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
-
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!
-
And those people have obviously never seen Utena.
Those lucky lucky people. :endit:
-
Those lucky lucky people. :endit:
get off my boards.
-
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.
-
That little girl is probably the most mature person in that entire commercial.
-
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:
-
VOTE YES ON PROP 8. VOTE NO ON PRINCESS PRINCESS MARRIAGES
-
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."
-
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.
-
There's a certain grim irony underlying the "Is it Okay For the Opponents of Prop 8 to Tear Down Signs? Vote Yes" one.
-
My girlfriend, who was appalled by that Vote Yes On Prop 8 commercial, found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exPoH1JX0Q8
-
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)
-
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?
-
No, because that policy doesn't discriminate enough.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
11th Doctor: Revealed!
-
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.
-
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
-
See what I was saying? That's how you use an emotional piano.
-
A familiar voice...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj-0xMrsyxE
I've had it with these motherfuckin' homophobes on this motherfuckin' campaign!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?"
-
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.
-
Question: Do married couples gain benefits under your tax system?
-
Yes, and they're set up assuming you're going to naturally conceive children. This is the problem.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
In fact, gay couples are statistically BETTER parents than straight ones -- because they have to REALLY, REALLY WANT TO BE PARENTS.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Exit polling suggests this will look very different in ten years. The times, they are a-changin'.
-
10 years is a shitty amount of time to wait if you want to get married now.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Can Gays still drink out of the same water fountains as straight people?
-
This was in a nice, mildly populated area: Full half-acre yards, convenience store down the street... I disagree with your weird, unfounded bias.
-
Can Gays still drink out of the same water fountains as straight people?
THAT'S HOW YOU CATCH IT
:imagination:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
I think if we replaced "gay" with "black" in this thread, we would be getting much closer to understanding the real problem here.
-
gj paco way to fix the thread
-
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?
-
But that's silly! Blacks have always been allowed to marry blacks! :slow:
-
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.
-
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.
-
I have absolutely no problem with how strict the adoption process is. The problem is "dudes who like dick" is apparently a strike.
-
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?
-
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:.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Because the multiple lawsuits alleging exactly that are only getting started.
-
I came across this last night.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY
Very moving.
-
The entire response to this is going to be "Okay let's find out which of Keith Olbermann's relatives is gay."
-
"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.
-
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:
-
He can't be gay. He loves football too much.
... perhaps too much.
:ohshi~:
-
He's a sucker for a good tight end.
-
When he doesn't pitch it to the fullback.
-
But he said he wasn't gay!
-
What are you going to believe, his word or various jokes about him being gay? :wat:
-
After Clay Aiken? The jokes.
-
Princeton is not too subtle with their metaphors. (http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/princeton-proposition-8-to-protect.html)
-
...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.
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
Not to mention that that attitude presupposes that Homsexuality has no genetic component.
-
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.
-
They're probably not going to raise their children to follow the letter of the Bible, though.
-
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:
-
What a fag.
-
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).
-
if anyone who lives in the SoCal area is interested in:
- showing support (against Prop 8, natch) on the day of the court decision
- dressing up like a horrible zombie
please contact me, I'm laying the groundwork for an idea my friends had.
-
Crap, I forgot about that already. Better find a good recipe for fake blood... and maybe an avatar to match.
-
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?
-
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)
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
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)
-
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.")
-
They're protestants to protestants, the most victimized kinds of Christians.
-
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'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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
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.
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."
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."
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.
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."
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.
-
Do not attempt to understand the reptilian thought processes of lawyers. They are not people.
-
I think it's the who that's throwing people off, not the "oh hey someone actually read the Bill of Rights" part.
-
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!"
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
I don't think he gets to appeal with a completely different argument, though.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
But judges are supposed to be impartial otherwise the whole idea behind their role is a failure, right? :whoops:
-
Whenever religion shows its ugly face in government, it rapidly fucks things up. Catholicism especially.
-
Whenever government shows its ugly face in religion, it rapidly fucks things up. Monarchy especially.
-
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.
-
Some jerk at my office decided to turn the email service into a soapbox. The moving transcript goes something like...
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...
-
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.
-
And it's timestamped and everything.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Free speech isn't allowed on company e-mail addresses.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Eh. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/proposition-8-e.html)
-
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
The proposition was trailing among white voters, but was ahead among black voters. Latino voters were closely divided.
As opposed to the stronger correlation
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.
-
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/).
-
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.
-
Congratulations, New Hampshire! (http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090327/FRONTPAGE/903270359)
-
This just in, New Hampshire more progressive than California.
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m78/yoji_00/headexplode.jpg)
-
Congratulations, New Hampshire! (http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090327/FRONTPAGE/903270359)
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?
-
No, because we all know it wont get there.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Your avatar's always relevant, Yoji.
-
Homeworld and Eve Online
off-topic, but... let him know that these games are complete opposites.
-
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.
-
Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage, Overrides Governor's Veto (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/07/vermont-legalizes-gay-mar_n_184034.html)
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.
-
What the hell is wrong with California
-
Like, I totally don't have a clue.
-
Like, fer shure.
-
New Hampshire? Iowa? Vermont? That's great, but... I thought... San Francisco... we... gay capital... uh...
:scanners:
-
♪ GOOOOOO WEST!
IT IS PEACEFUL THERE!
GOOOOOOO WEEEESSSST!
LOTS OF O-PEN AIR! ♪
-
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).
“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:
-
For something so afraid of homosexuals, that ad was incredibly gay.
-
Apparently Youtube had the greenscreen audition tapes for those "real people", but they've been pulled from a copyright claim.
-
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!
-
2M4M
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/manwich.jpg)
-
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
-
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.
-
And meanwhile, the searches with those books removed ...
(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/124/homob.png)
:endit:
-
:endit:
this is precisely what most kids end up doing, faced with this shit
-
And for my next impression, chocking outrage!
-
That kaneda screenshot look sort of squished.
-
I knew it was all made up.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Lynne Cheney reported to be furious over the news. (http://whitehouse.georgewbush.org/administration/sisters.asp)
-
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).
-
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.)
-
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd145/Brentai/skelegay.jpg)
-
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!!!
-
That disease is like herpes.
-
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.
-
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?
-
I deem-mand a dee-vorce in Reno!
-
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?
-
Don't make fun of poor Giuliani, he had to experience 9/11 everyday for the past 8 years.
-
Indeed, and every time the second plane hits his eyes go all :profit:
-
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.
-
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.
-
God, those women look scary.
-
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.
-
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?
-
:whoops:
Arnold wasn't the only one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan).
-
Congratulations, New Hampshire! (http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090327/FRONTPAGE/903270359)
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/)
-
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.
-
this whole Representative Democracy thing comes up with some real wonderful people (http://www.rollcall.com/news/34425-1.html?type=printer_friendly)
-
She argued Democrats are only using it “as an excuse for passing these bills [broadening protections against hate-crimes].”
:pop: What fiends!
-
the bills are just hoaxes to unfairly prosecute people for beating innocent youths to death
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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)
-
(http://zedpower.dreamhosters.com/images/misc/arm.jpg)
:goggles:
Dang, my arm is sexier than hers.
-
I bet her sister is just :facepalm: on the inside now.
-
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.
-
OK!
:gay4: :whoops:
-
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:
-
Psst, Yoji. Look to the left of your posts.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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
-
...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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Psst, Yoji. Look to the left of your posts.
It's awesome how your post is still valid in spite of DOOMSDAY.
-
I wonder how :wat: hasn't been excomulgated by the Catholic Church yet.
-
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:
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:
-
Hurrr, and here I thought the same thing about NOM NOM NOM.
-
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:
-
I'm sure they think we are, too.
-
Where's the link to that study?
-
Not the study but still relevant. (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=784.msg76219#msg76219)
-
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.
-
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:
-
Who mentioned anything about the pageant?
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30495983/
-
Right, but
Welcome to the fabulous world of Completely Missing the Fucking Point.
Who is this directed toward?
-
Er, the Pageant. Not you. I was sort of going off on my own tangent. Pageant tangent.
-
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
-
Well, shit (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE54J6BK20090520).
-
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.
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 take back the nice things I said about New Hampshire.
-
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?
-
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:
-
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.
-
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!
-
Well, good thing my boyfriend still has residency in Massachusetts, I guess.
-
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'.
-
Meanwhile, more and more straight people are turning to the lazy convenience of common-law marriages every day.
-
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.
-
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.
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:
-
/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:
-
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.
-
The customs and culture, natch.
-
Alexander the Great is the starting point you're looking for.
-
Oh Bucephalus!
-
Chicago gay bar bans bachelorette parties. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/boystown-gay-bar-bans-bac_n_215872.html)
-
It's a good gesture, but we're going to need more than that if we want to get heterosexual marriage banned.
-
KILL ALL BACHERLORETTES
-
Way ahead of ya.
-
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:
-
Muslin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslin) terrorists
-
For fuck's sake. Seriously, Home State, what the fuck is the matter with you?
Don't answer that.
-
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)?
-
Hahaha, I have not! Good show, sir. Good show.
-
Not as soft as Percale!
Also, I love that the wiki page for Muslin ACTUALLY SAYS "Not to be confused with Muslim."
-
Not as soft as Percale!
Oh please. You haven't lived until you've worn taffeta.
-
I concede to your experience in the matter.
-
You better.
-
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)
-
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.
-
Better than marrying 12-year-old anime characters.
-
Punchline: "There's twelve of them!"
-
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.
-
Tim Hortons back out of anti-gay marriage event (http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/08/10/tim-hortons-marriage023.html)
-
Apparently Dunkin Donuts has a similar track record.
You'd think an industry based around the consumptions of holes...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
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:
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.''.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Well no, don't do that last part. That's still illegal. :mahboi:
-
For now. Getting that out of the way in #6 on the Gay Agenda.
-
Is that before or after the sexing up the straight people to make them gay? I forget.
-
That's how you make them gay. Indoctrinate them while they're young.
-
Only thing that can make you gay is perfectly heterosexual pornography (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/19/coburn-schwartz-pornography/).
-
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:
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"...
-
no such things as tentacle monsters
:;_;:
Next you'll tell me Santa Claus isn't real!
-
hi
-
i'm sorry i'm not into vore :nyoro~n:
-
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
-
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.
-
I thought that was a foregone conclusion. :wat:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Curiously, this is starting to encroach on that thread we had about the child who was being raised "genderless".
-
Which began in this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX07j9SDFcc
-
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
-
"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.
-
Easy answer: Get the trannies to dress up in Burquas.
-
You must be THIS gay (but not THIS gay) to ride.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
That's actually not the question, unless you are a shithead.
-
Just because shitheads are more likely to ask it does not make it an invalid question.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I have to remember to never actually bring this up again
-
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.)
-
http://kotaku.com/5370694/neir-screenshot-shows-more-flesh-than-it-should
::(:
-
no, you see, it shows a penis, but it's a female penis, so it gets around japan's dick censorship laws
-
but seriously why do i live in a world/country that has the global mental maturity of a 10 year old
-
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...?
-
That's an areola? It looks more like an unfortunate shadow on a nipple-less character model.
-
nipple-less
Please put it on your bust.
-
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.
-
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?!
-
MCE is already Pope, so I guess we're set!
-
...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:
-
I don't think they added nipple texture to the model. That's a shadow.
-
I don't think they added nipple texture to the model. That's a shadow.
Yeah, looks like a shadow to me.
-
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...
-
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.)
-
Huh, that was easy (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/). (MATTHEW SHEPARD ACT SIGNED BY OBAMA WOOO)
-
:itsmagic:
-
THOUGHT CRIME THOUGHT CRIME FASCISM NOOOOO :MENDOZAAAAA: :MENDOZAAAAA: :MENDOZAAAAA:
-
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/).
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.
-
I like how the logical end of that line of reasoning is to abolish criminal law entirely.
-
No, it's to abolish all laws and morals.
The guy's just a racist/chauvinist SoB. Screw him.
-
Huh, that was easy (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/). (MATTHEW SHEPARD ACT SIGNED BY OBAMA WOOO)
:imagination:
Also, :8D:
-
Always nice when people too stupid to be taken seriously make that fact blatently obvious by opening their mouths within earshot of journalists.
-
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)...?
(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!
-
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.
-
Yet they passed something to protect the rights of medical pot dispensaries. :wat:
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
... 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?
-
... 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?
-
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.
-
GANBARE HOUSTON-CHAN
-
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.)
...
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?).
-
(http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk34/feministing/statesmarriagecousin.jpg)
Forget about getting married to your gay first cousin.
-
: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!
-
(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.
-
Oh sweet, too bad all my first cousins are already married or in mental institutions.
-
No one's fine in New Jersey.
-
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)
-
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)
-
Nice. About ding-dong time.
-
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.
-
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)
-
I don't want any GAY BLOOD getting into my veins and saving my life.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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).
-
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.)
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
BAM! (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-mew-prop-8-10042010,0,7711145.story)
-
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.
-
Must resist rubbing a victory like that in the losers' faces. But only because the losers have guns.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Also, he's openly gay himself.
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.
-
It wasn't a desert at the time ::(:
-
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)
A White House spokesman says President Obama may not support gay marriage personally, but he believes Prop. 8 is "divisive and discriminatory."
:???:
-
Well, the man might not agree with someone's lifestyle choices, but he can still respect their right to choose it, can't they?
-
Obama has been a fan of the "civil union compromise" back in 07/08, or at least to the audience of the world.
-
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!
-
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..
-
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.
-
Well, thank God for that.
-
Politically Erect: What Your Opposition to Gay Marriage Really Means (http://www.madatoms.com/site/blog/what-your-opposition-to-gay-marriage-really-means)
-
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.
-
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.
-
They think it's a choice because the Bible seems to imply that it is.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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#)
-
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 don't think that last part is as strong as an argument as you would like it to be.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Weren't they just bothering the neighbors too?
-
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).
-
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)
-
Megachurch Pastor Comes Out of the Closet (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25568419/detail.html)
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.
-
George Takei :smile:
George Takei Calls Out Anti-Gay Arkansas School Board Member (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UACK93xF-FE#)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
....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...
:;_;:
-
you don't read many of Constantine's posts on this board, do you?
-
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.
-
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:
-
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
-
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.
-
If you think my post was insulting gays, you're way off the mark.
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
But .. then they might take our guns!
-
I always did think it was weird that people were fighting so hard to get IN to the armed forces.
-
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?
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).
Republicans Yes
Brown, Mass.; Burr, N.C.; Collins, Maine; Ensign, Nev.; Kirk, Ill.; Murkowski, Alaska; Snowe, Maine; Voinovich, Ohio.
So Burr and Ensign.
-
Lady Gaga DADT - Be careful what you rally for (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTzpBVTcF-k#ws)
:itsatrap:
-
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.
-
so, guys, how 'bout that semper fidelis now, huh ::D:
-
:troll:
-
oh! oh!
the straight, the few, the marines
:whoops:
-
In the Na-Vy
You can sail the Seven Seas
In the Na-Veeee
You can put your mind At Ease...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It would be a tragedy if marines quit because they have to serve with gays, and not because of endless war.
-
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.
-
And anyway, aren't marines supposed to endure hardships far worse than The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name?
-
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.
-
Every US military person I've spoken to has no problem serving alongside gays, but I can't say it's a representative sample.
-
It was a broad thing in my command in the Navy. Some were giant, burning homophobes, and some were totally cool with it.
-
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.
-
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?
-
It's okay, they can always join militias instead. :oh:
-
Hey, new thread title.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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].
-
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.
-
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.
-
I don't really think most places have a problem with population growth, though, is the thing.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Or have in the first place. Also, if I recall correctly, birth rate in the US would also be crashing if not for immigration.
-
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.
-
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
-
I don't understand why the state recognizes marriage at all, it should be a purely religious institution.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
Imagine the hell that would be paid if they started telling people they weren't "officially" baptized.
Warlocks eating babies left and right
-
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)
-
Wait... That was... was that a satire?
-
He quotes my father pretty much word for word, except replace "Faithful" with "Rich".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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#)
-
Sometimes I think santorum should mean something worse than post-sex ass froth
-
Purportedly Dan Savage has threatened that if Santorum doesn't shut his mouth, he'll come up with a new definition for "Rick" too.
-
B..but the collateral damage!
-
You'll just have to live with Rick Rolling being even more vile.
-
I'd say "Well, at least they'll still have 'Rich'", but apparently that's being phased out in favor of "Job Creator".
-
Jobcreator Poopfroth doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
-
QUEER BBQ DOESN'T CREATE JOBS.
-
"Job Creator" is some Ayn Rand-ian nonsense. It makes me sick to my stomach.
-
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."
-
Rick should be a modifier for santorum
Santorum is ass froth
Rick Santorum is ass froth with I dunno, bits of corn in it.
-
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.
-
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
-
HEY finally we can reset elephantcloset
-
Also, I'm pretty sure there's already a slang word of a shortened version of Richard.
Dick santorum... so smegma?
-
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.
-
Are you equating a bunch of gay guys making fun of a politician to bullying? Nice false equivalency.
-
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.
-
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.”
-
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?
-
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
-
Then that will be their decision. They can go by like 6 other names instead of Rick.
-
...fuck's sake, guys, I'm pretty sure it's a joke.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/Wp6Iw.jpg)
-
Fuck humanity.
-
That pretty much covers it, yeah.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
That's like adding a clause to Megan's Law that says the law doesn't apply if the girl's name is Megan.
-
Bullying wasn't illegal in Michigan already?
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Diablo Barbarian tells it like it is. (http://truemeaningoflife.com/oldwisdom.php?topid=9532&responses=2)
-
A full minute of inappropriate laughter.
-
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/)
-
(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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
GLAAD took out a full-page ad in Variety to protest the new sitcom Work It. (http://www.glaad.org/workit)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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)
-
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.
-
I think Pan Am was tanking fast. No idea if it's actually been cancelled outright yet.
-
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)
-
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.
-
Papists gonna... pape.
-
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.
-
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".
-
There's a reason Palpatine always wears such voluminous robes.
-
You can't spell Palpatine without papal.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hey give us our President back
-
God, you can fuckin' have him.
-
nooooo we changed our mind
-
You should see the other guy.
-
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.
-
True. He's so devious, he could even make Congress work.
... I'm not even being sarcastic there.
-
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.
-
From a friend:
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.
-
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?
:???:
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
Of course, but I wasn't talking about people.
-
Silly Brentai, corporations are people.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"
-
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!
-
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#))
-
Mayor Booker Responds to Question about NJ Marriage Equality Referendum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Z7tl7Vy8U#ws)
-
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."
-
To the victor, the spoils:
To the gays and lesbians of California, marriage rights.
To everybody else, hilarious right-wing apoplexy.
-
*bluster*
HURBLBRURLBL THEY'RE LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH HURBLRLBLUBRL
-
(http://deadhomersociety.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/dole5.png)
Gay marriage for some, miniature American flags for others!
-
Gays got my teenage daughter pregnant!
-
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.
-
https://twitter.com/#!/RickSantorum/status/167024630052294656
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.
-
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
-
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)
-
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.
-
... Did I just watch a youtube troll make a legislative hearing?
-
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:
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..."
Oh, but they recruit, you see, like vampires.
ooooh right. in the schools. i forgot.
-
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)
-
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.
-
Hey, power is beautiful, and he's got the power!
Also, why are you just now posting something that's 6 months old?
-
Because no one else has?
-
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
-
REALTALK you forgot the part with also complaining about when something gets posted twice
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
It sucks, but oh well. You can't taste mysogyny and homophobia.
Stop supporting the anti-gay chicken sandwich culture!
-
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
-
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7n6yrQcF81qzoykzo1_500.png)
-
Henson Company terminates ties with Chick-Fil-A (http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bella/2012/07/jim-henson-muppets-chick-fil-a-break.php).
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.
-
(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?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/l9byr.jpg)
-
The Mrs Field quote was so good I thought it was real for a second
-
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.
-
(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.
-
He's a talking timer.
-
...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...
-
Soracross would not have gone this long without posting something about a shitty game he made or awful LP videos.
Also what Lyrai said.
-
I thought the entire page's discussion was about Boston, not Chicago.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I do find it pretty suspect that the guy found the stock model and image within 4 minutes.
-
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.
-
Head of Chick-fil-a PR died today. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57481594/chick-fil-a-public-relations-executive-dies/) :oic:
-
That's uh
That is
Hm.
:humpf:
-
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.
-
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.
-
I wasn't celebrating it... I just thought it was relevant.
-
It is. Albeit not intentionally so.
That guy must've been under god-knows-what-kind of duress these last two weeks.
-
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)
-
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:
-
What gets to me is just how happy everyone looks. That is how everyone should feel 100% of the time.
-
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/)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :|
-
What bothers me is that this is going to give more fuel for people to ignore and harass victims of legitimate hate crimes.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
In AD 2101
"Base" is slang for civil rights
-
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.
-
The Dixiecrats were courted by the Republican party during/soon after desegregation, and pretty much all of them switched sides.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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).
-
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down DOMA (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ny-appeals-court-nixes-defense-marriage-act)
-
I've always hated the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals but now doubly so that they've resorting to using poison
-
Chris Kluwe's 'Lustful Cockmonster' goes radio. (http://soundcloud.com/thinkpro/kluweradioad)
-
24 Power Rangers alums (http://emecomics.tumblr.com/post/38263235400) -- plus Thuy Trang's helmet -- protest Prop 8.
-
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.
-
I don't see Jason David Frank there. That's kind of a downer.
-
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/)
-
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.
-
Wow, turns out gay news sites are the only sites on the internet with classy comments sections.
-
The type of person who would antagonize homosexuals wouldn't want gay websites in their browser history.
-
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.
-
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:
-
What a ridiculous jackass
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Because all gay men want to fuck your sons
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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)
-
Gay bars now boycotting Smirnoff.
-
Gay bars now boycotting Smirnoff.
I thought the push was to start boycotting all Russian spirits?
-
The funny thing is that apparently Stoly is a big supporter of LBGQ rights in Russia.
-
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.
-
I thought the transgender population wanted to b--
:;_;: No.
What?
:;_;: No.
But--
:;_;: Nuh uh.
:(
-
EVERYONE REMAIN CALM.
I FORGOT A LETTER.
EDIT: So did the thread title, evidently.
-
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 still think of a sandwich whenever I see the acronym.
-
Lettuce Guacamole Bacon Tomato Queso
-
BRB going to buy avocados
-
(http://www.thestranger.com/binary/31e4/1360684173-img_0458.jpg)
-
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.
-
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/)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.)
-
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
-
Having lost on marriage, NOM literally goes after (trans) kids. (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/09/20/2659451/nom-transgender-california/)
-
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.
-
Kuwait to set up anti-homo gaydar at Kuwaiti airports (http://cir.ca/news/kuwait-airport-check-scans-for-homosexuality)
-
pssh we all know airport security is just for show
I'm sure gay people will still be able to hijack marriages
-
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).
-
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.
Told to "check my privilege," my instinctual response was to suggest they check their bong.
:lol:
-
Told to "shut the fuck up, you bigoted, god damn fuckhead" my instinctual response was to leftists so dumb am i rite
-
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)
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Today I encountered the acronym QUILTBAG for the first time! I like this one a lot.
-
Are the vowels just there to make it pronounceable, or do they stand for something too?
-
Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay
-
Thaaaaank you google!
-
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?
-
Just enjoy the acronym and don't be a DICKBAG about it.
-
fair 'nuff