|
Riptor posted:Don't blame me; I'm from Massachusetts Massachusetts is the best state.
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
ungulateman posted:Hyperbole? On the Internet? Say it ain't so! By what metric? No one's arguing that there were pockets where liberalism had more push but you're suggesting a very strange notion right here. By what metric is Reagan more liberal than literally any and all politicians today in America? Are we counting congress? I'm sure you could find more than a handful in the right states like Massachusetts or California. If Reagan was more liberal than anyone today why is the only serious push for gay marriage that has a chance of succeeding actually happening today and not during the Reagan years? Don't romanticize the past out of a legitimate desire to prove that politicians could afford to lean a little more to the left.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
I should be offended but it's just so absurd I'm laughing.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Using overly complex wording is pretty much how people dupe the average person, so having it using straight language should be a positive thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Additionally, why is what marriage was "for" even relevant? I mean sure, marriage was at one point seen as a contractual obligation to streamline the passing of wealth etc. to children, but we don't generally see it that way today. It can still help to serve that purpose but it's no longer viewed as the primary reason to get married. Institutions can evolve over time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
Not to discredit you but can you give a citation for "most americans" would find that acceptable? Literally everyone I know would think that's ridiculous. What the marriage laws are isn't really the end all because they've been on the books so long people just don't bother changing them. On the surface Japan has an age of consent law of 14 but every regency uses a higher age so it doesn't really apply, not to mention just plain socially that wouldn't fly. RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Aug 20, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
Yeah considering the marriage would not be recognized at the federal level I assume any attempt would be denied and those that slipped through might be considered fraud.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2012 12:49
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Just got back from a truly surreal experience. Had Sunday family dinner at my overwhelmingly conservative father's household to find out that everyone of registered voting age voted for WA State's R74. And half of them even voted for marijuana legalization. This is a Fox News household. I'm not even sure what to make of all this. I find that a lot of conservatives that don't live in the deep south are coming over to legalizing gay marriage, even if its just in a "doesnt hurt me so whatever" point of view. The way the atmosphere has changed is really something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
This year has really convinced me how much Same-sex marriage has turned around in the US. I was fully expecting to take Maine and Washington, with Maryland and Minnesota failing to impress. Instead we went 4/4 which is just phenomenal. This is on top of all the other developments we got this year like the ruling on DOMA. Couple more years and we could be looking at something from the federal level.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 13:05
|
|
|
GyroNinja posted:In blue states, at least. It's going to be a long while before we see a gay marriage bill pass in Alabama... The more blue states that pass it means more momentum to push it at a federal level, and if that happens the red states will have to go along with it. It'll be desegregation mark II. They'll kick and scream and try and circumvent the law but ultimately will have to put up with it and it'll be sweet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
Yeah this isn't something you want to drop a bomb on too early and have it turn on you. If it fails it could be a bigger setback. The rate things are going the opportune time is fast approaching, it's just not quite yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:By the way, did everyone hear? The APA has stricken "gender identity disorder" from the Manual of Mental Disorders. That's right; you are no longer officially insane if you are transgender. Not quite a marriage equality issue, but I thought I'd share. A small victory, but an important one. Eh...As someone both transgendered and a Psychology major it's more nuanced change than that. The "disorder" label is a holdover from a more regressive time which is why people didn't like it, but I always felt the disorder meant the lack of congruence between body and mind, so the solution is you either cure the body or the mind. Traditionally the attempt was to cure the mind, not unlike "cure the gay" treatments which of course is wrong. Today they tend to favor "Curing" the body, through hormonal regiments and sex reassignment surgery. This obviously isn't going to change, that's generally exactly what trans people want. They're going to continue to deal with it in this manner. The big picture doesn't change, other than dressing it up in a name that people like more. The more subtle changes are in how it's diagnosed. The old diagnosis was very presumptuous and made a lot of symptoms that were not universal (Example: One of the old symptoms was an insistence on dressing up like the opposite sex and insisting they WERE that in childhood. I personally did not do this in childhood, it came around my teen years and by then I kept it repressed due to embarrassment) RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Cousin marriage is legal in many states, or not actually banned. Same thing with bestiality as a matter of fact. Don't individual states have certain requirements though, like some where it's legal you can marry a second cousin but not a first? Or I remember hearing at least one had to be infertile in at least one state?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
It's easy when you've been indoctrinated to only see them as hedonistic monsters, and everyone you know in your family, community and congregation reinforces those notions so you never have to actually meet a gay person in any setting that isn't heckling them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
vickser posted:Is this ingrained in a machismo-laden culture or is it religious conservatism? Comparing the Northeast or West Coast to the Southern US is about as good as comparing Sweden to England on Gay's rights to be honest. It's just as unfair to put a blanket on "US conservatism".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Speaking as a trans woman I have concerns that, along with him not talking about trans people, it'll perpetuate the myth of Stonewall being a white middle-class gay riot. Im in the same boat but as much as it sucks even the GLB part of the acronym already tends to throw us under the bus when convenient. Trans people are just a harder sell because the idea of physically changing yourself scares people (among other things "oh my god stealth gays!"). Given we're on the cusp of gays actually getting rights, I feel the best course of action is to support that, and when that's handled we have an avenue to proceed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
Edit: Wrong Thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 10:49
|
|
|
Man that is amazing, it's like perfect conservative anger fodder. "Obamas gonna allow gay mexican illegals into our nation!!!"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
I think Obama will want to work on dismantling DOMA this just isn't directly going to cause it. More like "well I'll get around to dismantling DOMA eventually so I better prepare for it in this bill."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 12:24
|
|
|
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/lon-burnam-texas-gay-marriage-_n_2687649.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular This is from a few days ago but I didn't see it here. A Texas rep is proposing a gay marriage bill. I mean obviously it's likely to die, but I thought it was compelling that a Texas lawmaker would at least make the attempt. RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 11:55 on Feb 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 11:40
|
|
|
Oh yeah I know that Texas isn't all red and the cities in particular can be pretty blue. I still found it surprising.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:The GOP as a party tends to be pretty shortsighted, and conservatives in general are, well, conservative and resistant to change. Even on a state level it's going to be pretty hard for the party to adapt to changing demographics until the writing is on the wall and the left-moderates are running things in Austin for the first time since forever. Bush was probably the last chance that the GOP had to capture the Latino vote and they (GOP) didn't want it so yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:I don't think the anti-segregation/CRM moved this fast. Jesus loving christ. I'm sure it's a cliche but the rate that news travels, and the prevelance of social media, has probably done a ton to convince more people it's a cause worth fighting for and impossible to ignore.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
Yeah that's true too. A lot of people have drawn parallels between the GLBT movement and the 1960s civil rights movement, and there are legitimate comparisons. Being able to compare to that probably was a powerful motivator for people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2013 12:05
|
|
|
It was talked about in length in the Pope thread and a pro-gay marriage Pope isn't happening. At the very least this is much better than Turkson who had "Exterminate the gays" on his agenda. At least Francis says to respect gays as people even if he doesn't want them to get married.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:This motherfucker should be shot into the sun. He was a vocal, ardent, fire-and-brimstone anti-homosexual crusader until he finds out his son is gay. He should be raked over the coals for being a spineless shitheel who's incapable of empathy until it effects him personally, in which case nepotism takes over. Well I mean what do you want? That's actually really common and it's actually a great thing he didn't disown his son and instead realized that gays are people too. You can't change the past, he was and always will be anti-gay in his actions up till now, so what's an "Acceptable" reason to change? Family is the most legitimate one I can think of. Right wingers who come over to our side should be applauded because it's the only way they'll learn. If you're going to insist on hating them no matter what they do they will continue to be anti-gay out of spite until they die and that's not what we really want. You don't have to like the guy, or think it absolves him of his past actions, but changing sides because you realize it affects your family is startling common.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 11:50
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality#Links_to_homophobia While it's true that raging homophobes do show a higher correlation of being secretly gay (overcompensating for shame they feel etc.) I do think it's important to remember it's not 100%. If you do so you're feeding the persecution complex of those that are just kinda lovely people by trying to "convert" them. I also think measuring arousal level is a poor metric because both sexes can get aroused at inopportune times.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:So Uruguay will now have legal same sex marriage and legal marijuana. Maybe it will replace the Netherlands as the Sodom du jour among US conservatives? Never really heard a US conservative bash Netherlands (possibly cause it's white people), just that it's the place backpacking college kids dream of going to.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
I think it ends up sounding like a logical compromise on its surface until you take a closer look and realize it'd A. Be more the more difficult path to approach (Make a minor change to marriage as our government from "man and a woman" to "two consenting adults" sees it vs. stripping it out entirely) and B. It just gives the religious right more ammo for "taking God out of Government".
RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Apr 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 13:32
|
|
|
Al! posted:Did I mention that America had legally enforceable racial segregation for nearly 60 years? We cherish and protect our bigotry here. Yeah England knows nothing about bigotry.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Well it's going to mainly be white Catholics because that's the majority religious types in France. Numbers don't really make bigotry any better or worse just more influential.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:Governor Chafee just signed it. 16 years ago, marriage equality legislation was first introduced to Rhode Island. Today, it's finally been legalized. Now we got the whole new england set. It's gonna look so nice on the shelf 
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 10:58
|
|
|
It depends on the country. Some latin countries are really pro same-sex marriage, others crack down pretty hard on it. It's unfair to generalize an entire continent (and a good chunk of another) either way really.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
No ones saying to fall over and weep for the guy, it's that taking actual pleasure in someone's death is twisted and something lovely people do. Don't sink to their level because "No moral suicide but mine"
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
If you think voting against the measure is going to make the boy scouts burn to the ground and not just more insular and hateful I dunno what to tell you man.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Sorry if this has been posted, I may be getting my threads crossed. But while this is a niche thing I think it's significant nonethless because I'm in the Peace Corps right now. Peace Corps is gonna start allowing same-sex partners with the same benefits they give married couples (placed in the same site in their host country, etc.): http://www.peacecorps.gov/resources/media/press/2238/
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 08:57
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Is this in violation of DOMA, or just picking away at the edges? The Corps can set their own rules in regards to who they take though, so it doesn't impact DOMA. They just traditionally only recognize couples who are married because getting a site for couples doubles the work involved so they can't just take anyone who claims they're a couple. This is just expanding the definition of "couple" as it pertains to Peace Corps.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
Thesoro posted:Even if being gay was a choice, would it be wrong? Maybe these people are morally forward but scientifically backward. I'm not saying it's not a choice (it isn't) but from the mindset of the people that think it is, it's equivalent to asking if BDSM enthusiasts should be allowed to put Master/slave as registered positions on their tax forms and their ability to walk around with a collar and leash be protected.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
Narciss posted:That would certainly be great; lets hope that the Democrats have learned their lesson about trying to mobilize certain portions of the voting populace, and how that may backfire when you're attempting to advance social issues. Eh the Prop 8 fiasco is complex. It had a lot of support by some very rich conservative agencies but I think a lot of people who were OK or pro gay marriage didnt vote because they assumed "it's california, it'll be fine so I don't have to vote".
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 18:55
|
|
