|
Replies: 56
| visibility 1
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
2 out of 34 states have voted
Jun 25, 2015, 2:36 PM
|
|
to not allow gay marriage.
Tomorrow we will find out that 9 people will vote that Gay Marriage is legal and will redefine what marriage means.
I dont care where you fall on the spectrum, that kind of activism from the bench is scary. Again, only 2 states out of 34 voted for it to be legal. I guess the will of the people will be trumped again.
|
|
|
|
 |
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: 2 out of 34 states have voted
Jun 25, 2015, 2:37 PM
|
|
time to donate, cant edit.
2 out of 34 voted to allow gay marriage with 32 saying aw HE-L-L NO
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119553]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54412
Joined: 6/24/09
|
What do you mean by "state"?
Jun 25, 2015, 2:56 PM
|
|
didn't think there was any such thing anymore...
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31617
Joined: 8/27/02
|
It sure is a tough week for conservatives.***
Jun 25, 2015, 3:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
EVERY WEEK IS A TOUGH WEEK FOR CONSERVATIVES!!!
Jun 25, 2015, 3:08 PM
|
|
They're the most persecuted group in the world!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111292]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73649
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: EVERY WEEK IS A TOUGH WEEK FOR CONSERVATIVES!!!
Jun 25, 2015, 3:12 PM
|
|
tired of the gay liberals knocking on my door with their indoctrination pamphlets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40868]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42926
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I don't believe you
Jun 26, 2015, 3:06 AM
|
|
I don't think you are a bit tired of them knocking on your door
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Bois du!***
Jun 25, 2015, 3:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [78876]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78623
Joined: 8/2/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31830]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37134
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Seems like progressive momentum is at a high mark...
Jun 25, 2015, 3:10 PM
[ in reply to It sure is a tough week for conservatives.*** ] |
|
or at least that's starting to crest. The amount of really crazy stuff that's become part of mainstream discussion is going to start rubbing a lot of moderate people the wrong way pretty soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111292]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73649
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Seems like progressive momentum is at a high mark...
Jun 25, 2015, 3:18 PM
|
|
no, that would have been the new deal. We have spent the last 70 watching conservatives dismantle it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I'm speaking of the culture***
Jun 25, 2015, 3:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56005]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31617
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Is there really that much crazy stuff going on?
Jun 25, 2015, 3:30 PM
[ in reply to Seems like progressive momentum is at a high mark... ] |
|
I think most moderate people shrug at things like a dude dressing up like a chick. And that's about the most "out there" topic recently.
Although you'll probably disagree, Obamacare itself is really moderate. Liberals want a public option or single payer. Actual socialism. The ACA is very middle of the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
ACA has a ton of similarities to the pub plan from '93
Jun 25, 2015, 3:35 PM
|
|
so yeah, it's a middle of the road compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Moderates I believe, are on the pro-same sex marriage side.
Jun 25, 2015, 3:38 PM
[ in reply to Is there really that much crazy stuff going on? ] |
|
It's been Liberal Christians (primarily black) and Catholics that have voted against. They were why a Liberal state like California could not pass a vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
They are now, they weren't 7 or 8 years ago
Jun 25, 2015, 3:58 PM
|
|
Which I think is one reason why we shouldn't expect the trend of progressive social victories to continue on into perpetuity. As a Christian and a conservative, I'm never particular optimistic about politics, but when people are primarily motivated by emotivism, their views are usually pretty liquid. If moderates can change their views as quickly as they have on gay marriage (recall that even a liberal like Obama felt that he had to lie about his own views on the issue to be elected in 2008), then they're probably not going to react well to overreach on that issue because they're not the true believers.
I also think we should be clear about what "liberal Christians" means. A lot of black people are politically sort of populist: since many black people perceive their social situation as tenuous, they are naturally going to gravitate towards a politics that provides more social security. I'm not sure that means they're really "liberal" in the sense that the Democratic Party's platform is liberal. Polls have shown that there's really nothing that marks people who call themselves Catholics out from the people surrounding them. Theologically, however, the typical black church is theologically conservative. Of course, so is Roman Catholicism. So even if a lot of black people vote for the liberal party or are liberal, and even if a lot of Catholics are politically liberal, it's confusing to call them "liberal Christians."
Assuming that it was "Liberal Christians" who voted for Prop 8 in California, the gay lobby and its supporters should be careful about how far they want to take things. If they continue trying to force everyone to approve of whatever they want to do, they're eventually going to face a backlash even from some of the people inclined to support them in their quest for "equality."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21545]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13907
Joined: 9/7/02
|
Re: They are now, they weren't 7 or 8 years ago
Jun 25, 2015, 4:23 PM
|
|
You live in a box.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I wasn't even lumping ACA in there
Jun 25, 2015, 3:40 PM
[ in reply to Is there really that much crazy stuff going on? ] |
|
Where I think moderates will have a problem with transsexualism (and similar outgrowths of academic feminism and cultural studies that have an explicitly progressive politics associated) isn't in what they make of a celebrity mutilating their body and having gender issues, it's in the burgeoning political movement for gender neutrality (or, the erasure of a sense of gender as anything but a matter of individual perception) and the enforcement of gender neutrality on all the rest of us.
Sort of like with the conservative movement in the late 90s and early 2000s, success is leading to overreach by people who really have no contact with differing opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
How do you see this "gender neutrality" working politically?
Jun 25, 2015, 4:10 PM
|
|
Bathrooms, gay marriage, and children custody in divorces, what else? Anything particularly egregious?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Sounds more philosophical than practical***
Jun 25, 2015, 4:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Ideas do have consequences
Jun 25, 2015, 4:43 PM
|
|
Or do you think liberalism has no philosophical history?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
And how would you compare the influences...
Jun 25, 2015, 4:52 PM
|
|
liberalism, conservatism, progressives, tea party, green party, transsexual groups, etc. are having on the country from a practical perspective?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
That'd be hard to answer here
Jun 25, 2015, 5:35 PM
|
|
But more and more, it looks like there's not a lot of conservative social influence at all. Some, like Pat Deneen, argue that if all we really have available is left liberalism (American liberals) and right liberalism (libertarians), it's because our Lockean liberal founding was bound to radicalize us. There is no conservative tradition in America, or at least no strong one. Others argue that we have a mixed-Lockean founding- that the founders "built better than they knew" (http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/01/better-than-they-knew-a-response-to-patrick-deneen).
The Tea Party and a lot of conservatives are right liberals, and the rest are left liberals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79388]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63255
Joined: 10/30/05
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Heck, I'm confused
Jun 25, 2015, 4:41 PM
|
|
On the one hand we're told that gender shouldn't matter by people who want gay marriage or who want gender neutrality, but on the other hand we're told by the same people that gender matters so much that having to live with your birth gender or only being able to call opposite gender couples "married" is oppressive.
Maybe that's because the true or false of gender matters less to those people than having their choices affirmed by everybody else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
socially, to a young conservative, it might feel like that
Jun 25, 2015, 3:32 PM
[ in reply to Seems like progressive momentum is at a high mark... ] |
|
but wouldn't the 60s and 70s be considered more socially progressive in terms of travel?
(never mind that outside of socially, I'm not sure progressives have much momentum in anything political)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: socially, to a young conservative, it might feel like that
Jun 25, 2015, 4:06 PM
|
|
Maybe it's more accurate to call what's going on a "zenith of individualism," or something. Anyway, I'm not sure it's sustainable. The academy will always pump out more crazy than can be accepted politically, and I don't really think there's been a time when society was more receptive to (or, at least, more aware of) the language and thinking of leftist cultural studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I'd characterize it as society's "open mind" and...
Jun 25, 2015, 4:24 PM
|
|
I think it's an outgrowth of the civil rights movement. Instead of saying it's a zenith, I'd say it's more a spotlight and right now it's trained on sexuality/gender issues. I'd wager dollars to donuts that it'll move back to ethnicity (black, but namely Hispanic) as we somewhat are already seeing with the race dialogue becoming louder.
Perhaps it's lasted longer than the Civil Rights though, as it seems to have gone; Colonists (against British), slaves, women, poor, blacks, gays, (transgender?), ?
(italicized because I'm not sure it belongs yet)
Perhaps a bit simplistic a timeline, but the point I'm trying to make is that as a society we've always had a minority group pushing for greater status and society eventually giving them more voice so I'm not sure pointing to the most current trend and saying it's not sustainable makes sense. Most likely, it'll just change focus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I'd say it's more "post- civil rights"
Jun 25, 2015, 5:11 PM
|
|
It's a rearguard action to radicalize equality after equal political liberty was already achieved. I don't think sexuality can easily be lumped into race, though, because it's at once more natural and more a question of behavior than is race. Now that there's very little explicit personal or institutional racism, we've moved on to very theory laden identification of structural or linguistic racism. Only the experts are really able to identify it, and they'll always be able to identify it as long as there's any sort of statistical inequality between blacks and whoever else. But sexual politics is almost entirely about autonomy, which is why we (at least currently) see somebody like Rachel Dolezal as a much more bizarre figure than Bruce/ Caitlyn Jenner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42000]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38145
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [80954]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56044
Joined: 9/13/04
|
You can call it anything you want.
Jun 25, 2015, 4:01 PM
|
|
But it still stinks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97649]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64785
Joined: 7/13/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42000]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38145
Joined: 11/30/98
|
What will happen after the Supreme Court makes it legal?
Jun 25, 2015, 4:01 PM
|
|
Will God proceed with Rapture plans, or will he just go ahead and smite America to get it over with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
you'll be able to get married then?***
Jun 25, 2015, 4:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42000]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38145
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You lookin' for a date, sweetheart?***
Jun 25, 2015, 4:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
X-Tiger is all mine buddy
Jun 25, 2015, 4:52 PM
|
|
Hands off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63736
Joined: 10/22/00
|
I imagine if you conducted the same state polls regarding
Jun 25, 2015, 4:01 PM
|
|
equal rights for black people in 1958, you would have gotten similar results. Does that make it right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Black civil rights isn't the same as defining marriage
Jun 25, 2015, 4:14 PM
|
|
The scope and effect of discrimination against black people was far greater than that against gay people (and there are reasonable arguments for why marriage isn't part of that discrimination, anyway, even if you disagree with those reason). And what marriage is makes it a fundamentally different issue from, say, who's eligible to vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63736
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Every single bit of what you just said, is predicated on one
Jun 25, 2015, 4:18 PM
|
|
tiny little supposition: being homosexual is a choice. Yeah? What if that were proven to not be true? I'm going to guess you still wouldn't change your stance, given how much you enjoy selective enforcement of bible passages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [135611]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41566
Joined: 8/26/07
|
hey what are you doing posting something that
Jun 25, 2015, 4:23 PM
|
|
isn't the cheddarbay sausage ball recipe ?
Unless I missed it in which case I'm sorry and please post a link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
No, not at all
Jun 25, 2015, 4:33 PM
[ in reply to Every single bit of what you just said, is predicated on one ] |
|
None of that has anything to do with where homosexuality comes from. As far as I'm concerned, your desire isn't a choice, but what you do is. That means that, even if homosexuality is innate, there's still a question about what's right and wrong behavior (just like we would say with any other natural drive). But that's not what I'm talking about.
What I was talking about was concrete differences in blackness and homosexual identity, concrete differences in the discrimination those identity groups have faced, and concrete differences in institutions like the franchise and marriage. These things matter more for the legal question of whether the constitution requires redefinition of marriage or not than how homosexual identity is formed. They bear on whether or not the court should apply strict scrutiny (as they have not, in precedent) or not and on whether there's a reason (however wrong you might think it is) for gender to matter in marriage other than animus towards homosexuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Based on your first paragraph would you say...
Jun 25, 2015, 4:45 PM
|
|
being gay is a mental disorder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63736
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Allow me:
Jun 25, 2015, 4:52 PM
|
|
it's not a mental disorder until you physically engage in icky homosexual stuff. Just thinking it? No problem, just keep it to yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Nope...
Jun 25, 2015, 5:20 PM
[ in reply to Based on your first paragraph would you say... ] |
|
I'm not talking about the "being" of "being gay," unless we're tying in behavior to the gay identity. But I don't think people are usually clear on what the gay identity is. If homosexuality is a "disorder," it's only disorder in the natural law sense. I think the Catholic catechism (which, since it's Catholic, is much less bashful about using philosophy and theology to supplement scripture) explains this pretty well:
#2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
#2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18003]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30146
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Is the act of being gay different from the being?
Jun 25, 2015, 10:44 PM
|
|
isn't the act just an expression of the being? By denying the action are they not denying their being?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [109]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23
Joined: 6/4/15
|
Are you so bent on not liking icky people that you're using
Jun 26, 2015, 8:31 AM
[ in reply to Nope... ] |
|
other religions to justify yourself now?
I'm assuming you aren't Catholic? Maybe you are. I could've made the mistake of assuming you were Protestant.
You can use all the big words and explain this away all you want, but the least common denominator here is you throwing stones at people you don't like. I'm totally ok with you feeling that way. The annoying part is when you insist that you have any other reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63736
Joined: 10/22/00
|
This is fantastic.
Jun 25, 2015, 4:50 PM
[ in reply to No, not at all ] |
|
So, even if it was determined that there is an element of homosexuality that is derived by nature, i.e., not purely a lifestyle choice...you're not actually homosexual until you physically engage in a homosexual act? And even if you acknowledge that somebody has homosexual thoughts by something other than their choice (read: they were born with it), you would encourage then to not engage in any behavior according to their desires because you think it's "icky"?
Anyway...that's not what you're talking about (except it is).
Enlighten us: what concrete differences in discrimination have black people faced vs. homosexuals? Mockery and derision? Physical abuse? Lynching? Murder? Let me guess: the scale on which black people faced these acts of discrimination is really important here (ignoring the fact that homosexuality is concealable and that a much smaller percent of the population actually identifies as "homosexual").
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Equating the discrimination black people faced...
Jun 25, 2015, 5:56 PM
|
|
with the discrimination faced by gay people is pretty ignorant, but of course it's politically useful because historic discrimination against black people is just about the only widespread institutional and social phenomenon we can all say is wrong. So yeah, it's fantastic that you think people who were enslaved, and then systematically and institutionally discriminated against based on a visible physical characteristic are in the same boat as people who don't even pass on their defining characteristic to the children they don't have. Somehow, gay people tend to be a good bit better off than your average black person. Wonder how that happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42000]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38145
Joined: 11/30/98
|
They aren't comparing the level of discrimination
Jun 25, 2015, 6:09 PM
|
|
They're comparing the mentality of those doing the discrimination, because the arguments are nearly identical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137748]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63736
Joined: 10/22/00
|
You think gay people "have it better" now than black people
Jun 25, 2015, 6:19 PM
[ in reply to Equating the discrimination black people faced... ] |
|
did. That's likely true, and harkens to the point I made previously about homosexuality being a largely "concealable" trait. Do gay people have it better now than they did 10 years ago? Sure, as it's become more mainstream and accepted. 20 years ago? Certainly. I could count on one hand the number of gay people I knew 20 years ago in college. 30 years ago? Did gay people even exist? Statistically and proportionally, they existed exactly as they do now, but it's highly likely that none of us knew a single one in the '80s, because of the persecution they would have faced for being openly gay. And yes, that persecution includes more than just verbal derision, especially back then. A gay person would subject himself to physical abuse, and in some cases, even homicide. It certainly wasn't the systemic and institutionalized discrimination that racism towards black people was, but that was largely because the potential discriminators didn't even know their target existed or who their target might be. Something like "we know homos are bad, but fortunately, we don't know any homos, so I ain't worried about it." Except we all DID know gay people, without being aware of it. It's concealable.
Do you dispute any of this? Or are you of the opinion that there is a higher percentage of homosexuals in our society now than there was 30 years ago, because it's a trendy and popular thing to do due to it being more "socially acceptable"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111292]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73649
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: 2 out of 34 states have voted
Jun 25, 2015, 4:12 PM
|
|
not sure how you maff works out, you are saying 30 states voted down gay marriage. Cause last I checked, it is already legal in 37 states, and only been banned in 13.
Seems you are in the minority here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15680
Joined: 10/10/02
|
Because the courts said it was legal.
Jun 25, 2015, 4:15 PM
|
|
When it's put on a ballot it's voted down just about every time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111292]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73649
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Because the courts said it was legal.
Jun 25, 2015, 4:36 PM
|
|
going by the polls, the majority of Americans are fine with it. If it is being voted down by state legislatures, know that it is mostly old farts voting those people in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3508]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4240
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Re: Because the courts said it was legal.
Jun 25, 2015, 11:00 PM
[ in reply to Because the courts said it was legal. ] |
|
Well thank goodness the judiciary got it right and we also don't live in a pure democracy. Just because a majority thinks one way doesn't mean it's right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 56
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
