|
rypakal posted:I like that we live in a world where we can just be happy that they didn't choose the African Cardinal who literally lobbies for executing homosexuals. It's a "step in the right direction." Well, no, the step in the right direction is the pope who shifts the rhetoric from 'all gays are bad AND they can't marry' to 'look respect the people at least but yea they still can't marry'.
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Yeah, this is a church that only pardoned Galileo a couple decades ago. It's not exactly built for speed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=?embed?pyPB6bQsZwA In New Zealand, Chris Auchinvole, Presbyterian Minister and member of parliament speaks at the aforementioned second reading. Honestly it's pretty neat just for his accent. ANZAC accents are pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Republican Senator Portman of Ohio supports marriage equality after his son came out.quote:"The overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible, and certainly the Golden Rule, and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker, that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue," Portman said, adding that he feels that "in a way, this strengthens the institution of marriage." 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 11:07
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Yeah, this is a church that only pardoned Galileo a couple decades ago. It's not exactly built for speed. He's Scottish  It was a good speech. I liked Lianne Dalziel's just for the  against Graham Capill. The /embed in your url is messing up the link by the way.The change from 80-40 to 77-44 between readings was four National Party MPs changing their votes to No, and Labour MP Raymond Huo who abstained for the first vote, voted Yes in the second.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Republican Senator Portman of Ohio supports marriage equality after his son came out.  Ugh. His son came out two years ago. quote:While in Congress, he supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and voted for a bill prohibiting gay couples in Washington from adopting. It'd be nice if he thought of the millions of people his votes effected whenever he cast them. Anyway, Ohio now has 2 senators who support gay marriage in a state with a constitutional amendment banning it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 12:12
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:
I'll take a belated change of heart on gay marriage any day. More and more big-time Republicans coming out in support means that the tide is really shifting in the proper direction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 12:30
|
|
|
He doesn't deserve rapturous applause just for being a decent human being on this but it is pretty significant that a prominent politically active Republican has come out in support- normally they wait until they're out of office so they can get attention for their 'brave stance' without any downsides. Hopefully as we gradually see more Republicans coming out in support we'll see the GOP become not lovely on this issue at least, the smarter ones must know they're fighting a losing battle here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
This probably explains why he wasn't VP nominee, or at least would have eliminated him from the running early in vetting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
greatn posted:This probably explains why he wasn't VP nominee, or at least would have eliminated him from the running early in vetting. I mean, Mitt Romney clearly stated that it was *not* due to this that he was not selected. Not that Mitt Romney lies, ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Offtopic, but do you have more information on this .gif? Did the driver live to tell the tale?  Ontopic, I guess this is good news, the anti-equality position is slowly but surely becoming exclusively recognised as terrible, even by those on the right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
Portman's announcement has to do a decent bit to sway some votes in IL and MN, I mean Portman's had to look at it and decide that this is not going to be enough of an issue within 3 years that he doesn't needs to worry about being primaried by some crazy person over it. I don't expect any real change in GOP levels of support, but it should at least sway those Democrats who are still not keen on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Today in "There's always more, and they're always worse": Portman looks to be only supporting Marriage Equality because his son came out, but can you really say he's as bad as the rest of the Right-Wing in the US?   From the Government is Not God-PAC: quote:Portman has conveniently ignored the warnings against the sin of homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments – and is accepting a behavior that may eventually kill his son from AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, or oral cancer. Homosexual sex is ultimately just as destructive as cocaine use. Would Portman suddenly call for the legalization of cocaine if his son had announced that he was a cocaine addict? Would that be 'loving' and 'compassionate'? What sort of core values motivate a U.S. Senator to change his mind about a sexually destructive behavior simply because his son is involved in it? What will happen to Rob Portman’s belief system when he discovers that his son is infected with HIV or throat cancer? A person with a same-sex attraction has a treatable condition. No one is 'born gay' and there is hope for those who want to overcome these destructive behaviors. While it's good that he's on the right side of history, but it would be better if he'd specifically call out these creatures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
The irony in him making this statement is that it actually makes the point that, yes, being gay is not in the same category as "sins" like bank robbery. If the son came out as a bank robber, his father's reaction would be different. Because it's not even remotely the same thing as coming out as gay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
rypakal posted:I like that we live in a world where we can just be happy that they didn't choose the African Cardinal who literally lobbies for executing homosexuals. It's a "step in the right direction." There's the ideal situation and there's being realistic. I'm sure we'd all love the ideal situation of a Pope who was cool with gays and would personally bless their union but that isn't realistic. One who isn't about to exterminate them is good. You can't let yourself get bogged down constantly with the "If it doesn't match the ideal it's not worth being happy for" because the constant depression will basically kill you. If watching gay marriage in the US has taught me anything it's that you take solace in the little victories, because it means things are moving forward at all, instead of stagnating or God forbid, going back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:The irony in him making this statement is that it actually makes the point that, yes, being gay is not in the same category as "sins" like bank robbery. If the son came out as a bank robber, his father's reaction would be different. Because it's not even remotely the same thing as coming out as gay. Pretty sure in Fischer's mind they really are the same. Bryan J Fischer posted:Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and 6 million dead Jews.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:Because it's not even remotely the same thing as coming out as gay. Mom, Dad, sit down. There's something I need to talk to you about. You know how you are always asking why I haven't just found a branch to keep my money in, or how I should look into CDs and investing with a local bank, and its time you knew why. I'm a bank robber. I've tried for years and years to not be a bank robber, but every time I can never see myself just keeping my money with a bank. I need to rob it. I am a bank robber and that's who I am.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
staticman posted:Today in "There's always more, and they're always worse":
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:I'm really sorry but I IRL burst out laughing when I read that gay activities can give you oral cancer. You see, women sucking dicks is quite different than men sucking dicks because cum works with magnetic field rules
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:I'm really sorry but I IRL burst out laughing when I read that gay activities can give you oral cancer. I'm just trying to think of a gay activity that would give you oral cancer that doesn't have a straight equivalent that would give women oral cancer and they seem cool with that. Like if every dudes junk just causes cancer through casual contact shouldn't they be advocating for artificial insemination or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Mom, Dad, sit down. There's something I need to talk to you about. I'LL HAVE NO FEDERAL FUGITIVES IN THIS HOUSE That's exactly what your goddamn father would say! Your son can't help but point guns at tellers! It's who he is! e: Double irony is that he'd probably see these ironic posts as supporting the notion that accepting DEM SINNRS for who they are as absurd 
Cactus Ghost fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Mar 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Mom, Dad, sit down. There's something I need to talk to you about. Are...are you sure? Maybe you just haven't found the right institution. I know a nice little local credit union I could help you join--it's not too high-end, nothing fancy, but they have such excellent interest rates. Let me just give them a call so we can arrange a visit...
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, a tribe in Michigan, has officially become the 3rd Native American tribe to recognize and legalize gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
cafel posted:I'm just trying to think of a gay activity that would give you oral cancer that doesn't have a straight equivalent that would give women oral cancer and they seem cool with that. Like if every dudes junk just causes cancer through casual contact shouldn't they be advocating for artificial insemination or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 13:56
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Mom, Dad, sit down. There's something I need to talk to you about. I mean we all pretty much knew it already. John has been your "roommate" for seven years now, and bank robbers always have a driver. What's important is that you're our son, and we love you. This just reminds me of the best gay marriage piece I think has ever been done. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton publicly backed gay marriage this morning, to no one's surprise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
cafel posted:I'm just trying to think of a gay activity that would give you oral cancer that doesn't have a straight equivalent that would give women oral cancer and they seem cool with that. Like if every dudes junk just causes cancer through casual contact shouldn't they be advocating for artificial insemination or something? Just more fodder for the "HPV vaccine will create whores" crowd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Dead Beef posted:Oral sex with someone who has HPV (which is common) has been associated with the development of throat cancer. This is especially pointless when you consider a CDC study in 2011 found that roughly 90% of heterosexuals have oral sex with opposite-gender partners. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf (Also ~40% have anal sex too.) Not to derail but there really isn't a great reason to oppose wiping out the HPV that can cause cancer. --- HRC (the person, not the organization) cut an ad for HRC (the organization, not the-- well, also for the person) supporting same-sex marriage. I was under the impression that she had supported this as early as New York's push for legalization a couple years ago; is this apparently the first time she's out-and-out said it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Hillary Clinton publicly backed gay marriage this morning, to no one's surprise. "Prerequisite for running for president in 2016," the cynical part of me says.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:"Prerequisite for running for president in 2016," the cynical part of me says. Prerequisite for running in 2016 isn't cynicism, that's wonderful news. If the issue is dead on the democratic side and you have to be pro gay marriage to compete in a big primary, that's the bees knees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:"Prerequisite for running for president in 2016," the cynical part of me says. That's kinda the wrong way around. I think most Democrats have been for same-sex marriage for years, but it's been a non-starter for national candidates until recently. I don't think anybody can seriously believe that John Kerry actually opposed same-sex marriage in 2004, or that Barack Obama opposed it in 2008, but you had to play the game to get into national office. Now the tide has turned and opposition to same-sex marriage is a dealbreaker for Dems. It's why Democrats and liberals, while kinda pissed at Obama's hemming and hawing over Prop 8 and more recently the NC referendum, understand that it's the game of politics. Because of our political system, we're not gonna have same-sex marriage through Congress-- not soon, if ever-- and remaining mum wasn't an issue that would lose votes, whereas supporting would have. The country's changed heavily in the last decade, and Dems can come out of the closet as supporters of equality and not lose votes-- indeed, if they don't, they're a non-starter. EDIT: I think you'd have to go a ways back to find a presidential candidate that legitimately opposed same-sex marriage in sincerely held beliefs running for the Dems. If I had to guess I'd say Carter-- Mondale doesn't seem like he'd give a poo poo, Dukakis is for it (or at least is now), Clinton was at worst opposed for political reasons, Gore was probably for it-- although it wasn't an issue at the time, so who knows-- and Kerry was almost indisputably for it despite public statements. Teddybear fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:I think you'd have to go a ways back to find a presidential candidate that legitimately opposed same-sex marriage in sincerely held beliefs running for the Dems. If I had to guess I'd say Carter-- Mondale doesn't seem like he'd give a poo poo, Dukakis is for it (or at least is now), Clinton was at worst opposed for political reasons, Gore was probably for it-- although it wasn't an issue at the time, so who knows-- and Kerry was almost indisputably for it despite public statements. Don't know if he supported it when he was president, but Carter has come out in support of same-sex marriage since.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Even Obama, I remember a goon posted a while ago how his wife had been to a closed door fundraiser during Obama's original senate campaign in 2004, and someone asked about gay marriage and he said "Of course I'm in favor of gay marriage,(which everyone already knew anyways if you look back on 90's Obama record) but it's not a politically viable position right now"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
New Jersey's Senate panel okayed a bill to ban anti-gay conversion therapy for minors, 7-1. It now goes to their full Senate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Even Obama, I remember a goon posted a while ago how his wife had been to a closed door fundraiser during Obama's original senate campaign in 2004, and someone asked about gay marriage and he said "Of course I'm in favor of gay marriage,(which everyone already knew anyways if you look back on 90's Obama record) but it's not a politically viable position right now" Yeah. Anyone who has thought with any seriousness that the Democrats have been anti-gay since Reagan et al went full evangelical is a bit silly. There has been really lovely laws passed with Democratic support, but that's politics-- DADT and DOMA were compromises, albeit lovely ones, that tried to avert outright bans on gays in the military and a threat of a national ban on any same-sex marriages. I don't really blame Clinton for those passing; the alternative was a shitshow 1996 election, a high risk of a Dole presidency, and worse laws passing. It's been a pain in the rear end dragging the country towards accepting gay marriage and LGBT rights, but we're getting there in no small part because of the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Also gay marriage support has reached a new nationwide high according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, with 58%.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:Yeah. Anyone who has thought with any seriousness that the Democrats have been anti-gay since Reagan et al went full evangelical is a bit silly. There has been really lovely laws passed with Democratic support, but that's politics-- DADT and DOMA were compromises, albeit lovely ones, that tried to avert outright bans on gays in the military and a threat of a national ban on any same-sex marriages. I don't really blame Clinton for those passing; the alternative was a shitshow 1996 election, a high risk of a Dole presidency, and worse laws passing. Yeah, most of the anti-gay legislation was a specific blowback to Clinton's full-throated (for the time) embrace of gay rights well before the rest of the country. He didn't want DADT: he wanted fullscale integration and only agreed to DADT to prevent Congress from writing the discrimination into law even more firmly. DOMA was thought up as a wedge issue by the Republican party as a prop for Dole's campaign when Hawaii made the tiniest of mutters towards gay marriage, and passed overwhelmingly. A veto would have imperiled his re-election for a mere moral victory. We can debate if Clinton should have made a stand anyway even though it would have dailed, but it's not really debatable that he didn't like the law and didn't want it, but he couldn't actually stop it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:Also gay marriage support has reached a new nationwide high according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, with 58%. Nostalgia4Infinity posted:"Prerequisite for running for president in 2016," the cynical part of me says.  Cynical? If this is true I'd be loving overjoyed, for multiple reasons.1) Hillary 2016.  2) The Republicans are hosed as a party if they choose to oppose gay marriage. Again, 81% support from people 18-29. 3) Public support for gay marriage from a national party is a Very Good Thing. 4) The right will be a white-hot storm of frothing rage, and when they lose it will be GLORIOUS to behold. This all presumes the Supreme Court doesn't just completely legalize gay marriage come June, which I'm seriously thinking is possible now. No one wants to be on the wrong side of history, and if you really can't see which way the wind's blowing, you must have your head buried in the sand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
fade5 posted:This all presumes the Supreme Court doesn't just completely legalize gay marriage come June, which I'm seriously thinking is possible now. No one wants to be on the wrong side of history, and if you really can't see which way the wind's blowing, you must have your head buried in the sand. A 6-3 decision with Roberts and Kennedy joining the left isn't as looney toons as it was a year or two ago. Earlier someone posted the "argument from the future," where it's fairly clear how this is all gonna shake out in the next few decades, and it would be vastly better for someone's legacy to be on the winning side of this and be viewed as a champion for LGBT rights or as a backwards hick. In addition to wanting to settle the issue once and for all (and how well did THAT turn out I guess), this kind of legacy argument was part of the rationale in having a unanimous court in Brown v. Board. (Although there was a link somewhere to a hypothetical dissent that Scalia would write in Brown v. Board that was more spot on than I feel comfortable with.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:In addition to wanting to settle the issue once and for all (and how well did THAT turn out I guess), this kind of legacy argument was part of the rationale in having a unanimous court in Brown v. Board. (Although there was a link somewhere to a hypothetical dissent that Scalia would write in Brown v. Board that was more spot on than I feel comfortable with.) There is a remarkably high chance that if he is not in the majority in the Prop 8 case, Scalia's dissent will exist, and it will be angry and bitter and downright spiteful. That said, the DOMA case is an entirely different animal, and near as I can tell all bets are off as to how that goes down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 16, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:There is a remarkably high chance that if he is not in the majority in the Prop 8 case, Scalia's dissent will exist, and it will be angry and bitter and downright spiteful. That said, the DOMA case is an entirely different animal, and near as I can tell all bets are off as to how that goes down. I almost don't care how the opinion comes out as much as I want Scalia to write a minority dissent because it will be *glorious*.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:19
|
|
