| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/19/2008 06:18:59 PM · #1901 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
But, my husband always tells me I'm an idealist and not in touch with the real world. Maybe not, but I love my world more than he loves his. I also spend less time angry and frustrated. |
That sounds like you rationalize believing in what you believe in because it just makes you more happy. That's fine but it's something that I've always found hard to understand. I couldn't stand not knowing the truth even if it's ugly.
Message edited by author 2008-12-19 18:20:56.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2008 06:24:28 PM · #1902 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Achoo,
If I remember correctly, you, at one time, posted that you were, essentially, a divine command theorist with regard to ethics. Many of us here, in other threads and above, point to a differing ethical theory. I think I finally found the closest thing that might explain a little, give you an alternate viewpoint, or a glimpse into our (or at least my) alternate viewpoint, at least with regard to how our/my ethical system works. For a wiki summary, click here and for a more in depth overview. Not necessarily for discussion, but I just thought you would be interested at the prospective/idea. |
An interesting read. My biggest issue would be the emphasis on care for those closest to you. I can imagine concentric rings of influence with those closest being the most important to attend. While it's a reasonable idea, it's different than my own framework. The Christian framework places God at the center, others next and then self last. I would guess in the Ethic of Care that self would be central because it's the individual you are closest to. But perhaps I'm wrong about that? |
|
|
|
12/19/2008 10:09:04 PM · #1903 |
And, back to the OP again, another strike against the evolution of gay rights as the US is the only western nation that refuses to sign on to a non-binding United Nations agreement calling for the decriminalization of homosexuality.
It sounds like the US reasoning centered on potential difficult legal questions that could arise given that gays may not serve openly in the US military and that some states (like California now :P) still allow some forms of discrimination based on sexual orientations, which allegedly creates a states rights issue. This reasoning seems flawed since the non-binding resolution would have no force in US law and it only calls for decriminalizing homosexuality, not equal rights (from what I've read, and I admittedly haven't read the actual resolution).
|
|
|
|
12/19/2008 10:34:28 PM · #1904 |
This doesn't surprise me at all.
It reminds me of how the Mormon Church says that it's only interested in 'protecting marriage', but when their bluff is called they don't lift a finger to help secure equal protections in housing and jobs for gays in Utah. This is ongoing, even as we speak. Want links?
We all know that many conservatives care about a LOT more than 'protecting marriage', but are too ashamed to expose their real beliefs, so they couch it in a bunch of PC dissembling. 'Protect marriage', 'protect children', and 'protect tradition' are so much easier to swallow than 'get back in your closet, fags'.
This nation does not even support the equal rights of gays who DON'T care about marriage. For every step we take away from equal rights, there's a further, additional step to be taken to repress homosexuals people would LOVE to try to take. If gay sex was still illegal (remember, it was illegal approximately five years ago in many states) you BET we'd still be seeing the Anita Bryants and John Briggs of this world trying to keep gays from being teachers, holding office... or otherwise being humans.
The fact of the matter is that many Americans would love to see my actions made illegal once again. Just like my marriage!
|
|
|
|
12/20/2008 12:39:27 AM · #1905 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
If gay sex was still illegal (remember, it was illegal approximately five years ago in many states)... |
Just to offer some advice, I don't think you improve your case when you say things like this. It sounds too much like spin even if it IS true. Better would be to offer how recently someone was prosecuted for such crimes. Even if it was, say, within 50 years it would be an embarassment. There are lots of laws in lots of states on lots of topics that nobody has any interest in prosecuting. |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 01:26:43 AM · #1906 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
If gay sex was still illegal (remember, it was illegal approximately five years ago in many states)... |
Just to offer some advice, I don't think you improve your case when you say things like this. It sounds too much like spin even if it IS true. Better would be to offer how recently someone was prosecuted for such crimes. Even if it was, say, within 50 years it would be an embarassment. |
Lawrence v Texas was only decided, as  Mousie pointed out, only five years ago -- it overturned a successful prosecution. I think we can assume that, even with the traditionally glacial pace of the Federal judicial system, the original prosecution occurred less than 50 years ago.
Note Justice O'Connor's basis (emphasis added, citations redacted) for overturning:
Originally posted by Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." Under our rational basis standard of review, "legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest."
Laws such as economic or tax legislation that are scrutinized under rational basis review normally pass constitutional muster, since "the Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic processes." We have consistently held, however, that some objectives, such as "a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group," are not legitimate state interests. When a law exhibits such a desire to harm a politically unpopular group, we have applied a more searching form of rational basis review to strike down such laws under the Equal Protection Clause.
We have been most likely to apply rational basis review to hold a law unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause where, as here, the challenged legislation inhibits personal relationships. |
Message edited by author 2008-12-20 01:36:47. |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 03:37:41 AM · #1907 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
If gay sex was still illegal (remember, it was illegal approximately five years ago in many states)... |
Just to offer some advice, I don't think you improve your case when you say things like this. It sounds too much like spin even if it IS true. Better would be to offer how recently someone was prosecuted for such crimes. Even if it was, say, within 50 years it would be an embarassment. |
Lawrence v Texas was only decided, as Mousie pointed out, only five years ago -- it overturned a successful prosecution. I think we can assume that, even with the traditionally glacial pace of the Federal judicial system, the original prosecution occurred less than 50 years ago.
|
The original arrest was in 1998. In the privacy of their own home. After a false report by a neighbour of gunshots heard. I'd say that's pretty embarrassing for the whole judicial system, or at least it should be.
Message edited by author 2008-12-20 03:49:05. |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 04:04:38 AM · #1908 |
OK. Having just read that the proponents of Prop 8 are now trying to nullify existing marriages, I have to say that I finally do accept that Evil Rulz! Bad is where its at! There is no basic good in people. No basic decency. This whole "do unto others" is mere hogwash. I am now one of the truly disenchanted. I hereby declare I will cut people off in traffic, be rude to anyone who dares get in my way, cheat on my taxes, and a myriad of other "sins". I will attempt all of that gleefully, and with no regard as to the feelings or lives of others. Merry Christmas, everyone!
Edit to add - Why spend so much effort, time and money to cause harm, when all of that could be used to help people instead?
Message edited by author 2008-12-20 04:44:52. |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 07:10:35 AM · #1909 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Edit to add - Why spend so much effort, time and money to cause harm, when all of that could be used to help people instead? |
Because our society is built on patriarchy and capitalism. For both to exist, someone has to be oppressed. If those in power go around letting the oppressed have to much freedom and equality, the oppressed will realize they are oppressed and rise up. If they rise up and overturn the status quo, those in power will no longer be in power.
Now we are back to your discussion with Achoo about power. Those who have it cling to it tightly. Those who don't have it want it and oppress those different from them to try to gain it. Some discriminate by class, some discriminate by color, some by religion, some by sex, some by sex preferences. Or any and all combinations of the above. As Kris Kristofferson says:
"'Cos everybody's got to have somebody to look down on.
Who they can feel better than at anytime they please.
Someone doin' somethin' dirty, decent folks can frown on.
If you can't find nobody else, then help yourself to me."
|
|
|
|
12/20/2008 12:31:19 PM · #1910 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
The original arrest was in 1998. In the privacy of their own home. After a false report by a neighbour of gunshots heard. I'd say that's pretty embarrassing for the whole judicial system, or at least it should be. |
Just saying if Mousie could have found this date, the statement would have had more impact. We are too used to spin these days and often assume it's there when it may not be. |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 12:41:10 PM · #1911 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
The original arrest was in 1998. In the privacy of their own home. After a false report by a neighbour of gunshots heard. I'd say that's pretty embarrassing for the whole judicial system, or at least it should be. |
Just saying if Mousie could have found this date, the statement would have had more impact. We are too used to spin these days and often assume it's there when it may not be. |
He said that the laws were in effect until five years ago. Just how do you think laws in multiple states could get changed all at once like that, without the SCOTUS overturning a current prosecution? Certainly you would have heard had several state legislatures all taken up action to remove anti-sodomy laws from the books .... |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 12:51:23 PM · #1912 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
The original arrest was in 1998. In the privacy of their own home. After a false report by a neighbour of gunshots heard. I'd say that's pretty embarrassing for the whole judicial system, or at least it should be. |
Just saying if Mousie could have found this date, the statement would have had more impact. We are too used to spin these days and often assume it's there when it may not be. |
He said that the laws were in effect until five years ago. Just how do you think laws in multiple states could get changed all at once like that, without the SCOTUS overturning a current prosecution? Certainly you would have heard had several state legislatures all taken up action to remove anti-sodomy laws from the books .... |
Wiki is useful for somethings... If you scroll down to the US section you will find the dates. In 2003, 15 states still had active sodomy laws overturned by the referenced supreme court case. |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 01:11:18 PM · #1913 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
He said that the laws were in effect until five years ago. Just how do you think laws in multiple states could get changed all at once like that, without the SCOTUS overturning a current prosecution? Certainly you would have heard had several state legislatures all taken up action to remove anti-sodomy laws from the books .... |
Paul, I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that as someone who isn't an expert in the field, knowing that someone was actually prosecuted under an anti-sodomy law in 1998 is more powerful than saying there were laws on the books in 2003. I'm just passing on a debating tip rather than trying to argue any point. Do you get that? |
|
|
|
12/20/2008 01:32:58 PM · #1914 |
| I guess I thought he had made his point by inference, assuming (erroneously) that everyone would understand that having the Supreme Court overturn a law (or laws) necessitates the existence of a current case. |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 07:49:18 PM · #1915 |
I can't decide whether to post this to the climate change thread, or the gay rights thread. Since the pope has done an excellent job of merging the two issues into the one global 'threat'
Pope puts stress on 'gay threat'
"Pope Benedict XVI has said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
He explained that defending God's creation is not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction."
Article here |
|
|
|
12/22/2008 08:02:05 PM · #1916 |
| Wouldn't that be the Rant thread for the ages! |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 05:13:51 PM · #1917 |
Originally posted by JH:
I can't decide whether to post this to the climate change thread, or the gay rights thread. Since the pope has done an excellent job of merging the two issues into the one global 'threat'
Pope puts stress on 'gay threat'
"Pope Benedict XVI has said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
He explained that defending God's creation is not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction."
Article here |
This is nothing new with the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul (previous Pope), held teachings of the Theology of the Body.
The Catholic Church is unflinching in it's stance on topics such as Right to life (Abortion and euthanasia) and
Homosexuality.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2008 05:28:32 PM · #1918 |
Originally posted by JH:
... He explained that defending God's creation is not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction. |
Self-destruction? Over population is a bigger threat than the Big Gay Menace. |
|
|
|
12/23/2008 05:36:59 PM · #1919 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by JH:
I can't decide whether to post this to the climate change thread, or the gay rights thread. Since the pope has done an excellent job of merging the two issues into the one global 'threat'
Pope puts stress on 'gay threat'
"Pope Benedict XVI has said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
He explained that defending God's creation is not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction."
Article here |
This is nothing new with the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul (previous Pope), held teachings of the Theology of the Body.
The Catholic Church is unflinching in it's stance on topics such as Right to life (Abortion and euthanasia) and
Homosexuality. |
They were also unflinching in the 17th century with Galileo but look what the Imperial Wizard Pope said last week about Galileo's support of Copernicus' findings. Link
They'll come around to understanding this as well one day. It's called evolution. lol |
|
|
|
12/24/2008 12:10:55 AM · #1920 |
Originally posted by Jac:
They were also unflinching in the 17th century with Galileo but look what the Imperial Wizard Pope said last week about Galileo's support of Copernicus' findings. Link
They'll come around to understanding this as well one day. It's called evolution. lol |
That's old news. John Paul acknowledged that in 1992. |
|
|
|
02/20/2009 06:59:58 PM · #1921 |
More French Couples Choosing Civil Unions
"For every two marriages held now in France, one heterosexual couple chooses the solidarity pact, the Post reported, noting 92 percent of the 140,000 couples choosing to be united by the pact in 2008 were heterosexual."
Say what? Straight French couples are choosing not to get married in favor of an alternate system created by their government to make sure homos like me can't get 'actually' married? A full half of them?
Wouldn't it be interesting if that rather shocking statistic were a trend? And what if the same thing happened right here in the good ol' US of A as a direct result of religious fundamentalists trying to forcibly divorce my husband and I while claiming they just want to protect the sanctity of a word (which is certainly NOT just catering to their own disgusted urge to prevent me from sharing the rest of my life with my grumpybear)? If that's truly their goal, to keep things separate, and it's not just an attempt to deny my existence, a separate system of civil unions seems the ONLY logical result apart from full marriage equality.
Could it be the conservative denial of my right to marry itself that could end up dismantling the institution of marriage as more and more sensible moderates choose to become one in the eyes of the law by selecting a new option without all that intolerant religious bullpucky tainting it?
Would that not be... ironic?
I mean, I liked having a 'traditional' marriage... but if my being forcibly divorced and the trashing of a (near) universal tradition is the fruit of THEIR labor... sign me right up! I'd NEVER get that smirk off my face.
Oh MAN! I'm a sucker for irony.
Questions for the conservatives:
How many straight couples NOT getting married is it worth to deny me my equal rights? What are the acceptable losses? Are you willing to watch total marriages drop by a half to make sure I can't have one? What about two thirds? Three fourths? Does the idea that you could lose so many to God's plan make you think twice about the means to your ends?
Who's really protecting marriage here? The people who want to share in a tradition, or the people who would deny it to others?
You reap what you sow, apparently. At least in France!
Message edited by author 2009-02-20 19:45:40. |
|
|
|
02/20/2009 09:16:19 PM · #1922 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
More French Couples Choosing Civil Unions
"For every two marriages held now in France, one heterosexual couple chooses the solidarity pact, the Post reported, noting 92 percent of the 140,000 couples choosing to be united by the pact in 2008 were heterosexual."
Say what? Straight French couples are choosing not to get married in favor of an alternate system created by their government to make sure homos like me can't get 'actually' married? A full half of them? |
A third, actually. Of every three couples, two marry and one opts for the solidarity pact. That's what it says.
Still, it's a fascinating statistic, somewhat explained by the following:
"The pact allows couples to file joint income tax returns, which can lower their annual tax bill significantly, and the unions can be dissolved without costly divorce procedures, said Irene Thery, a professor at France's Higher Institute of Social Sciences."
According to the article, these couples are seeing the pact as halfway between living together and getting married, for whatever that staement's worth...
R.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2009 09:24:14 PM · #1923 |
What I will never, EVER understand is why anyone thinks they can dictate how another couple can celebrate, and honor, their relationship and commitment.
Shame on them!
|
|
|
|
02/20/2009 10:24:35 PM · #1924 |
Peter, without wading into the entire debate in civil rights vs religious rights etc., I just want to tell you that I'm happy that you and your partner have found happiness together and I long for a day when Society accepts and respects Gay marriages the same as any heterosexual marriages.
I grew up with my great uncle being a Gay Rights Activist. He and my great Uncle-In-Law launched the first Canadian Legal Challenge in Canada in the Supreme Court of Canada. There was a documentary produced about their fight for equal rights and a book written about them. I heard their pain in trying to survive in the 1930's anti-gay world and saw how it has advanced some but, not remotely close enough to what it needs to be...even now! They both passed away in their late 80's a few years ago...within a 3 month span of one another. They had been together for over 50 years and never lost their love for one another. They lived long enough to see progress in their struggle for equal rights. I only hope that there will be a day when Gay Marriage and all other rights, truly ARE equal!
Bless your union, Peter! May it last as long or longer than my great uncles' marriage! |
|
|
|
02/21/2009 10:54:00 PM · #1925 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by JH:
I can't decide whether to post this to the climate change thread, or the gay rights thread. Since the pope has done an excellent job of merging the two issues into the one global 'threat'
Pope puts stress on 'gay threat'
"Pope Benedict XVI has said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
He explained that defending God's creation is not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction."
Article here |
This is nothing new with the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul (previous Pope), held teachings of the Theology of the Body.
The Catholic Church is unflinching in it's stance on topics such as Right to life (Abortion and euthanasia) and
Homosexuality. |
This is also the same doctrines that say that women can't be priests because Jesus was a man, based on Judaic "laws" in Biblical times where women were thought "unclean" and therefore, unable to enter Temple/Synagogue with men. :)
And, let's not forget that it advocates no birth control on top of its anti-abortion stance and they wonder why congregations are getting smaller and they're having problems getting priests into the priesthood. Yet, how many scandals have involved priests and pedophilia?
Kind of hard to swallow. |
|
