|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
17th April 2009, 06:50 AM | #121 |
Sole Survivor of L-Town
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lexington, KY, USA, Earth
Posts: 15,484
|
|
__________________
Religion and sex are powerplays. Manipulate the people for the money they pay. Selling skin, selling God The numbers look the same on their credit cards. |
|
17th April 2009, 09:14 AM | #122 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
|
Did I miss comments buy the Lt. Governor of Iowa (Patty Judge)? The one who proposed the pig-ignorant notion of suspending the Court's decision via executive order was Bob Vander Plaats, who has said he wants to be the next governor and is trying to turn the issue into something upon which he can mount a campaign.
The Governor of the Iowa, Chet Culver, has said he is not going to do anything about the Supreme Court's decision. Thier is virtually no risk that he will try to "pull a Wallace" or otherwise defy the Court. Some see Culver as vulnerable in the next election, and so it is no surprise that various wind-bags are trying to find a way to assert that the decision was somehow his "fault." Culver's position (which is legally sound, unlike Vander Plaats's) is that it would be a waste of taxpayer money to try to oppose the decision by way of further court challenges or grandstanding stunts. Curiously, his opponents like to paint themselves as thrifty fiscal conservatives, and yet they seem to urge courses that will add to the citizens' tax bills ... unnecessarily. |
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice |
|
17th April 2009, 09:33 AM | #123 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,656
|
|
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
17th April 2009, 09:37 AM | #124 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
|
The "Let us vote" business, putting the best face on it, means that the citizens ought to be allowed to amend the state constitution. It is of course possible to amend the constitution and citizen votes decide whether an amendment will be adopted, but it is not as easy to amend the constitution in Iowa as it is in other states. I expect that the anti-gay forces will solicit the help of various powerful out-of-state groups to produce television commercials that would show the horrors associates with allowing two people of the same sex to have their marriage recognized by the state.
Putting a more realistic face on it, the "Let us vote" crowd espouses the view that a minority ought not to have rights unless those rights are conferred by the majority. And further, the majority can choose to refuse those rights based upon whim or overt bigotry. In other words, the "Let us vote" attitude is a "majority rules" mentality. |
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice |
|
17th April 2009, 09:55 AM | #125 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
|
This doesn't sound like something Patty would do, either personally or wearing her Lt. Gov. hat. One wonders whether someone is running a phone campaign falsely attributing the sponsor.
According to the Des Moines Register, an Assistant Attorney General authored a notice to all county recorders: "All county recorders in the state of Iowa are required to comply with the Varnum decision … and to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples in the same manner as licenses issued to opposite gender applicants." The current tactic-of-the-day is
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice |
|
17th April 2009, 10:43 AM | #126 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,656
|
I didn't hear the call. My MIL answered the phone, and said it was the Lt Gov calling for some opposition to the court decision on gay marriage.
As for the state senator's comments, it always brings me back to the question that I continually ask: Honestly, how do the anti-gay people feel knowing that they are using the exact same arguments that are used by racists? You could take almost any anti-gay marriage rant and substitute "interracial" for "gay" and it would be something you would have heard 50 years ago. Merits of the argument aside, such a realization would give me serious pause. |
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
17th April 2009, 11:58 AM | #127 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
|
Actually, there is an importance difference between the two.
Let's assume that the question is whether dark-skinned people--a minority--ought to be allowed to vote. In the event that this right to vote is eventually put into place, the light-skinned people actually do lose something. In particular, their voting power is diluted. If more people enter the voting pool, the power of a single vote is reduced. Or if a court ruling determines that minority students ought to be allowed to attend a school that was previously attended only by students of the majority, the majority could actually lose something: classroom space, teacher-to-student attention, convenience. In the case of same-sex marriage, however, the granting of equal protection to same-sex couples deprives the opposite-sex couples of nothing. Voting power and schools are limited resources, but marriage is virtually an unlimited resource. Indeed, the advocates argued to the Iowa Supreme Court that same-sex marriage would hurt opposite-sex marriage. The Court asked a simple question, "In what way?" There was no answer to this question that could withstand even modest scrutiny, and as far as I can tell there remains no reasonable answer today. Some people feel that they have been hurt by the ruling, but they are unable to say how. |
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice |
|
17th April 2009, 02:21 PM | #128 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,656
|
There is a thread on this over in Social Issues, where I have pointed out that they DO say how they have been harmed. It is usually something like, "Gay marriage would tell my kids that homosexuality is acceptable, but our religion says it is wrong."
(admittedly, that isn't really harm to heterosex marriage, but to heterosexual parents) Of course, translated, what they are saying is, "Gay marriage would undermine my attempts to teach my kids that homos are evil." It's not a surprise that this argument doesn't hold up in court. It also begs a lot of questions about society. TV shows, for example, also show homosexuality to be normal. The state allows that, too. In the end, the biggest problem these people face is the fact that homosexuals really AREN'T evil, outside of a "God hates fags" perspective. As homosexuality becomes more commonplace in today's society, it becomes more and more apparent that they aren't a problem. This is the thing that scares the anti-gay people more than anything. Kids these days are so used to seeing homosexuality all over that they don't care, and they can't see what all the fuss is about. It's pretty obvious why the anti-gay crowd in Iowa is adament about getting it banned NOW. They realize that if they wait even a couple of years with legal gay marriage, everyone will realize that Iowa has NOT been swallowed up by God's minions, and, in fact, gay marriage is no big deal. Shoot, even after 5 years most citizens of Iowa still won't know any married gay couple. How can anyone believe that it is a problem when most people don't see any difference? As I said, the anti-gay people know that when this happens, they don't have a prayer in the world of stopping it. So act now with predictions of doom before reality has a chance to get in the way. |
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
17th April 2009, 03:01 PM | #129 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
17th April 2009, 04:39 PM | #130 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
|
That was an excellent post of yours. Well said.
If I can summon up the spirit of George Carlin for a moment, there seems to be a pscychotic concern about "the children." Oh heavens, how can we explain homosexuality to the children? What will the children think? To which George Carlin said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Eff the children." Homosexuality is part of life. Deal with it. Marital infidelity is part of life, too, and we heard the same concerns when it became clear that Bill Clinton was having trouble with his self-control. Oh, how can we explain that to the children?? There was, of course, marital infidelity among people of all political persuasions, but it seemed that the parents were troubled only about explaining Clinton's infidelity. And good grief, war is an unfortunate part of life. Did anyone ever suggest that WWII not be fought because it would be hard to explain the horrors of war to the children? And financial ruin is a part of life, too. And natural disasters. And birth defects, and shootings and cancer and gangsterism and torture and homelessness and Alzheimer's and terrorists and plane crashes and drug abuse and religious fanaticism and nuclear weapons.... Is a homosexual marriage more difficult to explain to kids than any of these? There's a lot of awful stuff in life, some of which parents may wish didn't exist, but it does. They need to deal with it. |
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice |
|
19th April 2009, 09:29 AM | #131 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,656
|
I find the adultery aspect to be a very difficult problem for the religious case against gay marriage. Adultery is forbidden, apparently, by one of the ten biggie commandments of their religion, but, amazingly, the US doesn't have a law against it! Shouldn't this cause parents concern that the state is undermining their authority? And while there are always calls for the lipservice of posting the 10 commandments, no one ever tries to outlaw adultery.
Where are the parents complaining, "I am trying to teach my children that adultery is wrong, because it is against my religion, but the state is harming that because it is not illegal"? Honestly, given that adultery is far more widespread than homosexuality, you'd think it would be a bigger concern. As such, the arguments against gay marriage end up being special pleading. Gay marriage is bad and needs to be outlawed because of X. What about adultery, which also contains X? Oh, we'll ignore that... (conveniently, btw) What it tells me is that their opposition to gay marriage is NOT because of X, and they are just using X as an excuse. |
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
20th April 2009, 06:03 AM | #132 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,092
|
I think this is where the sticking point in your argument lies. Civil marriage can be both a contract, and a public Act. Washington state law, for example (I use Washington state law as an example because it's where I live), explicitly states that "marriage is a civil contract between a male and a female who have each attained the age of eighteen years, and who are otherwise capable" (italics mine). However, it also requires that "before any persons can be joined in marriage, they shall procure a license from a county auditor [...]," and that the contract be solemnized by a person authorized to do so by the state.
That imprimatur of the state is what sets marriage apart from standard business contracts as also being a public Act. It really has to be, since marriage is not merely a contract between two parties with no resulting legal consequences for others, but one that everyone else (e.g. financial institutions, medical facilities, etc.) is legally obliged to respect. |
__________________
"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo by birth, by choice |
|
20th April 2009, 07:08 AM | #133 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,710
|
I don't disagree that marriage is a public act, although I'm not sure whether it's a public act within the meaning of the Full Faith and Credit Clause (I lean toward thinking it is). But I remain unconvinced that marriage is a contract in any true sense, even if a state statute contains a recitation that it is a contract. It just is too unlike a contract on any but the most superficial level.
|
20th April 2009, 08:59 AM | #134 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
|
|
20th April 2009, 09:22 AM | #135 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,710
|
That's like saying "in that a clock has two hands, a face, and knows what time it is, it's a human being." (ETA - on second thought, that's a little harsh. The point is, not every contract involves property rights, and not everything that involves property rights is a contract.)
A will is voluntary and involves property rights, but it's not a contract. And a divorce is not a breach of contract claim. If you can show me a breach of contract suit that was maintained (in modern times) where the contract alleged to have been breached was a marriage (not to be confused with a marriage contract, which is a promise to marry and not a marriage itself), then I might back off a little from my claim that marriage is not really a contract. (But I will probably stick to my opinion that marriage shouldn't be considered a contract.) The fact is that the promises made in a marriage are just not legally enforceable in the same way contracts are. Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that my view is the consensus view of legal scholars and that those in this thread who call marriage a contract just don't know what they're talking about. I think there is a debate about this Out There, and I'm sure there are good minds and good arguments on both sides. |
27th August 2009, 07:41 AM | #136 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
|
In a story that is of no surprise at all, Iowa has been targeted by an anti-gay marriage group. According to stories published today by the AP and others, the "National Organization for Marriage," as part of its "Reclaim Iowa Project," is mobilizing to try to elect candidates who support submitting the gay marriage issue to Iowa voters.
The goal of the group, of course, is to overturn the Supreme Court's decision. I have not checked to determine whether this self-proclaimed "National" organization "for Marriage" (which oddly enough is taking a stand AGAINST marriage, at least they are against the marriage of people they deem to be the wrong kind of people) represents out-of-state interests and out-of-state money. But I have a suspicion .... |
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice |
|
27th August 2009, 08:10 AM | #137 | |||
Papa Funkosophy
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 34,265
|
I think that's the group who gained some notoriety over using the footage of the beauty contest person saying she believed marriage was between a man and a woman.
Yeah, here they are. They also produced this gem.
Help! Help! They're repressing my freedom to repress other people's freedoms! |
|||
27th August 2009, 09:04 AM | #138 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 624
|
Gay marriage! What is the world coming to? As a middleaged white heterosexual male, my feeling of entitlement and importance is slowly eroding. We gave rights to women, blacks and who knows what. Pretty soon the only way to salvage some of it is to start carrying a gun, even though i have no interest in weapons. Am i going to be reduced to a gun nut?
|
27th August 2009, 10:04 AM | #139 |
Mafia Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
|
|
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen |
|
31st August 2009, 02:30 PM | #140 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
|
In the newest developments, several people are crossing state lines to get married in Iowa. There are the expected Republican (capital R) bluster bites that vow to make this sort of thing a campaign issue, plus a modest effort to try to use the ballot box to recall the justices of the Iowa Supreme Court.
The head of the National Organization for Marriage has denied that the group supports bigotry. (How could anyone possibly have mistaken this organization's lofty civic goal--that of allowing the people of the State to have their say--with the nefarious goal of preventing people from getting married merely because they don't like them, even though they don't know them? Of course, if the voters decide that the sky hasn't fallen and that the state constitution ought not to be changed, this group will accept that decision and go away. Won't it?) Another development is that in an election for the Iowa House, the Democratic candidate has raised $42,882, and the Republican candidate has raised $63,101. But the "New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage, a group that opposes marriage for same-sex couples, has spent $86,080 on television ads in support of" the Republican candidate. The notion of out-of-state influence is often a sore point, with many Iowans preferring to say that Iowans will mind their OWN business, thank you very much, and they do not need out-of-staters telling them what they ought to do. Right now, the notion of influence is raising its head in Iowa in a different context: Senator Chuck Grassley, a major recipient of campaign contributions from the so-called health industry, is being taken to task for apparently representing that industry rather than the people of Iowa. Grassley's position is: the campaign contributions have no effect on his positions. Meanwhile, good ol' Chuck is overtly raising funds on a platform of defeating "Obama-care." |
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice |
|
31st August 2009, 03:06 PM | #141 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,462
|
I haven't read the link yet but I'll bet he is referring to "substantive due process".
|
2nd September 2009, 06:07 AM | #142 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
|
Well, here's a new development, from the Des Moines Register:
Quote:
So more than $400,000 was spent, and fewer than 8,000 people voted. This may be the most expensive Iowa House race in history. Jefferson County (the part of Iowa where the fictional James Ryan from "Saving Private Ryan" was raised) is hardly a hotbed of political intrigue. The Republicans tried to say that the issues in question were national--spending, bailouts and national health care reform, taxes. The Democrats said the issues were local issues. But apparently same-sex marriage (a local issue with national impact) was not one of the major decisive questions. |
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice |
|
2nd September 2009, 06:38 AM | #143 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,603
|
|
3rd September 2009, 07:36 AM | #144 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,984
|
Spin, baby, spin. From the Des Moines Register:
Quote:
Ah, but he only lost by 107 votes, and Obama won in this district by over 1,400 votes. But missing from the story is any mention of how many total voters turned out for a presidential election as opposed to a special election for the Iowa House. Might that little tidbit of fact make a difference? This story really isn't much of a story. The piece is basically reaction to news, which is not, in and of itself, news. There are several other instances of individuals quotes in this story who claim victory... even though their man LOST. |
__________________
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice |
|
3rd September 2009, 12:53 PM | #145 |
Dog Everlasting
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,528
|
|
__________________
|
|
3rd September 2009, 12:55 PM | #146 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,244
|
Remember when all the hippies thought: "well when we get older and the old people around NOW die out we're gonna legalize weed"
it didn't happen. While all the demographic trends point to a shift happening wherein once the dinosaurs stuck in the muck of backwards Victorian morality die out that we'll finally be able to shed all of this anti-gay stuff - is the same thing going to happen? In other words, are there enough NEW bigots being made to hold the status quo beyond our expectations? |
3rd September 2009, 01:15 PM | #147 |
Evil Genius
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,269
|
No. For a few reasons:
I expect to see legal gay marriage come about throughout most of the US in the next decade. |
__________________
You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans. - Ronald Reagan |
|
3rd September 2009, 01:20 PM | #148 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,244
|
|
4th September 2009, 07:12 AM | #149 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,710
|
Also - and maybe this is really just a rewording of your third point - the marriage laws are discriminatory, while the weed laws are not. Marijuana is banned across the board, while marriage is banned only for certain people. That kind of thing gets harder to stomach over time.
|
__________________
"We are talking about an old ladies genitals after all." - ponderingturtle |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|