As the election gets near...

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

"Democracy" does not require us to outlaw Mormonism, vegetarianism, Asians, Uechi practitioners or anything else just because it is not the majority.


Nobody's outlawing gays. Now, certain communities have laws protecting people from having anonymous strangers in shirt-and-tie coming up at any hour to their doorstep to preach about the book of Mormon. And in most places it's illegal to open up a can of Uechi whoop-butt on the undeserving. Plus, nobody's saying the Vegetarian Mormon and the Asian Uechi practicianer can't marry. :wink:
In contrast, this country believes that we expend great effort to ... put a wheelchair ramp into Burger King.


Makes good commercial sense to bring in as many customers as possible. Isn't capatalism grand? Wonder how long it'll last under the newly annointed.
To protect the KKK as they march anonymously.


To hell with that. I want to see these idiots.
To provide protection for people facing political threats. To integrate the schools and military. To permit minority religion to flourish. *I* will always believe in and fight for the rights of others and minorities even when they are opposed to my rights, and America would be a better place if everyone else felt that way too.
Amen, and amen, preach it. Just don't tell California their legal system has to recognize Adam and Abe as bride and groom. ;)
Last edited by Jason Rees on Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Jason Rees wrote:
Every day some jerk tries to whittle down the rights that are supposed to be protected under the Constitution.

First up: the Fairness Doctrine. Your favorite advocates want to shove this down the throats of Americans. With unchecked majorities in the House and Senate, and a Dem in the White House, you can count on it.
This Fairness Doctrine (sic) is a most amazing thing in a country where we allegedly have free speech. If this makes it through, there will be all-out war in-between the parties. Forget about understanding, reaching across the aisle, minority rights, etc., etc.

The good news is that the economy is completely f-ed up right now, and the Democrats aren't likely to cure it with their Wall Street bashing attitude. That hopefully should keep the troublemakers busy until a changing of the guard.

- Bill
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

Bill Glasheen wrote: This Fairness Doctrine (sic) is a most amazing thing in a country where we allegedly have free speech. If this makes it through, there will be all-out war in-between the parties. Forget about understanding, reaching across the aisle, minority rights, etc., etc.
The Republicans are in a dire state right now, Bill. I think you're going to see tooth-and-nail fighting like never before, and a major effort on their leaderships' part to keep everyone in line and file. Dems are going to use their majorities and veto-proof Whitehouse to cram everything they can through the floodgates. Obama's talk about reaching across the aisle? I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think he will, and if he doesn't, it's going to get messy.
The good news is that the economy is completely f-ed up right now, and the Democrats aren't likely to cure it with their Wall Street bashing attitude. That hopefully should keep the troublemakers busy until a changing of the guard.
- Bill
I don't think even the economy is going to keep things un-screwed for four years, Bill. Personally, I'm hoping the government doesn't just grab everything and put it all under government control, under the excuse that 'there was nothing else we could do.'
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Did Palin cost McCain?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0811 ... lame_palin


EDIT:

Have to give FOX credit, their talking about it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPFPiP1Nv8c


Did she cost McCain?
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

"Nobody was attacked, Ian."

You must not have seen those Yeson8 ads! Or had your right to marry eliminated.

"Gays are free to join the military, Ian. They're just invited to keep their mouths shut about 'it.' Don't ask, Don't tell. It's not, "Don't Apply.""

Well, not quite. There are still a lot of witch hunts and expulsions of those who didn't tell. And anyone who's honest or lives a life risks getting booted. Straights don't risk expulsion if they slip up and say something revealing about a passing lady. Or a girlfriend back home. Or wear a ring. Or have a g-rated webpage about their home. Who else is asked to check their identities at the door? What would you think of a policy where Christians could join but if they spoke up or said a prayer or were caught with a cross it's discharge time? Hmm? Probably not so sanguine about that, once it affected you.

And what about those rights you don't have? I missed your response on that question.

"Where did I say they were?"

That's hyperbole to match yours. You said we were thumbing our noses at all that came before. We're against everything this country previously stood for huh? C'mon.

"Maybe not, but I'd be in pretty high demand*. I'd imagine replacing an aging workforce would be difficult in such a scenario. Now who's spouting nonsense?"

As you are well aware, my point was about the unfairness of the situation (which you acknowledged--thanks). It was NOT about the sustainability of a nation made up solely of same sex couples--your suggestion that it was is the "nonsense." No nation made up entirely of women, or EMTs, or military, or the old, would work too well either, but we don't use that as an argument to strip any of them of rights.

"Do I feel sorry about the 70 million the opponents of prop 8 spent trying to shoot it down? Heck, no."

70 million was the total on both sides. Yes people spent more (20 plus million from out of staters, mostly mormons). Am I asking you to feel sorry that I donated to a losing side? Not at all. I'm asking you--think think think!--what could proponents of strong marriage and healthy kids done with millions and millions of dollars besides spend it taking away someone's rights when that doesn't even change how we raise kids or our legal unions? They could have saved lives, supported orphans, contributed to marriage counseling, supported an amendment discouraging easy divorce for all--but no. Animus had to come first.

"But I guess you're used to having the courts for just that purpose. Bummer."

Hey, I'm proud of the rights our courts have advanced. Go birth control. Go interracial marriage. Go privacy in our own bedrooms. I don't see how that's bad at all. And I don't think it should be ignored that the courts, the papers, the governator, the President elect, the well educated, and the young all supported us in this fight. The country is changing, one step backward on the 4th, two steps forward shortly. The old prejudice is simply going to die off one day.

I don't know what you mean by the Fairness Doctrine.

As for your rights, the SCOTUS just made a huge advance in self defense with a recent ruling, freedom of speech is solidly protected (though I understand the losing VP nominee wanted to ban some books), everyone can still go to their churches, associate, and so on. No sign of the apocalypse you mention. And you simply will never understand what its like for people to come after YOU until it happens. You're afraid we ALL have attacks on our freedom to, eg, carry arms? Well, super. We ALL have that to worry about that, monster victory that just occurred aside. No one specifically came after Jasons or EMTs and their slice of the rights. You are worried about the nation's future as a whole; we all are. That doesn't mean you've fled from EMT bashers or been denied housing because of your work or faced laws that delegated a crummy second fountain for you to use. This is something that's hard to understand till you've been there (and I'll fight to keep that from happening). Or, maybe you can recharge your empathy sometime, if you want to have a united United States.

And it's GROOM (not bride) and groom, obviously. Stereotypes are... going out of fashion, slowly.

I HOPE Obama does reach across the aisle. I would... it would help me craft ideas like my neutral position on same sex marriage, and also see that we can work on embryonic stem cells with a minimum of tampering with new embryos, for those that are sensitive about the matter. Helps things get done. BUT, if he claims a huge mandate and steamrolls divisive politics and devastating wars along, based on false pretenses, partisan hackery and pseudocertain evangelical zeal, we'll be no worse off than for the last 8 years.

A little aside: all these posts later, and I've seen not a single justification for 8 besides the fact that "the voters could." Jeez, at least take my milk money because you're hungry.

*Cute that you think highly of yourself, but, as it turns out, we don't just jump at every self described desirable guy who has only negative things to say about our political travails and takes pride in a total lack of empathy. You'd be a lonely guy.
--Ian
Valkenar
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Post by Valkenar »

Gays are free to join the military, Ian. They're just invited to keep their mouths shut about 'it.' Don't ask, Don't tell. It's not, "Don't Apply."
No gays aren't free to join the military. They're free to join the military in the same sense a baseball player is free to use steroids. Sure, as long as nobody knows about it they won't get in trouble. Once someone finds out, the jig is up and they get kicked out.
Maybe not, but I'd be in pretty high demand :twisted:
No, you'd be a very sad and lonely person. Being the only straight man in a world of gay people would be very frustrating.

---
I looked up Fairness Doctrine and basically it's a stupid policy the FCC startedin the 40s and canceled in the 80s that mandated controversial issues be discussed on broadcast stations and that each side of the argument be given equal treatment. Similarly with regard politicians running for office. Broad leeway was given to interpret equal treatment.

As far as I can tell it was never a huge big deal, just a dumb idea that with some possible free speech implications. I hadn't heard about this before now, however. Personally I think it's a bad idea, but I'm not sure why you guys think it'll be a huge disaster. I mean, it was in place for decades, wasn't it?

Did I look up the wrong fairness doctrine?
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

AAAhmed46 wrote:Did Palin cost McCain?

Have to give FOX credit, their talking about it.

Did she cost McCain?
Palin was the largest draw in a vice presidential candidate since before even Lyndon Johnson, who drew +3. Palin drew +4 across the board, even accounting for those that voted against McCain, specifically because of her.

Did she cost him? No. Actually, Biden was a -1 across the board for Obama. Mull that one for a while.

No, what cost McCain were his multiple and confusing responses to the economic crisis. Once again, the Dems were able to put forth the boondogle that they somehow have a mystical bonus when it comes to economics. I wish them luck in propagating that fantasy over the next four years. This myth is long overdue for busting.
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

Valkenar wrote:
No gays aren't free to join the military. They're free to join the military in the same sense a baseball player is free to use steroids. Sure, as long as nobody knows about it they won't get in trouble. Once someone finds out, the jig is up and they get kicked out.
Man, now that's low. I've never equated being gay with drug abuse. How could you?!

Ian, come smack your boy around. He's gone off the deep end.
No, you'd be a very sad and lonely person. Being the only straight man in a world of gay people would be very frustrating.
You didn't get my point. I'm not surprised. I talked about this perspective thing already. How long do you think a world would be populated if it were entirely populated by gays? It'd certainly solve overcrowding...
As far as I can tell it was never a huge big deal, just a dumb idea that with some possible free speech implications. I hadn't heard about this before now, however. Personally I think it's a bad idea, but I'm not sure why you guys think it'll be a huge disaster. I mean, it was in place for decades, wasn't it?
Here we are with perspective again. A friend of mine had a solution for conservatives on this one. Blackball the media. refuse to do interviews. Then the other side couldn't get their ideas out without their medium being sued out of existence. It'd never work, because they'd just put someone in the conservative seat to throw strawmen at.

I think you got it right, just not on the ramifications. It is a dumb idea, and it does have free speech implications. Think about it for a while.
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

IJ wrote:"Nobody was attacked, Ian."

You must not have seen those Yeson8 ads! Or had your right to marry eliminated.
Jesus, Ian, what do you want? Disclaimers at the end of every political ad where someone disagrees with you, that says, "No gays were harmed in the filming of this ad." ? You're being overdramatic. I know it's personal for you. If it weren't, you wouldn't be writing essay-length responses to my little quips. Sit back. Breathe. Relax. No gays were harmed in the writing of this post. Nobody attacked. Get it? Just me, expressing my opinion. Just California voters, saying what they want.

Everybody says they don't like Constitutional amendments in this area. Everybody says they don't want the Federal government to get involved. But when the states (who everybody says they want to handle it at their level) do something you don't like, it's 'an attack. 'They did wrong.' 'The courts need to step in.'

Don't like it? Move to a state that allows it.
Straights don't risk expulsion if they slip up and say something revealing about a passing lady.
Here you don't have a bloody idea of what you're talking about. Sexual harrassment charges can end careers. And they can be slapped on someone for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person, or even about the wrong person.
Who else is asked to check their identities at the door?


Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Think we can talk about our religion freely? That's Proselytizing. Say a prayer? Even a chaplain has to parse his or her words carefully.

You act like the military's a little social experiment, a little microcosm of freedoms everybody else 'should' have. It's not. It's the military. We live our lives under a bloody microscope, Ian. We don't have that right to free association if our command doesn't approve of it, Ian. We're not allowed to write to the editor, if it might be anything our command disapproves of. If we get drunk, and a TV news camera catches us on video, we're screwed. Anything we do can 'reflect on the image of the U.S. Military.' If it's percieved negatively by the public, even if it was the right bloody thing to do, we can get slammed for it. So do I feel sorry for someone who can't live by 'don't ask, don't tell?'

Hell, no.
That's hyperbole to match yours. You said we were thumbing our noses at all that came before. We're against everything this country previously stood for huh? C'mon.
Oh, that's right. There arent' gay and lesbian parades, where punks make a mockery of religious images, symbols and personalities. Of course not. Gays couldn't be prejudiced. What was I thinking? They'd never do anything wrong. I hath seen the light, and it is a rainbow, thanks to brother Ian. :lol:
No nation made up entirely of women, or EMTs, or military, or the old, would work too well either, but we don't use that as an argument to strip any of them of rights.


Nobody was stripped of a constitutionally protected right. Marriage isn't a right. Why can't you admit that?
I'm asking you--think think think!--what could proponents of strong marriage and healthy kids done with millions and millions of dollars besides spend it taking away someone's rights when that doesn't even change how we raise kids or our legal unions?


What could opponents have done with their side of it, Ian? Food on the table of people who can't afford it seems a better use than forcing a government to grant a particular type of sex practicioners various alterations to government functions. And then just think what the proponents would have done with their money, if they hadn't had to overrule a bloody court that took it upon itself to legislate from the bench to overrule a law passed by the state legislature.

Damn, the webs men weave. Things could be so much simpler. But, no. You want that word marriage. They want that word marraige. And both sides of your silly argument are dead and determined to piss eachother off and to hell with everything else.
The old prejudice is simply going to die off one day.


And what about the new ones, Ian? When do we shake off the word 'homophobe?' How long will that one haunt everyone who disagrees publically with your groups' agendas?
I don't know what you mean by the Fairness Doctrine.


Look it up.
And you simply will never understand what its like for people to come after YOU until it happens.


LOL! This is a joke, right? I was the only white man within five blocks. It was not a cozy situation in a government housing project in downtown Battle Creek Michigan, all right? I've been the minority. So that sheds some light on your own prejudices, Ian. I've walked the other side of the street, and looked over my shoulder, walking home wondering if someone'd be gunning for me. I've been harrassed. I've been threatened by the majority. I've seen guns pointed in directions I'd rather they hadn't been. And for what? Because I existed. Not because I felt the need to tell people how I got my jollies off at night. Did I whine about it? Hell, no. I worked my arse off, got a better job, and moved the hell out of dodge. So don't talk to me about how you're so put upon, with your cozy VA doc job. Poor Ian, woe is he.
Stereotypes are... going out of fashion, slowly.


Are they, or are they just being replaced?
it would help me craft ideas like my neutral position on same sex marriage
Ian. Your position on same sex marriage? It's not neutral, man. Just a friendly hint. There's one side, and you're on it. Then there's the other side, and you don't care. That's not neutral.
A little aside: all these posts later, and I've seen not a single justification for 8 besides the fact that "the voters could." Jeez, at least take my milk money because you're hungry.
I haven't seen you justify why they shouldn't have passed it. Perspective? You don't want to see their side. They don't want to see yours.

A democracy allows you to express your ideas and have a chance of getting them passed into law. It also allows it of the other side. It's an open marketplace of ideas. Right now, your side's losing, because the people who are most vocal among you mock the everyday family, and mock the people who bring in the money to put food on the table at night. As long as you fight the majority, expect a tough fight.
User avatar
Jason Rees
Site Admin
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Location: USA

Post by Jason Rees »

Since we're talking about ballot initiatives, California wasn't the only state to pull off a gay marriage ban. Florida and Arizona did it too. But wait, in Cali not all is lost for the liberal bleeding heart crowd: a ballot initiative requiring more humane treatment of farm animals passed by a landslide.

Farm animals weren't the only winners in California. Parents were too: proposition 4, which would give a 48 hour wait period after parental notification before minors can have abortions, passed.

But Arkansas is the one Ian ought to really go off on, where voters approved a ballot measure banning unmarried couples from adopting or serving as foster parents.

Wow. Now, THAT's cold.

Nebraska's a bit behind on the times. They finally got around to passing a constitutional amendment banning state and local governments from giving preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity or national origin. What is this, the 70s? But wait... in Colorado, they're still not sure if the same measure passed there or not. Oh, and Nebraska passed a ban on affirmative action.

On the abortion front, South Dakota denied an amendment banning abortions except in the case of rape or incest. Gotta wonder which bothered them the most, the ban, or the exceptions. :evil: Meanwhile, Colorado rejected a measure that would have made abortion the legal equivalent of murder by defining human life as beginning at conception. Yay for not going overboard.

Michigan's gone completely off the deep end. A legislative measure to legalize medical marijuana has been approved, as has Proposal 2, which allows stem cell research. I'm beginning to rethink my retirement plans. :evil:

And one that ought to fire up Ian's pants, Washington State has joined Oregon, in putting Doctors in control of both life and death. Doctor-assisted suicide is now an approved treatment of all forms of maladies in that state. Hold on a moment while I cross Washington state off of my list of places to live as a senior citizen. Wouldn't want to get that chart mixed up.
User avatar
TSDguy
Posts: 1831
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am

Post by TSDguy »

Jason Rees wrote:Personally, I'm hoping the government doesn't just grab everything and put it all under government control, under the excuse that 'there was nothing else we could do.'
Uh, kinda late for that hope, aren't you? :(
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

AAAhmed46 wrote:
Did Palin cost McCain?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0811 ... lame_palin


EDIT:

Have to give FOX credit, their talking about it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPFPiP1Nv8c


Did she cost McCain?
Adam

First... Vice Presidential nominees don't win or lose campaigns, except maybe in REALLY close races. The last one I can think of that made a difference was JFK's choice of LBJ back in 1960. That was a close election, and Johnson helped bring Kennedy some southern votes that this New Englander with the Boston accent badly needed.

Second... It was the REPUBLICAN HANDLERS that went in and dressed the diva. Palin's style is to speak her mind and buy from thrift shops. The country club set within the Republican party viewed Palin as Elly May Clampett (The Beverly Hillbillies). THEY overhandled their nominee - trying to turn her into something that she wasn't. THEY thought they needed to dress up the Caribou Barbie. THEY brought in the racks of clothes with several sizes of each.

Big F-ing deal! Why is anyone talking about a woman's clothes? Sexist maybe??? Should we be judging whether or not the men are getting facials? Who uses Viagra?

To start with... Nothing makes me more sick living where I do (West End of Richmond) than this Country Club attitude. I send my son to nice schools so he'll have an academic advantage, and the spoiled brat teenage kids make him think he has to wear Lacoste and Polo or he won't fit in. (We're over that...) I'm still dealing with telling number 1 son why I really don't need a BMW - even though I do like them. (I'm saving for retirement, since Social Security will be dead in the water by the time I need it.) I'M the one trying to teach my younger son about looking beyond skin color, etc., etc. (Go figure... It's just the opposite of when I was growing up.)

That being said...

All this kiss-and-tell schit is nauseating. Every politician has to deal with it. You pay someone to bring them into your world to help you out. Then they go on after life in public service and cash in by writing Mommy Dearest.

It's a good thing that nobody's schit stinks in the Democratic party. They all have perfect marriages, don't drink, smoke, or do drugs, etc., etc. Last I heard, the pope was moving to canonize all Democratic presidents and their running mates for the past 2 decades. Saint Willie is first in line.

But seriously...

THE ECONOMY cost Republicans the election. It mattered not that the whole thing started with sub-prime loans foisted on banks by Carter and Clinton. (There are a few villains on Wall Street as well...) The climactic meltdown happened on Bush's watch, and the reigning party gets slammed. That's politics.

It is the cyclical nature of politics. Like a recession cleans the riff-raff out of our free market economy, a few rounds of Democrats in the White House should clean up the ranks of the Republican party. They have lost their fiscal restraint, and they NEED to be whacked. It'll all be reversed in 10 to 20 years, around about the time that some Democrat is caught doing an intern in the Oral Office.

Cigar anyone?

Image

Image

- Bill
IJ
Posts: 2757
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Location: Boston
Contact:

Post by IJ »

"Man, now that's low. I've never equated being gay with drug abuse. How could you?! Ian, come smack your boy around. He's gone off the deep end."

I think you have again forgotten the difference between an equation and an analogy.

"You didn't get my point. I'm not surprised. I talked about this perspective thing already. How long do you think a world would be populated if it were entirely populated by gays? It'd certainly solve overcrowding..."

You didn't get ours. The point is not about reproductive success, it is about the absurdity of giving someone an option they can't exercise and telling them its fair. I'll try again: "hey christian, everyone is allowed to only go to temple. So you have equal rights! Cheers!" Oh, remember my followup point that a totally homogenous nation of any type is done for?

"Jesus, Ian, what do you want? Disclaimers at the end of every political ad where someone disagrees with you, that says, "No gays were harmed in the filming of this ad." ? ... Sit back. Breathe. Relax. No gays were harmed in the writing of this post. Nobody attacked. Get it? Just me, expressing my opinion. Just California voters, saying what they want.."

I know you're deliberately not empathizing about this, but there is a difference between offering an opinion (I am frequently hard on religion and Bush Co; others take on liberals here every chance they get) and supporting legislation that has as it's sole purpose the elimination of other people's rights. Your inability to see why that bothers the targets is probably 100% related to your stated disinterest in understanding and your lack of experience with similar attacks. One paragraph up is the issue where you were asked to consider how you would feel if your only option were to marry a man, and instead of responding about how that might not please you or something, you have a tangential response about the reproductive success of a state with only gay men. That is "not getting it."* Then you have this "love it or leave it" reply--almost not deserving of response. What, I can't speak up for my rights in my own home state? I'm sure you would have told Alabama blacks the same thing in the 60s. :roll:

"Everybody says they don't want the Federal government to get involved. But when the states (who everybody says they want to handle it at their level) do something you don't like, it's 'an attack. 'They did wrong.' 'The courts need to step in.'"

I don't recall saying a thing about the federal gov't. And yes, there can be attacks at the state level. Of course?

"Here you don't have a bloody idea of what you're talking about. Sexual harrassment charges can end careers. And they can be slapped on someone for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person, or even about the wrong person."

Sigh. Do you really want to equate the way straights and gays serve in the military because straights can get into trouble for sexual harassment and gays can get in the same trouble for it AND be expelled for who they are? The POINT is inequity, why would you think I felt straights had total immunity?

"Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Think we can talk about our religion freely? That's Proselytizing. Say a prayer? Even a chaplain has to parse his or her words carefully."

Sigh. Again. Equity. When the words are carefully parsed at a gay military wedding, things will be equal. When gay partners get VA healthcare or housing. When they serve openly. We all know the military has restrictions-duh. We are talking about additional, unfair, and burdensome restrictions placed just on LGBs (well, I am; you're determined not to get it).

"You act like the military's a little social experiment, a little microcosm of freedoms everybody else 'should' have."

Ah, at least we found an issue you care about. You're getting PO'd. But you're missing the point. I'm not asking for a disco ball and a sex party. I'm asking that LGBs have the same right to serve openly and that all these pretenses about how we'll destroy cohesion and be blackmailed (don't ask don't tell facilitates that one) get dropped for the nonsense they are. There are a bunch of integrated military units which work just fine. Women were added with good success. Blacks were integrated despite the same objections about cohesion. Then, those LGB service members expect to be treated exactly the same and face the same restricted lives everyone else knows they'll get when they join. Meanwhile, your plan is to not care about DADT because some other unrelated restrictions apply to you. Evidently, these are the rights you were whimpering about previously--and yeah, that's restrictive. I would hate it. But remember: you had the freedom to choose it. *I* over a hundred hours a week for less than minimum after 8 years of higher education, and was under the thumb of the supervising doctors--and I am totally responsible for that choice, want everyone to be free to make it, and want everyone in the program to be treated the same. You don't catch me saying "well, the law that requires hispanics to work 60 hours a week is ok with me because I freely CHOOSE to work 100 myself."

"Oh, that's right. There aren't gay and lesbian parades, where punks make a mockery of religious images, symbols and personalities. Of course not. Gays couldn't be prejudiced. What was I thinking? They'd never do anything wrong. I hath seen the light, and it is a rainbow, thanks to brother Ian."

Do you know how many pride parades I've been to in my whole life? ZERO. I also find them objectionable. So don't lay that at my door. Don't tell me that everyone in a group should be punished for the actions of a few. Heck, the KKK members hold worse parades and you haven't asked them to lose their marriage rights. Black people commit more violent crimes, you want to take away their guns? Of COURSE some gay people are prejudiced; they're people. Another prejudice is assuming we're all the same.

"Nobody was stripped of a constitutionally protected right. Marriage isn't a right. Why can't you admit that?"

It's not something I have to "admit." Marriage has two meanings: religious and civil. Religious freedom (and the religious institution of marriage) should absolutely be left alone by the state. And there is no reason to restrict civil marriage to opposite sex couples. So why admit it? I don't believe it. Neither did the state Supreme Court. Those people were legal and state constitution experts. They're not perfect, but neither are they insane. If you think you, by stating your mere opinion that marriage is not a right, undid all the arguments that swayed these experts... well, maybe you're just tuned out.

"What could opponents have done with their side of it, Ian? Food on the table of people who can't afford it seems a better use than forcing a government to grant a particular type of sex practicioners various alterations to government functions."

Ok. I even asked you to think think think :) WE spent money because WE were under attack. We aren't going to lift a finger against anyone else so a similar battle can't occur. I would say that spending to defend yourself is a bit more valid than spending to eliminate the rights of others (their words). Besides, the government wasn't being forced--gay marriage was working without incident, and without alteration to anything except the gender part of the marriage form. Lastly, the fact that you think LGBs are just regular people who insist in having a different kind of sex tells me a lot. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that LGBs have an identity they don't choose that is independent of behavior. I'd be gay if I never had sex--just like you'd be straight if you never had sex.

"And what about the new ones, Ian? When do we shake off the word 'homophobe?' How long will that one haunt everyone who disagrees publically with your groups' agendas?"

Another word we should get rid of is "racist," because that hurts some racists' feelings. Yeah. I will agree with you that it is overused. There definitely ARE homophobes, like some suitemates in college who were so disgusted by my identity (once I told them 9 months in) they couldn't look at or speak to me. Then there are people who just disagree, like creationist housemate Ricky my 3rd year. We had many great discussions and he didn't have any irrational fear of me or I of him. He was NOT a homophobe.

"I was the only white man within five blocks...."

That's a scary situation you describe (the guns, not the black people). I'm glad you were equal under state law when that happened. You understand physical threat. You haven't had anyone come for your civil rights yet.

"Not because I felt the need to tell people how I got my jollies off at night."

Hey, that's pretty callous. That reminds me of the jerks that assaulted me and sent me death threats in Virginia. We don't get that out here in California. Here, me just being my discreet self is a non event just like it is for the straights. I don't consider them to be talking about their sexual proclivities if they talk about their kids, and they don't resent me if I bring my partner to an office partner. I no more tell people about my jollies than you told those people who threatened you that you were white. You just weren't hiding. And I'm not going to deride your problem as being due to your need to go tell everyone in a black neighborhood that you were white.** Because that's not how it was, and that would be--stupid and dismissive of me. By the way, I lived in a really sketchy area of Boston at the end of the orange line, carried a knife for protection, and had my car stolen. That was to save some $ for my future. I made my cushy job (not at the VA incidentally) just like you.

"Ian. Your position on same sex marriage? It's not neutral, man. Just a friendly hint. There's one side, and you're on it. Then there's the other side, and you don't care. That's not neutral."

IF I had said my position was that gay marriage should rule the land, I could see where you were coming from. That changes marriage in the eyes of some--although it is neutral in that everyone is free to do their own thing. BUT what I clearly said, several times in this thread alone, is that MY position is to take the government out of marriage and the religion out of civil unions. Let churches be free to pick the couples they marry. Let government give out civil unions without prejudice informing the selection. THAT is neutral. READ my posts.

As for the justification for 8, I see you still have none. Why shouldn't they have supported it? It made marriage unequal. It serves no legitimate government purpose. It was very costly. It distracted us from real issues facing California. It was divisive (neighbors were NOT battling on my street during the months of gay marriage; that only came with the nasty Prop).

As for the fight that my side is losing, what country are you writing from? This is a setback. This was a reaction, however, to tremendous gains. About 40 years ago gay people didn't exist. They had no voice, no legitimacy, and no rights. Now? Married gays in two states, CUs in many, discrimination protection in many areas, huge strides in visibility and tolerance. Yesterday two married couples sent me pictures of themselves and their NO on Prop 8 signs and bumper stickers in support and the ones with the 4 year old girl told me she was explaining to her Grandpa why she believed in marriage equality. The next generation clearly supports marriage equality. All in half a lifetime. Heck, that is an inspiring loss to have!

PS: what the heck are you talking about, we mock people who bring in money and put food on the table? Most of my gay friends are physicians, the remainder as other professionals, and in all the couples at least one cooks well. Just what is it you think we do at work and home? It's not satanic rituals, it's regular work and food on the table just like everyone else.

*additionally the analogous situation would be a state with men and women where marriage was limited to same sex couples, not an all male state.

**You know, you've been yammering on about your straight sexual practices and proclivities and jollies just as much as me recently. Why can't you people get through a day without shoving sex in everyone's faces? Hmm?
--Ian
Gene DeMambro
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Weymouth, MA US of A

Post by Gene DeMambro »

The whole thing started, Bill, when banks realizd that lending to markets (low income and inner city) that they typically shunned could make them money, they got drunk on the profits and made more and more bad loans - by choice.

Case in point: I just got approved for a mortgage. I purposely waited until I had a 20% dpwn payment and the hgihest credit rating possible before I applied - it took a while. The mortgage broker who brokered the loan stated that 8 years ago, no matter what your credit rating, if you had a job, you could get a mortgage. Well, things are different nowadays. Did the Community Reinvestment Act get repealed when nobody was watching? Probably not. Could be that banks are now using more rational underwriting standards, rather than throwing millions and billions to people who could not pay it back, with the banks not giving a damn one way or the other. And, most of the bad loans were made by entities that were not mandated in any fashion to make loans of the type mandated by the CRA.

The banks made the free market decision to make risky loans. Other banks and investment houses made the free market decision to buy and sell those same loans. Nobody - despite their and your protests to the contrary - made them do it. They made their bed all by themselves.

Cheers,
Gene
User avatar
TSDguy
Posts: 1831
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2001 6:01 am

Post by TSDguy »

And then the government rewards them for doing so. We need to take our yucky medicine and let the risky lenders fail so we can get better. But nope.
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”