change his mind now and his reasons for that (he's tired of people thinking he's ashamed of it, and realizes that he can be one more example of a public figure who's gay but just like anybody else).

Plus, anyone wants to suggest that guy's a wimp can try doing his job for a few weeks and see how it goes.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: on July 21, 2012, 04:15:52 AM
Boston Mayor tells Chick-fil-A that he'll block any attempt for them to open a store in his town as long as they're anti-gay (http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1061147182&position=0)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on July 22, 2012, 09:28:23 AM
Menino is a ding-dong (he's the one who freaked the fuck out over the Aqua Teen Lite-Brite campaign).  Popehat (http://www.popehat.com/2012/07/20/eat-less-totalitarianism/) had a pretty good takedown, which is basically along these lines: unless you have evidence that Chick-Fil-A is engaging in discriminatory hiring practices, you can't just tell them they can't operate in your city because you disagree with them politically.

I don't like Chick-Fil-A.  I don't give them my money.  I don't like what they do with the money people DO give them.  But if they want to donate to anti-gay causes, they have a right to do so -- hell, it's not even like they're the Mormon Church, donating to anti-gay causes while still claiming tax-exempt status.

Now, given a top-down anti-gay bias, it's not hard to believe the POSSIBILITY that they engage in anti-gay employment discrimination.  But I don't know of any evidence or even accusations of such.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on July 22, 2012, 09:50:23 AM
I'd hate Chick-Fil-A more if their food wasn't the most horrible thing I've ever put in my mouth, and that's saying something.

The fundies who force themselves to choke on that shit because it aligns with their viewpoints are really just building their own engine of self-torture, and that delights me.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on July 22, 2012, 10:14:55 AM
I... really like Chik-fil-a. Maybe you've just had shitty chik-fil-a, but their chicken sandwiches have always tasted awesome to me and the service has always been great. They're overpriced, though, and generally speaking if I'm going to spend five dollars on a sandwich I'd always rather go to subway.

My feeling on the restaurant is this - Chik-fil-a knows their policies are unpopular and don't care, because quite frankly, everyone in america who felt strongly against those policies could quit going to their stores tomorrow and not make a dent in their business. Their primary base is the bible belt and they will have no problem continuing without your business. It sucks, but oh well. You can't taste mysogyny and homophobia. Eventually, we will move past this part of our history, Chik-fil-a will grow up, but at the end of the day it'll always be a black mark on their business for supporting the wrong side of the issue - nobody will ever forget how Ford felt about jewish people, for example.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Classic on July 22, 2012, 12:49:30 PM
You can't taste mysogyny and homophobia
Maybe, but it does make me a little queasy.
I don't have to worry about it though, because horrible chicken place refused for a long time to put restaurants anywhere I lived.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on July 23, 2012, 07:30:11 AM
Maggie Koerth-Baker at BoingBoing has started a list of Eagle Scouts returning their medals (http://boingboing.net/2012/07/23/eagle-scouts-stand-up-to-the-b.html) over the Boy Scouts' recent decision to uphold their anti-gay policies, starting with her husband, Christopher Baker.

Quote
If you aren't familiar with American Boy Scouting's Eagle Scout award, it might be a little hard to explain how important this story really is. Eagle Scout is a big deal. For one thing, it takes a lot of work to get the position. A scout has to earn 21 merit badges and then spearhead a community service project that they organize and manage themselves from start to finish. Add to that the fact that most kids don't stay in scouts through high school anyway, and you end up with the award representing a relatively small and elite group. Since 1911, about 2.1 million men have earned an Eagle Scout award. And it has serious implications once you graduate high school. There are scholarships. Eagle Scouts who enlist in the military after high school can start off with a higher rank than their peers. The adult Eagle Scouts I know have told me that they've gotten interview call-backs or even job opportunities because the award was on their resumes. Basically, it's more than just this medal you pick up at age 17. For many men, it's a lifelong position—and one that demonstrates a commitment to serving others and caring for the community.

So when Eagle Scouts start returning their medals to the Boy Scouts of America, that matters. Especially when these men are making this decision because they think it's the best way to demonstrate the values of being an Eagle Scout.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on July 23, 2012, 02:22:02 PM
It sucks, but oh well. You can't taste mysogyny and homophobia.
Stop supporting the anti-gay chicken sandwich culture!
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Bal on July 23, 2012, 02:26:05 PM
I don't want to lower the level of the conversation at all, but every single time I see this thread pop up I think LGBTGIF
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on July 24, 2012, 09:20:42 AM
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7n6yrQcF81qzoykzo1_500.png)

Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on July 24, 2012, 10:43:20 AM
Henson Company terminates ties with Chick-Fil-A (http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bella/2012/07/jim-henson-muppets-chick-fil-a-break.php).

Quote
As an added twist of the knife, the message said that Jim Henson Company CEO Lisa Henson, Jim Henson's own daughter, was a strong supporter of gay rights. She has directed her company to send any future payments received from Chick-fil-A directly to GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) as a donation.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on July 24, 2012, 10:54:16 AM
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7n6yrQcF81qzoykzo1_500.png)



I was about to post this.

I wonder if Mitt didn't realize she was gay?
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: TA on July 25, 2012, 04:04:07 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/l9byr.jpg)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on July 25, 2012, 04:37:40 AM
The Mrs Field quote was so good I thought it was real for a second
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: falselogic on July 25, 2012, 12:53:33 PM
A Chicago Alderman (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/ct-met-chicago-chick-fil-a-20120725,0,929023.story) has told Chick-fil-a to look for other cities to build restaurants in



THAD EDIT: Fixed a link.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on July 25, 2012, 01:10:38 PM
(EDIT to note that falselogic's post orginally referred to Menino.)

...yeah dude, that's what we've been talking about this entire page.

...dammit.  You're SoraCross, aren't you.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: on July 25, 2012, 01:17:21 PM
He's a talking timer.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: falselogic on July 25, 2012, 01:28:33 PM
...yeah dude, that's what we've been talking about this entire page.

...dammit.  You're SoraCross, aren't you.

Whoops, sorry I didn't scroll down far enough...
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Smiler on July 25, 2012, 01:33:38 PM
Soracross would not have gone this long without posting something about a shitty game he made or awful LP videos.

Also what Lyrai said.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Caithness on July 25, 2012, 01:42:17 PM
I thought the entire page's discussion was about Boston, not Chicago.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: falselogic on July 25, 2012, 01:56:29 PM
Menino is a ding-dong (he's the one who freaked the fuck out over the Aqua Teen Lite-Brite campaign).  Popehat (http://www.popehat.com/2012/07/20/eat-less-totalitarianism/) had a pretty good takedown, which is basically along these lines: unless you have evidence that Chick-Fil-A is engaging in discriminatory hiring practices, you can't just tell them they can't operate in your city because you disagree with them politically.

The city doesn't have to put "politics" for the reason a permit or license is denied, even when that is the case. There are thousands of ways cities and counties control what is built within them.

I suppose that is obvious...
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on July 25, 2012, 02:09:46 PM
I thought the entire page's discussion was about Boston, not Chicago.

He edited his post.  So now we have two different cities.  Which is cool; we've got something new now.  ...'cept that the link's broken.  I'll fix it.

The city doesn't have to put "politics" for the reason a permit or license is denied, even when that is the case. There are thousands of ways cities and counties control what is built within them.

I suppose that is obvious...

Yeeeeeah but if you say outright it's because they're anti-gay -- which is exactly what Menino and Moreno have done -- then you're opening yourself up to a First Amendment suit.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: falselogic on July 25, 2012, 02:16:48 PM
I thought the entire page's discussion was about Boston, not Chicago.

He edited his post.  So now we have two different cities.  Which is cool; we've got something new now.  ...'cept that the link's broken.  I'll fix it.

The city doesn't have to put "politics" for the reason a permit or license is denied, even when that is the case. There are thousands of ways cities and counties control what is built within them.

I suppose that is obvious...

Yeeeeeah but if you say outright it's because they're anti-gay -- which is exactly what Menino and Moreno have done -- then you're opening yourself up to a First Amendment suit.

The Boston one is iffier because its on official stationary. The Chicago alderman can always say he was expressing himself as a private citizen and will act as the people in his district want when/if it came time to voting on anything before him as an alderman.

I don't know the municipal organization of Boston, but the Mayor is likely safe because any permits and such would go through numerous committees before reaching the city council any one of which could kill the thing before it ever got to him, plenty of cover there...

In general, it's not a good idea to try to bring your company into an area where you're not wanted. You can do it, it took Target 20 years to build a big box in our town, but you burn whatever goodwill you might have had both with the people of the city and those who manage it.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on July 26, 2012, 07:46:28 AM
Fortunately, Chick-Fil-A has Pretty Redhead Teenager Isolated on White Smiling Stock Photo 3117967 (http://gizmodo.com/5928926/chick+fil+a-got-caught-pretending-to-be-a-fake-teenage-girl-on-facebook) to defend its reputation on Facebook.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Royal☭ on July 26, 2012, 10:13:17 AM
I do find it pretty suspect that the guy found the stock model and image within 4 minutes.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on July 26, 2012, 10:25:16 AM
Nice catch.

Wonder how high the pic was on a Google search for stock photo redhead teenager yesterday; as of today all the results for that search point to this story.

There are a few other things that could explain it -- reverse image search, or maybe someone else had already called "her" out in a different comments thread (since I imagine a sock puppet would not just be responding to one post), or it could be that the avatar (or other pics on the profile) had identifying information somewhere on it (watermark, filename, metadata, whatever).

But it's also entirely possible that the whole thing was a setup, and not Chick-Fil-A's.  That's a fair point.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on July 27, 2012, 12:10:46 PM
Head of Chick-fil-a PR died today. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57481594/chick-fil-a-public-relations-executive-dies/)  :oic:
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on July 27, 2012, 12:17:49 PM
That's uh

That is

Hm.

 :humpf:
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on July 27, 2012, 12:46:47 PM
As the article notes, there's some suggestion that it was a heart attack, though that's not 100% clear yet.

I imagine he's been under a bit of stress over the past couple of weeks, but it'd be crude to blame his death on the controversy (or on Chick-Fil-A's food).  So let's be nice; we disagree with Chick-Fil-A as an organization, but let's not celebrate anybody's death please.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on July 27, 2012, 01:30:00 PM
in this case I wouldn't dream of it. Just a dude with a job. It's sad but the timing is pretty fucked up. I imagine he was under a lot of stress.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Miss Cat Ears on July 27, 2012, 02:29:40 PM
I wasn't celebrating it... I just thought it was relevant.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on July 27, 2012, 02:47:51 PM
It is. Albeit not intentionally so. 

That guy must've been under god-knows-what-kind of duress these last two weeks.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on July 27, 2012, 07:23:02 PM
One year of legal marriage equality in New York: A story in pictures (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/what-has-happened-since-new-york-state-legalized-g)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on July 27, 2012, 08:23:46 PM
One year of legal marriage equality in New York: A story in pictures (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/what-has-happened-since-new-york-state-legalized-g)

It's always the little old lady couples that get me. The two old "tough guys" are pretty D'AWWWW too. :kowhyee:
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Royal☭ on July 27, 2012, 09:55:30 PM
What gets to me is just how happy everyone looks. That is how everyone should feel 100% of the time.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on August 26, 2012, 05:19:00 PM
Why was the shooting of a teen lesbian couple in Texas not reported on more broadly? (http://therumpus.net/2012/08/an-american-problem-the-shooting-of-mollie-olgin-and-mary-kristene-chapa/)

Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on August 26, 2012, 05:46:25 PM
It was linked on the top stories of CNN.com off their front page for 2 days after it happened. It also got mentioned on plenty of other news sites and I saw at least a couple of videos of news stations reporting on it hit the front page of /r/videos on Reddit, so obviously it was on TV too. That's pretty broad for a random shooting in a small town. They never found the shooter, so it was never conclusively linked to being a hate crime. I think this is somebody reaching to find an example of systemic intolerance where it isn't actually happening.

edit: changed wording to clarify my point


Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on August 26, 2012, 08:43:06 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Shinra on this one -- gun violence is, sadly, common enough that it doesn't usually get broad coverage from the press, barring something exceptional -- the two mass murders in the past two months, for example.  (Hell, JT Ready killed four people plus himself back in May; did that get any coverage outside of Arizona?)

That's not to say the press is unbiased -- far from it.  It's just that this time I think the bias is in favor of sensationalism rather than straight people.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Classic on August 26, 2012, 09:39:48 PM
I think this is somebody reaching to find an example of systemic intolerance where it isn't actually happening.
Really? That's not what I read in that article at all.

Then again, I can't really tell what it is about (criticizing the gay community for being complacent and cynical?) but if it's trying to make the coverage of that shooting an example of systemic bias it's spending a long-ass time talking about prominent gay faces in media and the marches and how much privilege gay people have already achieved.

I have no reason to believe anything else Shinra wrote is wrong though.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on August 27, 2012, 05:07:49 AM
I was mostly referring to how the article was framed rather than it's content in particular. The content of the article was a rambling and ultimately mostly pointless? tirade that I couldn't drum up enough interest in to finish.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on August 27, 2012, 07:17:02 AM
The point the article was getting at (in an unfortunately roundabout way) was that prominent GBLT figures in the media didn't make a big deal of the story and that their inaction seems to signify that they've forgotten the struggles that regular GBLT people went through to get them to their lofty position.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on August 27, 2012, 07:48:36 AM
I can't blame prominent GLBT people from not getting involved, though, because it was never proven to be a hate crime and it could be twisted against them so easily by opponents of gay rights. "Every crime is a hate crime, listen to these fucking sinners you guys :rolleyes:" etc. If somebody had come forward, or written a manifesto, or killed more people, or gotten caught and there was reason to believe they were killed because they were gay (rather than, say, gang initiation, drug shooting, wrong place wrong time, robbery gone wrong) I'd be with this person and their story 100% but it just seems like a great way to get labeled reactionary to me.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: patito on August 27, 2012, 10:07:58 AM
It's really sad that they got shot sure, but so the guy is upset that Anderson Cooper didn't throw a fit about it. They're not the only people that got shot during the past couple of months is the thing, as other people have already pointed out.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on September 04, 2012, 03:52:56 AM
Lesbian who reported 'hate crime' attack staged incident, Nebraska police say (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/justice/nebraska-hate-crime/index.html?iref=obnetwork)

I don't know what disgusts me more; the thought that this could have actually happened, or the thought that it didn't and she just made it up. :|

Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on September 04, 2012, 05:52:56 AM
What bothers me is that this is going to give more fuel for people to ignore and harass victims of legitimate hate crimes.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Joxam on September 07, 2012, 01:03:06 PM
Chris Kluwe Explains Gay Marriage To The Politician Who Is Offended By An NFL Player Supporting It (http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-magically-turn-you-into-a-lustful-cockmonster-chris-kluwe-explains-gay-marriage-to-the-politician-who-is-offended-by-an-nfl-player-supporting-it)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on September 07, 2012, 01:40:18 PM
What bothers me is that this is going to give more fuel for people to ignore and harass victims of legitimate hate crimes.

Yeah. This person has done more to harm the fight for equality than she ever could have imagined. I would love to know what her reasoning behind it was.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Shinra on September 07, 2012, 01:41:28 PM
Chris Kluwe Explains Gay Marriage To The Politician Who Is Offended By An NFL Player Supporting It (http://deadspin.com/5941348/they-wont-magically-turn-you-into-a-lustful-cockmonster-chris-kluwe-explains-gay-marriage-to-the-politician-who-is-offended-by-an-nfl-player-supporting-it)

Our greatest hope for dealing with people like this dumbfuck politician is them all dying off in the next ten years. The cold war Mccarthyism made our parents and grandparents very wary of foreigners, gay people and nonchristians and the damage just never seems to have worn off.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on September 07, 2012, 02:21:52 PM
I've got a whole long blog post brewing on the subject in my head, but here's how I see it:

Fundamentalists aren't going to go away but they're going to change.  In a generation, gay rights and gay marriage will be as widely accepted as minority rights and interracial marriage -- some people will still object to them, and some of those will object strongly and vocally, but most homophobes will act offended when you call them homophobic just as today most racists will act offended when you call them racist.

They'll do what they did with minority rights: they'll wrap their discrimination in euphemisms and attack things that are RELATED to the subject but totally not the same thing.

And they'll find a new minority to openly discriminate against.

Who that's going to be is anybody's guess.  Transgenders?  Polys?  Indians and Chinese?  (Not because of their race, of COURSE not; because of their ECONOMIC POLICIES!)

Hell, they'll probably even pull the same historical revisionism they do today with all the "It was the DEMOCRATS who were racist!" half-truths.  "Hey, Barry Goldwater SUPPORTED letting gays serve openly in the military; BILL CLINTON pushed Don't Ask, Don't Tell!"

Round and round it goes.  When it's no longer socially acceptable to hate one minority, they find another -- and claim they never hated that first minority at all, that was those OTHER guys!
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Friday on September 07, 2012, 02:51:06 PM
In AD 2101

"Base" is slang for civil rights
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: NexAdruin on September 09, 2012, 11:41:41 AM
Hell, they'll probably even pull the same historical revisionism they do today with all the "It was the DEMOCRATS who were racist!" half-truths.

Could you elaborate on this? What I remember from history is that it was indeed Democrats (specifically southern "Dixiecrats") who were so against desegregation.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Ted Belmont on September 09, 2012, 01:00:00 PM
The Dixiecrats were courted by the Republican party during/soon after desegregation, and pretty much all of them switched sides.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on September 09, 2012, 08:10:33 PM
Right.  Saying "the Democrats were the racists!" is like saying "the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln" -- it's technically accurate but completely omits major shifts in attitude since.

Yes, the Democrats were largely responsible for fighting civil rights legislation at every turn.

But when a Democratic President (Johnson) pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he effectively cost the Democratic Party the South.

And then a Republican candidate (Nixon) saw an opportunity to snatch up all those votes and orchestrated the Southern Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy), which overtly encouraged the racist elements of the Democratic Party to become Republicans.  And they did -- segregationists like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms switched parties, as did most of the South.

It's absolutely true that Republicans were more progressive on minority rights than Democrats -- fifty years ago.  But when a twenty-first-century Republican says that to indicate that the Democrats are the REAL racists, man, that's misleading.  The modern Republican Party is home to the reactionary fundamentalist elements who were Democrats up until the late 1960's/early 1970's.  And the modern Democratic Party has a solid 90% of the black vote.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on September 22, 2012, 12:12:06 PM
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-boy-scouts-lose-largest-donor-over-anti-gay-policies/politics/2012/09/22/49483 (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-boy-scouts-lose-largest-donor-over-anti-gay-policies/politics/2012/09/22/49483)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: TA on September 22, 2012, 01:07:51 PM
I would hope the fact that they've been protecting and covering for child rapists for at least 93 years (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-boy-scouts-files-20120916,0,6937684.story) might be a factor, too.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: TA on October 05, 2012, 05:32:15 AM
Continuing in that vein, fuck the Boy Scouts (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224160-almost-eagle-scout-denied-award-because-he-is-gay?lite).
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Royal☭ on October 18, 2012, 08:35:36 AM
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down DOMA (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ny-appeals-court-nixes-defense-marriage-act)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Friday on October 18, 2012, 10:51:17 AM
I've always hated the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals but now doubly so that they've resorting to using poison
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Ocksi on October 24, 2012, 07:36:20 PM
Chris Kluwe's 'Lustful Cockmonster' goes radio. (http://soundcloud.com/thinkpro/kluweradioad)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Thad on December 28, 2012, 11:32:34 AM
24 Power Rangers alums (http://emecomics.tumblr.com/post/38263235400) -- plus Thuy Trang's helmet -- protest Prop 8.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on December 28, 2012, 12:07:07 PM
I don't think a cadre of people known for jumping around in colorful tights are going to make the breakthrough statement they're hoping for here.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on December 28, 2012, 02:09:19 PM
I don't see Jason David Frank there. That's kind of a downer.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on February 04, 2013, 02:15:21 PM
Perry: "The BSA should keep excluding gay kids because... because they should!" (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/02/04/1535331/conservatives-predict-mass-exodus-if-boy-scouts-accept-gays/)

Santorum: "Yeah!" (http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/stop-the-war-on-scouts/)

Obama: "Nah." (http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/02/04/obama-boy-scouts-gays/1890065/)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on May 07, 2013, 08:53:04 AM
http://www.queerty.com/ex-westboro-baptist-libby-phelps-appears-on-anderson-apologizes-for-hating-fags-20130507/ (http://www.queerty.com/ex-westboro-baptist-libby-phelps-appears-on-anderson-apologizes-for-hating-fags-20130507/)

Wow.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Joxam on May 07, 2013, 10:33:03 AM
Wow, turns out gay news sites are the only sites on the internet with classy comments sections.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on May 07, 2013, 11:31:51 AM
The type of person who would antagonize homosexuals wouldn't want gay websites in their browser history.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Ted Belmont on May 07, 2013, 12:35:14 PM
The comments on Rock Paper Shotgun articles are usually pretty good, but I'm not sure if that's because they're British or because they have an extremely heavy-handed moderation policy.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on May 21, 2013, 07:40:56 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/farright-french-historian-78yearold-dominique-venner-commits-suicide-in-notre-dame-in-protest-against-gay-marriage-8625877.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/farright-french-historian-78yearold-dominique-venner-commits-suicide-in-notre-dame-in-protest-against-gay-marriage-8625877.html)

 :OoO:
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mothra on May 21, 2013, 12:20:12 PM
What a ridiculous jackass
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on May 21, 2013, 01:06:58 PM
I like that he was railing against Sharia, as if the imposition of THAT of all things would bring about gay marriage. What a maroon.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Sharkey on May 22, 2013, 04:45:46 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/farright-french-historian-78yearold-dominique-venner-commits-suicide-in-notre-dame-in-protest-against-gay-marriage-8625877.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/farright-french-historian-78yearold-dominique-venner-commits-suicide-in-notre-dame-in-protest-against-gay-marriage-8625877.html)

 :OoO:

Intensely annoyed that "French historian" is what's showing up in the headlines on this one. Yes, sure, he was an historian. He was also a racist, homophobic terrorist and Nazi apologist. Personally, I think that should outweigh anything else here. You can build a thousand cocks, but if you suck one bridge everyone calls you a bridgesucker.

Seriously, fuck that guy. Bon débarras.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: François on May 22, 2013, 07:28:07 AM
I'm pretty sure having that guy's brains splattered over the altar might count as worse desecration than when revolutionaries beheaded a bunch of statues and used the building to store food. I'd like to say it would have been less bad had he taken a dump on there instead but I suppose that's functionally identical.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on May 22, 2013, 08:09:54 AM
It is a tragic death.  More tragic indeed for the same reasons it is tempting to gloat over it.  He died unnecessarily due to an acute mental illness.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Sharkey on May 22, 2013, 10:54:07 AM
It'd be easier to feel sympathetic if "acute mental illness" and "popular opinion" didn't share so much overlap. Especially when talking about a molder of public opinion. That'd be dialing my "unaccountably crazy" meter down to a very fine tolerance.

It's always the nationalism. Or something else that ends in -ism. Unless... hey, how do you all feel about a commune? I'm sure we can make it work this time. Or at least it will end with fewer crimes against humanity. Maybe we'll make silverware.

Our social model will be bonobo chimps, by the way. So... you know, start getting used to that. Behavioral scientists tortured a shitload of monkeys to convince us that this would be ideal for all of us. Honor their sacrifice.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Classic on May 22, 2013, 03:00:14 PM
I don't think I'm "young" enough for any aspects of that lifestyle anymore.

Sometimes I feel weird tugs where the hernia-sealing mesh is stapled into my muscles and it makes me feel intensely sick.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Esperath on May 23, 2013, 01:15:11 PM
Boy Scouts changes policy, allowing gay scouts to join starting in 2014. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/boy-scouts-to-admit-openly-gay-youths-as-members.html)

Gay Scoutmasters, meanwhile, are still banned.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Joxam on May 23, 2013, 01:16:30 PM
Because all gay men want to fuck your sons
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on May 23, 2013, 01:30:32 PM
Boy Scouts changes policy, allowing gay scouts to join starting in 2014. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/boy-scouts-to-admit-openly-gay-youths-as-members.html)

Gay Scoutmasters, meanwhile, are still banned.

So how long until a scandal arises where a scoutmaster gets caught bad-touching one of his troop and claims he was seduced?
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Bal on May 23, 2013, 01:46:56 PM
Well, you cannot be seduced by a minor under the law, and given that all scouts graduate out at 18 (not on their birthdays, but when the next scouting season comes around), it won't be much of a defense.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: falselogic on July 15, 2013, 10:20:34 AM
California Supreme Court denies Prop 8ers request to halt same sex-marriages (http://"http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/california-supreme-court-refuses-to-grant-emergency-order-halting-same-sex-marriages/2013/07/15/16284abc-ed93-11e2-bb32-725c8351a69e_print.html")

Let the assault on "traditional" marriages continue!
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: TA on July 31, 2013, 10:15:17 AM
In keeping with its new criminalization of homosexuality, Russia now appears poised to arrest gay athletes at the Olympics, according to the law's original author. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/russian-lawmaker-suggests-gay-athletes-prosecuted-2014-winter/story?id=19829868)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: JDigital on August 01, 2013, 01:15:47 AM
Gay bars now boycotting Smirnoff.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: falselogic on August 02, 2013, 03:32:29 AM
Gay bars now boycotting Smirnoff.

I thought the push was to start boycotting all Russian spirits?
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on August 02, 2013, 03:36:02 AM
The funny thing is that apparently Stoly is a big supporter of LBGQ rights in Russia.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on August 02, 2013, 04:16:58 AM
The funny thing is that apparently Stoly is a big supporter of LBGQ rights in Russia.

As usual, the transgender population gets shafted. It happened after Stonewall, and it's happening now.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2013, 04:30:38 AM
I thought the transgender population wanted to b--

:;_;: No.

What?

:;_;: No.

But--

:;_;: Nuh uh.

:(
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on August 02, 2013, 06:12:06 AM
EVERYONE REMAIN CALM.

I FORGOT A LETTER.

EDIT: So did the thread title, evidently.
Title: Re: LGBTQ
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 02, 2013, 06:58:23 AM
Well, the thread title is from 2008, when the 'Q' wasn't yet a part of the acronym. But look, it can be added! YOU HAVE THE POWER.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2013, 07:19:25 AM
I still think of a sandwich whenever I see the acronym.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Disposable Ninja on August 02, 2013, 08:28:40 AM
Lettuce Guacamole Bacon Tomato Queso
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: R^2 on August 02, 2013, 08:30:51 AM
BRB going to buy avocados
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mazian on August 02, 2013, 08:48:25 AM
(http://www.thestranger.com/binary/31e4/1360684173-img_0458.jpg)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on August 02, 2013, 10:49:22 AM
Well, the thread title is from 2008, when the 'Q' wasn't yet a part of the acronym. But look, it can be added! YOU HAVE THE POWER.

???

I remember the five-letter acronym being current when I was in university. Which was the late 90's/early 2000's.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Rico on August 16, 2013, 05:31:31 AM
Boy, this could go in any number of threads, how about here:
Internet bullies make death threats against writer's children for including homosexual romance options in Dragon Age II (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/16/video-game-writer-leaves-company-after-threats-against-her-children/)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: TA on August 16, 2013, 05:49:39 AM
The "for including homosexual romance options in Dragon Age 2" part doesn't seem to be part of the article?  It's not mentioned as a source of any fresh harassment - or even whether any fresh harassment had cropped up - and kind of a ridiculous claim this many years after the whole Hepler mess.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Rico on August 16, 2013, 06:35:28 AM
It's an extrapolation from "for including ... LGBT characters", as, well, having played the game I know that the characters' sexual orientations only come up as a romance option and affect the plot and characterization in no other way.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on August 16, 2013, 07:17:36 AM
I know that in Hepler's case she could never do that as she has children, but I would love to see at least one of these people who've been targeted by "internet bullies" over their work in video games to stand their ground and cop a bring-it-on attitude.

Threats on the internet can and do materialize into real violence sometimes, but if ever there was a time I was going to bet people were shit-filled cowards who won't follow through, it's guys making angry rants about video games online.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: on August 16, 2013, 07:37:51 AM
My recollection of the Hepler mess was the groundswell started with that interview of her saying she dislikes combat, and then DA2 had shitty combat. So everyone blamed her.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Brentai on August 16, 2013, 08:30:20 AM
A lot of people got on her grill for being kind of terrible at her job, homoerotica or no.  I wouldn't normally say that's enough to warrant death threats to children, but... gamers, man.  Gamers.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: TA on September 04, 2013, 04:29:24 AM
The armies of Texas and Mississippi have declared that they are in open revolt against their lawful command. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/texas-national-guard-gay-couples_n_3861640.html)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Sharkey on September 04, 2013, 05:28:46 AM
The Master: Shall we decimate them? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY19AqRsx_o#ws)

Pretty sure this is the sort of thing that practice was invented for, right?

(Bonus: Bet you can't count all the 'MERICA establishing elements in the second scene.)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on September 19, 2013, 11:53:28 AM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/hell-now-a-thriving-epicenter-of-gay-culture,33928/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/hell-now-a-thriving-epicenter-of-gay-culture,33928/)

Hyuk yuk
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: on September 20, 2013, 12:54:26 PM
Having lost on marriage, NOM literally goes after (trans) kids. (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/09/20/2659451/nom-transgender-california/)

Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Ted Belmont on September 20, 2013, 01:08:02 PM
I actually saw a guy collecting signatures for the repeal initiative outside of Target today. I don't know if he was associated with NOM, but he was deliberately misleading people coming out of the store by telling them it was a law to force California schools to adopt "co-ed bathrooms". Fortunately, Target has a very strict no-solicitation policy, and one quick conversation with their store manager later, he was gone.


Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on October 08, 2013, 01:47:13 PM
Kuwait to set up anti-homo gaydar at Kuwaiti airports (http://cir.ca/news/kuwait-airport-check-scans-for-homosexuality)

Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Friday on October 08, 2013, 02:33:54 PM
pssh we all know airport security is just for show

I'm sure gay people will still be able to hijack marriages
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Büge on October 10, 2013, 11:36:53 PM
According to a Washington Times editorial, wanting equality for transgender people will doom western civilization (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/09/washington-times-op-ed-transgender-equality-mov/196364).
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Zaratustra on October 11, 2013, 12:21:46 AM
Use of "leftist" as a cuss word, feeling threatened by woodland animals and considering all white men as part of a single mass responsible for all that is good and civilized in the world? That's the Washington Times, all right.

Quote
Told to "check my privilege," my instinctual response was to suggest they check their bong.

:lol:
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Friday on October 11, 2013, 12:37:08 AM
Told to "shut the fuck up, you bigoted, god damn fuckhead" my instinctual response was to leftists so dumb am i rite
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: TA on November 22, 2013, 04:45:51 AM
A distressing number of idiots consider a flag representing the idea that gay people are people to be far more offensive than a flag representing the idea that black people are chattel. (http://www.edgeonthenet.com/news/local/151893/poll_finds_pride_flag_more_offensive_than_confederate_flag)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Mongrel on November 24, 2013, 10:28:20 AM
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/fallin-halts-all-spouse-benefit-applications-at-state-owned-national/article_1511406c-67e1-5b15-94ba-cfe887c15bac.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/fallin-halts-all-spouse-benefit-applications-at-state-owned-national/article_1511406c-67e1-5b15-94ba-cfe887c15bac.html)
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Ted Belmont on December 26, 2013, 01:03:43 PM
UFC suspends fighter for making transphobic remarks about another fighter. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ufc/2013/04/08/ufc-suspends-matt-mitrione-fallon-fox-comments/2065083/)

Wow, I never thought I would have any reason to say this, but hey, props to UFC.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: TA on January 04, 2014, 08:05:37 AM
Utah bigot goes on hunger strike to end gay marriage! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/utah-hunger-strike-gay-marriage_n_4537434.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037&ir=Politics)

Now that's a reality show I'd watch.  Homophobic asshole slowly starves himself to death.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: jsnlxndrlv on January 04, 2014, 09:41:36 AM
Today I encountered the acronym QUILTBAG for the first time! I like this one a lot.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Caithness on January 05, 2014, 12:39:49 PM
Are the vowels just there to make it pronounceable, or do they stand for something too?
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Ted Belmont on January 05, 2014, 02:46:33 PM
Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Joxam on January 05, 2014, 05:12:56 PM
Thaaaaank you google!
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Disposable Ninja on January 05, 2014, 07:23:58 PM
While that's cute and all, but is it just me, or does that harsh "-ag" at the end makes QUILTBAG sound like an insult?
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Classic on January 05, 2014, 07:27:13 PM
Just enjoy the acronym and don't be a DICKBAG about it.
Title: Re: LGBT
Post by: Disposable Ninja on January 06, 2014, 07:04:40 AM
fair 'nuff