|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:The hippies of the 60's turned into the Reagan voters of the 80's. The hippies of the sixties (baby boomers born in the late 40s and early 50s) are not the same generation as people born in the sixties who turned out in droves for Reagan.
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:The hippies of the sixties (baby boomers born in the late 40s and early 50s) are not the same generation as people born in the sixties who turned out in droves for Reagan. The hippies of the sixties are also not the same as the people in the same generation who were still pretty drat conservative.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Specifically, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon on February 12, 2004 in San Fran, which was later voided. Oregon also issued licenses that were later voided before Massachusetts. Mass just had the first ones to stick.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:The hippies of the sixties (baby boomers born in the late 40s and early 50s) are not the same generation as people born in the sixties who turned out in droves for Reagan. Yeah, but they're the same people today who think LGBT folk are subhuman. Hippies didn't gently caress like rabbits and do drugs all day while burning their draft cards because they gave a drat about feminism, civil liberties, or pacifism, they did it because they were selfish fucks who grew up in an entitlement culture of prosperity built on the absurd amount of money the US made off World War II. They happened to be on the right side of things when it came to the Vietnam War, but ultimately they were just pricks, and the way they're loving things up today reflects that. The hippie generation is almost the literal personification of FYGM, I swear.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
ThatsSoNotPLUR posted:Hey everyone I had a disagreement with a friend of mine last night. Where were the first gay marriages in the US performed? She said Massachusetts, I thought it was in San Francisco. 1971, Minnesota. Jack Backer, Michael McConnell. A Methodist minister officiated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Baker_%28activist%29#Same-sex_marriage_.E2.80.93_round_3 I love history. There were probably ones before then, but that's the first modern one. Edit: They were hip happening priests who could talk to the young, to paraphrase Doonsbury who was paraphrasing someone else, I'm sure. Before the internet, individual priests could follow their conscience without poo poo falling on them quite as hard, yeah. The one I cited actually had a valid marriage certificate. Of course, I'm pretty sure there was a gay and/or lesbian couple in the old west who got married in the eyes of god, and there were a good number of marriages to people who didn't happen to tell their significant other that they were the opposite sex of how they appeared. ... not making that up. Warcabbit fucked around with this message at 16:10 on May 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
In Dog Day Afternoon, Al Pacino's character is gay and says that he was able to convince a priest or minister to perform a wedding for him and his trans partner. It being the 70s everyone treats them like they're both literally insane though. Thing is, that was based on a true story. Were there like, rogue ministers back then who just said "gently caress it" and would perform gay marriages, legality be damned?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Specifically, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon on February 12, 2004 in San Fran, which was later voided. Oregon also issued licenses that were later voided before Massachusetts. Mass just had the first ones to stick. Actually, the earliest legally recognized marriages were otherwise illegally issued in the state of New Mexico on February 20, 2004!  quote:Dunlap's same-sex marriage licenses were never invalidated because the matter was never litigated to its conclusion after former Attorney General Patricia Madrid persuaded Dunlap to stop issuing them. A judge issued a temporary restraining order to stop Dunlap from issuing more same-sex marriage licenses, but that order expired. EDIT: I guess the Minnesota case would be the earliest filed, but the New Mexico ones are the first that have been (to my knowledge) de jure recognized as valid by state law (as opposed to de facto) and not eventually ruled void from inception. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 16:53 on May 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be pretty simple to get same-sex marriage legalised judically in New Mexico on that basis? I can't think of a defence the state could use to deny same-sex couples equal benefits or marriage (as there's nothing on the statute books) and it's a pretty gaping equal protection violation (even for marriage equality standards) if they tried.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Wouldn't it be pretty simple to get same-sex marriage legalised judically in New Mexico on that basis? I can't think of a defence the state could use to deny same-sex couples equal benefits or marriage (as there's nothing on the statute books) and it's a pretty gaping equal protection violation (even for marriage equality standards) if they tried. Most marriage laws are written in such a way that its abundantly clear they only apply to opposite-sex marriages even if they never actually thought to make it explicit. And the equal protection argument would be simple: the same-sex marriages that were issued were oversights, and the state isn't obligated to alter its marriage laws because of a few oversights nobody thought to correct. Plus the state would probably just take the position that although nobody had bothered to formally void them, they were void on their face without any need to go through any formal voiding process.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Yeah, but they're the same people today who think LGBT folk are subhuman. I'm curious to hear the basis for these claims. Keep in mind, there's a huge gulf between the "hippie generation" and actual hippies. Yes, a lot of the media back then focused on the young kids with their LSD and flowers and birth control, and a lot of people remember the social issues - but, truth be told, there weren't very many people who fit the hippie stereotype. They just got a lot of attention. There's a good chance that history will remember the early 21st century as the "hipster generation," but that doesn't mean that everyone between 20 and 30 right now is a hipster.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:I'm curious to hear the basis for these claims. True, but don't go confusing folks with actual knowledge and nuance. Remember, all previous generations are to be vilified because they didn't make society culminate in a Utopia for ME, when I was born. Talk about spoiled.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 10:48
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:I'm curious to hear the basis for these claims. Also the people who get classified as boomers in threads complaining about them for any reason from politics to childrearing goes well beyond what's traditionally considered the boomer demographic. Before 1945 back to about 1930 is the Silent generation and before that is the GI generation. The boomers stretch from 1945 births to slightly before 1965 or so when Generation X started to appear. The thing is that the Silent and Generation X generations are really conservative while the boomers aren't super left wing but are noticeably to the left of average. The super left wing boomers ended up getting burned out after failing to effect any change and dropping out of politics altogether. Maybe it was premature or maybe their tactics were far less effective than they thought they would be (I lean towards this personally) but the result has been a more conservative country than if they'd been successful.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 14:26
|
|
|
Hopefully we can put that stereotype to rest now: http://colorlines.com/archives/2012...28ColorLines%29quote:A new Washington Post-ABC News poll found 53 percent of U.S. voters believe gay marriage should be legal, a record shift in public opinion from just six years ago when support was at 36 percent. The poll also found people of color are more likely to support gay marriage than whites with black support at record high. While it was a relatively small sample, the data was still statistically significant. Still, I am happy with the result
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
Speaking of people of color supporting Marriage Equality, Colin Powell has announced his support.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Not Marriage Equality per se, but I couldn't think of a better thread to bring this video up in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU. "I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers, but I couldn’t get it past the Congress. Build a great, big, large fence — 150 or 100 mile long — put all the lesbians in there, fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified ’til they can’t get out. … And you know what? In a few years, they’ll die out."    On behalf of my fellow, non-murderously insane and non-bigoted Christians: I am so loving sorry. 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
Hmmm. Concentrating people... in places you might call camps. In order to wipe them out. A novel idea.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Hmmm. Concentrating people... in places you might call camps. In order to wipe them out. A novel idea. And, according to him: since gay people don't reproduce, it'll solve the homosexual problem, finally. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 00:19 on May 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:And, according to him: since gay people don't reproduce, it's solve the homosexual problem, finally. Just as Christ would have wanted. Right? 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Just as Christ would have wanted. Right? The Christian right is at best only passingly familiar with what Christ actually wanted, nor much of what he commanded his followers to do. Why, it's almost as if they take from the corpus of Christian thought and scripture only those parts that fit their preexisting wants and desires, to verify their piety and justify their hate and greed!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The Christian right is at best only passingly familiar with what Christ actually wanted, nor much of what he commanded his followers to do. Why, it's almost as if they take from the corpus of Christian thought and scripture only those parts that fit their preexisting wants and desires, to verify their piety and justify their hate and greed! Again: The rest of us are so, so goddamn sorry.  Sometimes I really feel like American Christianity stapling itself into the GOP might be the worst thing that's ever happened to either side. Spiritus Nox fucked around with this message at 00:30 on May 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
I should be offended but it's just so absurd I'm laughing.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Hmmm. Concentrating people... in places you might call camps. In order to wipe them out. A novel idea. Hey! It's not like the homosexual people were persecuted in the Holo... oh.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Don't worry. They're just digging themselves deeper at this point. Just think how people like that will feel in 10 years when approval for SSM is over 70%.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The Christian right is at best only passingly familiar with what Christ actually wanted, nor much of what he commanded his followers to do. Why, it's almost as if they take from the corpus of Christian thought and scripture only those parts that fit their preexisting wants and desires, to verify their piety and justify their hate and greed! Is there a site or something that compares/contrasts Christian right talking points and actual quotes from the bible? I am dealing with a guy and I just want to shut him down at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
NinjaPete posted:Is there a site or something that compares/contrasts Christian right talking points and actual quotes from the bible? I am dealing with a guy and I just want to shut him down at this point.  I always thought this did a rather good job of summing it up. I kind of like how 'Republican Jesus' is also a white guy with seemingly blonde hair.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 15:16
|
|
|
It really is worth reading the Four Gospels (first four books of the New Testament) if you haven't. They're the only four books where Jesus actually does his preaching, and it's generally lovely stuff. After reading them you'll probably say, "This stuff is great! I wish someone had founded a movement based on these principles!" Then go read Romans and 1 Corinthians, get to know Paul, and say, "Oh...this is where all the crap comes from."
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I should be offended but it's just so absurd I'm laughing. Yea it's one of those things like if he said gay people should be shot to the moon and guarded by a Death Star to keep us there. Like yea that's really a terrible thing to say but it's also so absurd and confused I kinda just wanna go 'aaaw, you have no idea what decade it is, huh buddy?'
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Hey! It's not like the homosexual people were persecuted in the Holo... oh. Remember, Scott Lively - the dude that did a number of anti-gay speeches throughout Uganda a few years back totally coincidentally right before they introduced their "kill the gays" bill - actually wrote a book claiming that gays ran the Holocaust. We're not just talking Ernst Rohm here, he actually believes that most SS officers were gay and Hitler recruited them specifically because of their violent gay urges. And the American Family Association, which reaches a startling amount of middle America and influences politicians up and including GOP presidential candidates, quotes his stuff at every opportunity. I know way too much about awful people.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Hopefully we can put that stereotype to rest now: http://colorlines.com/archives/2012...28ColorLines%29 Those results are backed up by two polls done by PPP showing huge increases in black support for marriage equality. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/maryland-polling-memo.html http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/05/pa-blacks-shift-quickly-in-favor-of-gay-marriage.html PPP posted:The movement over the last two months can be explained almost entirely by a major shift in opinion about same-sex marriage among black voters. Previously 56% said they would vote against the new law with only 39% planning to uphold it. Those numbers have now almost completely flipped, with 55% of African Americans planning to vote for the law and only 36% now opposed. I guess this makes some sense since given how many blacks were already with the Democrats on most other issues, their opposition to same-sex marriage was likely pretty soft in a lot of cases. Still though, I'm shocked that Obama's announcement appears to have had such a great effect.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Anything that removes a way for the right to play warring minorities to keep us all down is good.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:Remember, Scott Lively - the dude that did a number of anti-gay speeches throughout Uganda a few years back totally coincidentally right before they introduced their "kill the gays" bill - actually wrote a book claiming that gays ran the Holocaust. We're not just talking Ernst Rohm here, he actually believes that most SS officers were gay and Hitler recruited them specifically because of their violent gay urges. And the American Family Association, which reaches a startling amount of middle America and influences politicians up and including GOP presidential candidates, quotes his stuff at every opportunity. Homosexuality in the Third Reich is actually a sorta weird subject, both because of Roehm and other gay men in the SA and also how the SS dealt with internal instances of homosexuality. In short: while Hitler wasn't a fan and ranted about the degeneracy of gays in society, it really wasn't a high priority for him and could be mitigated against by simultaneously having virtues he liked; this is one of the reasons he looked the other way for Roehm and others in the SA, incidentally. The real driving force of persecution of homosexual men (and it was mostly men, lesbians are a whole different question) was Himmler, who I will employ startling understatement in describing as a prude. One good read on the subject is Geoffrey Giles's Why Bother About Homosexuals?, which I usually assign my undergrads whenever I teach a Holocaust history course.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:Not Marriage Equality per se, but I couldn't think of a better thread to bring this video up in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU. This follow-up from one church member is even more worthy:Anderson Cooper 360 posted:
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 21:55
|
|
Stacy, I know you're a defender of Pastor Worley, and I appreciate you coming on the program. Do you agree with his statements that he said on the pulpit, that gays and lesbians should be put in -- behind electrified fences until they die out? 
I believe that that was taken -- I mean, yes, he said that, but of course, he would never want that to be done. Of course, people are going to take it and make it their own way and make it into what they want to. But I agree with what the sermon was and what it was about. |
If there's one thing we need a whole lot more of, it's reproduction of the human race.
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
His church as a whole is standing behind him though apparently. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/05/flock-stands-by-pastor-who-calls-for-eliminating-gays/1#.T76g1c3-2KV quote:"He had every right to say what he said about putting them in a pen and giving them food," Sims says. "The Bible says they are worthy of death. He is preaching God's word." Concentration camps: 100% God approved quote:Another church member, Stacey Pritchard, agrees. Being gay is like having the hiccups, if you scare them enough it goes away.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
e: let's move this to the American Meltdown thread
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:14 on May 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
Maryland Crosstabs Support from young people is lower than average but support from everyone else is much higher.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
Lambda Legal and ACLU are filing marriage suits in Illinois tomorrow. Seems like a Dem legislature would have passed a marriage law in 2013 anyway, but this will surely move things along.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
I'm debating an idiot about gay marriage, and he asked me a question which, embarrassingly, I don't have a good answer to. Among the usual talking points, he went down the traditional slippery slope of "if we allow gays to marry, we should just allow polygamy and incest!" I addressed the polygamy issue, and responded to the incest point by talking about genetic diversity and correlation with birth defects. His response was to ask why we shouldn't permit incestuous gay marriage, or incestuous straight marriage with adopted kids. I admit I kind of find myself stumped on this point. Anyone have any tips on how to respond? I suppose I could say "if they're not having kids, who cares" but he'd stop taking me seriously and think I'm some kind of satanic pervert.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 09:20
|
|
|
Power dynamics. It's extremely easy for a family member, especially an older one, to pressure someone into something like that.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 10:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
Ask him what they have in common with other gay people other than being gay. It's nowhere near a valid comparison. If he wants to talk about incestual marriages then let him know he's changing the subject.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 10:19
|
|
