Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Warning: This thread is pretty gay

Warning: This thread is pretty gay (Page 22)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2014, 11:02 PM
 
Isn't there a pretty fundamental difference in character of care one gets in an orphanage versus what one gets in a family?

Residence in an orphanage is unstable by design. The model is based on getting its charges out as soon as possible. Difficulty establishing permanent relationships is inherent to it.

At a bare minimum, a family gives you two permanent relationships. While intangible, it's no less a resource than more concrete things such as quality time and an Xbone. It's also a resource an orphanage cannot provide under the current model.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2014, 01:47 AM
 
Depends on the orphanage, or "Home". Some see themselves as a permanent residence, presenting a more intimate, family-like, atmosphere, and others don't.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2014, 03:50 AM
 
My knee-jerk reaction is to think that would work better with a commune, rather than family atmosphere.

It's not really a family, so instead of trying to imitate what it isn't, it should take what it is and run with it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2014, 07:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My knee-jerk reaction is to think that would work better with a commune, rather than family atmosphere.

It's not really a family, so instead of trying to imitate what it isn't, it should take what it is and run with it.
I think the reality is that the overwhelming majority of "orphaned" children stay in family-style foster care vs "homes" or "orphanages" and why hard data appears to be difficult to come by on the latter.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2014, 01:30 PM
 
Well, I don't want to knee-jerk on foster care, but I hear it's got some nasty angles.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2014, 01:57 PM
 
What's the difference between foster care and adoption? If tv is to be believed foster care cuts you a check for each kid, but the number of horror stories that tend to come out of foster care are too numerous to count.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2014, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think the reality is that the overwhelming majority of "orphaned" children stay in family-style foster care vs "homes" or "orphanages" and why hard data appears to be difficult to come by on the latter.
Likewise, the resource I'm trying to highlight is stability. The orphanage is designed to be unstable. Foster care seems to me like a crap shoot compared to an adoptive family on the stability front.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2014, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Seeing someone else's penis erect, slimy, and spewing semen is not stimulating to me and it's really not more complicated than that.
I think there's a world of difference between not wanting to see a penis ejaculate and not wanting to see a woman with a penis inside her.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2014, 02:52 PM
 
For some reason though, people who produce pron seem to want to include that. It's almost a requirement.

Wouldn't this indicate it's popular? If it wasn't, wouldn't someone have built their spunk-free empire by now?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2014, 02:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The decline of the family is not on accident and there's nothing to suggest it would be exclusive to heterosexual couples. Increasing importance/need for career and/or money, more distractions, etc... these are all the challenges that we all face.
You're still ignoring my point. In order for homosexual couples to fare worse you'd have to say they were perceived positively to begin with.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I've offered what the primary challenge is for children raised in orphanages as I understand it. I've explained how children in "ideal" family settings are increasingly subject to these same challenges, and provided statistics on what the traditional family looks like today to bolster my opinions. You may not accept what I've offered, but it's not accurate to say I've not really presented an opinion. To be honest, I'd say I've offered far more for my opinion than you've offered for yours.
You have provided nothing regarding foster care being better than daycare, which was one of your main points about children not having it better with parents.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No problem... we'll strike all this as not important and whittle it down to your point; "evenings at home with parents". Did you mean approximately 36 minutes of their evening or were you really assuming it was much more time than that in a traditional family setting?
For a toddler? Yes.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Foster parents and/or child-care providers are specifically employed to care for children. That's their primary role. I think it's perfectly reasonable to question if one who is employed specifically to spend time with children will spend more time with children than one who is trying to balance child-rearing with a career role that likely consumes much more of their time and has nothing to do with spending time with children.
This is an interesting position to see you take, because you seem to be taking the job title as proof of the quality of care they provide. However, I'm sure we all know that a parents job goes beyond just spending time with children, and in the case of the workers, they have far more children to take care of, which means far more work to do away from the kids.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I don't think there's any magical merit to "parents".
I could agree with that in a technical sense, but on average, I'd easily disagree. I'm kind of floored that we've reached a point where you're basically saying that a family isn't necessary for raising a kid.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If you don't understand what I'm saying, no amount of clarification is going to help. It takes two willing parties to communicate here.
Clarification? I'm asking for simpler terms and shorter sentences. Or explaining "variance in standards" and "social conscience."


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You might be getting that, but you're not getting it from me. I believe the "social stigma" excuse is over-played.
Which brings me back to, if its not the social stigma, what's the objection to homosexual parents then?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2014, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
For some reason though, people who produce pron seem to want to include that. It's almost a requirement.

Wouldn't this indicate it's popular? If it wasn't, wouldn't someone have built their spunk-free empire by now?
Maybe I missing something, but no one is required to watch the ending of the film. Hell, who the hell even watches more than a couple sporadic minutes of it at all? I mean we're not in 80s and limited by our VCRs here.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2014, 03:16 PM
 
That's one of the things I've noticed has definitely changed with porn. Scenes are longer, and you have fewer of them per "film".

In the old days you'd have had several by the time you get to the end, should you get to the end.

I also recall, in the waning days of when I was consuming print porn, Larry Flynt, who's always trying to push the boundaries, started adding money shots.

Before that he added pissing. Lots and lots of pissing.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2014, 09:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You're still ignoring my point. In order for homosexual couples to fare worse you'd have to say they were perceived positively to begin with.
57% of Americans believe the LGBT community should be allowed to adopt vs 40% who do not. I would have to guess that the majority of Americans perceive their ability to parent, positively.

You have provided nothing regarding foster care being better than daycare, which was one of your main points about children not having it better with parents.
You've been missing my point since I first engaged both you and subego which was simply; I don't think you can assume as "obvious" or "common sense", that one is an upgrade over the other. Adopting a child out gives you the unique opportunity of hand-picking the environment.

Considering that some 70% of mothers are employed and 42.5% of children aged 0 - 5 with working mothers spend at least 35 hours per week in a daycare, combined with other statistics showing that families spending 36 minutes per day together on average, and two hours-twenty mins together on the weekends; I can at least say there's very little in your assumption about individual attention that strikes me as "obvious" or "common sense". The traditional family has sunk from a 9 on the TFD scale to a 7.

This is an interesting position to see you take, because you seem to be taking the job title as proof of the quality of care they provide. However, I'm sure we all know that a parents job goes beyond just spending time with children, and in the case of the workers, they have far more children to take care of, which means far more work to do away from the kids.

I could agree with that in a technical sense, but on average, I'd easily disagree. I'm kind of floored that we've reached a point where you're basically saying that a family isn't necessary for raising a kid.
The only position I've taken is that I don't think it's "obvious" or "common sense" that one is an upgrade over the other. I think this is based on antiquated assumptions. i.e. outdated.

Everything else might be attributable to difficulty with English or a need for straw man arguments.

Clarification? I'm asking for simpler terms and shorter sentences. Or explaining "variance in standards" and "social conscience."

Which brings me back to, if its not the social stigma, what's the objection to homosexual parents then?
IMO, the root of the challenges faced by orphans has been identified as attachment disruption. We know that 14% of children under gay parents spent time in foster care and out of 175 subjects, 57% of children who reported having a lesbian parent, spent more than four months with lesbian parents, but only 23% spent more than three years. The numbers are far worse for gay male couples. This aligns with much of what we know of the number of relationships enjoyed by gays vs straights. The gay couple, facing the same modern-day complications of the traditional family having sunk to a 7 on the TFD scale, combined with the above complications, renders the gay couple a 5 on the TFD scale and perhaps less suitable for adoption than the already-struggling, traditional family.

I don't think "social stigma" is an adequate determinant of the statistical challenges gay couples pose, but when it comes to adoption -- my concern is not that of fairness or equality for gays, but simply what is best for a kid.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 04:00 PM
 
After a week off I still don't have the energy so apologies for my... terse reply.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
57% of Americans believe the LGBT community should be allowed to adopt vs 40% who do not. I would have to guess that the majority of Americans perceive their ability to parent, positively.
Assuming that Americans believe somewhere north of 90% of heteros should be able to adopt, that kind of illustrates my point precisely.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Considering that some 70% of mothers are employed and 42.5% of children aged 0 - 5 with working mothers spend at least 35 hours per week in a daycare, combined with other statistics showing that families spending 36 minutes per day together on average, and two hours-twenty mins together on the weekends;
Just think how much better off those kids would be in orphanages.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
MO, the root of the challenges faced by orphans has been identified as attachment disruption. We know that 14% of children under gay parents spent time in foster care and out of 175 subjects, 57% of children who reported having a lesbian parent, spent more than four months with lesbian parents, but only 23% spent more than three years. The numbers are far worse for gay male couples.
Right, so what % are acceptable? (That's rhetorical) And what happens if heterosexual couples don't happen to hit your ideal #s. Nobody gets kids?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 07:42 PM
 
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 09:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Assuming that Americans believe somewhere north of 90% of heteros should be able to adopt, that kind of illustrates my point precisely.
I'm guessing there would be no simple way to answer such a poll. Single people? I'd expect the number to drop. Other factors might make the number continue to drop. I don't think this illustrates your point at all nor do I believe any such poll would have heterosexuals at 90%.

Just think how much better off those kids would be in orphanages.
You're still not getting the point. So far as I can tell, there are essentially no orphanages in the US. They were deemed horribly unhealthy environments for kids and have undergone a drastic transformation.

Right, so what % are acceptable? (That's rhetorical) And what happens if heterosexual couples don't happen to hit your ideal #s. Nobody gets kids?
I have no idea what you're saying or asking here. If you deny a % of heterosexual couples the opportunity to foster children (as is the case today I'm sure); this doesn't mean nobody gets kids, it's that those who did not satisfy the criteria did not get kids.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2014, 11:56 PM
 
That is correct, our Home is a home, a foster service, not technically an orphanage. At one time it was funded by the state but that was >40 years ago.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2014, 09:58 AM
 
I'm fine with not using the term "orphanage", and wasn't using it as a pejorative in the first place.

However, "home" is the wrong name for an institution which seeks to move the children out. Homes aren't supposed to be like that. If the children are meant to stay there until the age of majority, then it's a home.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2014, 02:11 PM
 
Call me crazy, but I have feeling that you couldn't give two shits what a European court thinks if it doesn't fit your perspective.

Second, European legal opinion has very little clout in an argument over constitutional and human rights.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2014, 02:53 PM
 
It does not matter what I think. Justice Kennedy cited The ECHR in the Texas sodomy ruling.
USATODAY.com - Supreme Court citing more foreign cases

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's reference to foreign law in a ruling last month that overturned state anti-sodomy statutes stood out as if it were in bold print and capital letters.
Writing for the majority in a landmark decision supporting gay civil rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts have affirmed the "rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct."
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2014, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm fine with not using the term "orphanage", and wasn't using it as a pejorative in the first place.

However, "home" is the wrong name for an institution which seeks to move the children out. Homes aren't supposed to be like that. If the children are meant to stay there until the age of majority, then it's a home.
With few exceptions, that's the way it works. Most are kids 12 and over who aren't as attractive to adoption agencies and don't have any family who can care for them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2014, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
It does not matter what I think. Justice Kennedy cited The ECHR in the Texas sodomy ruling.
USATODAY.com - Supreme Court citing more foreign cases
While I'm heartened by Kennedy's attention to global consensus, I have a feeling he's in the minority regarding considering foreign opinion for US rulings.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2014, 01:38 PM
 
We shouldn't do anything because we're worried about foreign opinion.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2014, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
We shouldn't do anything because we're worried about foreign opinion.
Who said anything about worried?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2014, 01:51 PM
 
Then why mention foreign opinion?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2014, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Then why mention foreign opinion?
Because there are smart, civilized people outside the US, too? Do you limit your intellectual knowledge to Americans or something?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2014, 02:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Because there are smart, civilized people outside the US, too? Do you limit your intellectual knowledge to Americans or something?
Nope, but cultural context is important, and what can make good sense in one place can be absurd elsewhere. I'm not saying that's the case here, but foreign opinion should probably be pretty far down on the list of things to consider, WRT legislation.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2014, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Nope, but cultural context is important, and what can make good sense in one place can be absurd elsewhere. I'm not saying that's the case here, but foreign opinion should probably be pretty far down on the list of things to consider, WRT legislation.
Chongo was talking human rights, however. That's a bit different than education policies or gas emissions or business taxes.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2014, 12:15 PM
 
I have a hard time believing this is real. Paul Rolly: Blogger fired from language school over 'homophonia' | The Salt Lake Tribune

But when the social-media specialist for a private Provo-based English language learning center wrote a blog explaining homophones, he was let go for creating the perception that the school promoted a gay agenda.

...

As Torkildson tells it, Woodger said he could not trust him and that the blog about homophones was the last straw.

"Now our school is going to be associated with homosexuality," Woodger complained, according to Torkildson, who posted the exchange on his Facebook page.
Woodger says his reaction to Torkildson’s blog has nothing to do with homosexuality but that Torkildson had caused him concern because he would "go off on tangents" in his blogs that would be confusing and sometimes could be considered offensive.
That said, we have heard of incredibly ridiculous situations from people who were offended by the 'racist' use of the phrase 'black hole' and term 'niggardly'.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2014, 10:53 PM
 
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2014, 02:10 AM
 
Was talking with some friends about having kids who are gay, their teenage girl came out last year. I told them that I sincerely hope my daughter prefers women, because finding a good man is getting to be nearly impossible.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2014, 07:47 AM
 
Maybe you've been looking in the wrong places.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2014, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I have a hard time believing this is real. Paul Rolly: Blogger fired from language school over 'homophonia' | The Salt Lake Tribune





That said, we have heard of incredibly ridiculous situations from people who were offended by the 'racist' use of the phrase 'black hole' and term 'niggardly'.
Really?

I'll bet Apple is behind all those homophones, gay people do seem to like `em a lot. Not to mention what gays have done to our milk, what with all the homogenizing going on!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2014, 08:44 AM
 
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2014, 04:25 PM
 
Oral arguments are always fun.
Courthouse News Service
Indiana Deputy Attorney General Thomas Fisher said that marriage is meant to "nudge" opposite-sex couples toward stable relationships, to benefit children.
"All this is a reflection of biology: men and women make babies; same sex couples do not. It's purely utilitarian," Fisher said.
Posner dismissed this out of hand, saying it included the "ridiculous idea that two 80-year-old cousins marrying will be a model for young couples."
He mentioned "harrowing" information from the Family Equality Council on the consequences for adopted children.
"You permit homosexual couples to adopt. Wouldn't it be better for the adopted children if their parents were married?" Posner asked.
Fisher tried to finesse the question, but Posner repeated it two to three times before the attorney responded with an incensed: "I don't know! It's up to the Legislature."
"Think back to when you were six," Posner insisted, asking again whether it was better for children that their parents be married, rather than hearing: "'Your parents aren't allowed to be married.' What's better for the child? Don't you have an opinion?"
"No!" Fisher huffed.
But Posner did not relent.
"Do you criminalize fornication? Would you like to?" Posner asked. "And why do you prefer heterosexual adoption?"
"We don't," Fisher responded.
"Of course you do!" Posner said, pointing out tax benefits and other benefits that married heterosexual couples receive.
"Do you want kids adopted by homosexual parents to be worse off?"
Judge Ann Claire Williams cut in: "I don't think you're gonna answer Judge Posner's question," and the courtroom dissolved in laughter.
When Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson took the floor, he cited "tradition" as a reason for Wisconsin's ban.
"The tradition is based on experience ... on Western culture," Samuelson said.
"It's based on hate! Don't you agree that there has been a savage history?" Posner asked.
Samuelson pointed out that Wisconsin was the first state to prohibit employment and housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
"Why draw the line at marriage?" Posner asked.
Samuelson mentioned "legislative choice" and the "democratic process."
"Are you arguing that democracy insulates laws from constitutional validation?" Posner asked. "What's the rational basis? The offsetting harm?"
"Respectfully ..." Samuelson began.
"Come on!" Posner interjected. "What's the offsetting benefit to harm to kids? Who's helped?"
"Society!"
"How? How does it hurt heterosexual marriage? How does it hurt children?"
"We don't know yet."
"You could say that with Loving! Or, say, if we let women have access to contraception," Posner said, referring to the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated laws against interracial marriage.
"Why do you allow joint adoption by homosexual couples?" Posner demanded for the umpteenth time.
"I can't speak to that," Samuelson said.
"Something bad might happen? What?"
"The possibilities are, we don't know."
"You can't guess?"
Samuelson said that it might "devalue the institution of marriage," but could not explain why fewer heterosexuals would marry if homosexuals could.
For our polygamist advocates:
"Where do you draw the line?" Posner added. "What is the objection to polygamy?"
The Indiana plaintiffs' attorney, Camilla Taylor, struggled with this, and Hamilton characterized her answers as sounding "an awful lot like the arguments versus gay marriage."
Taylor then restated what was implicit in Posner's critiques: "We want a child to be able to grow up knowing his family receives the same respect as other families." Later, she noted that "the state would have to assert a sufficient governmental interest" in banning polygamy.
Her Wisconsin counterpart, James Esseks, stumbled over this as well, saying that "three people or four people" together would not "look like marriage."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2014, 06:44 AM
 
I like this Judge Posner. Not just for his stance but the way he won't let these dribbling asshats get away without obviously and publicly failing to defend their stupid opinions.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2014, 03:30 PM
 
The streak is over!
Bucking Legal Trend, Federal Judge Upholds Louisiana's Ban On Gay Marriage : The Two-Way : NPR
Federal judge in Louisiana rules state has right to ban same-sex marriages - The Washington Post

Feldman makes two major points: first, that the Supreme Court has never ruled that sexual orientation enjoys federal protected class status,
A strong, valid point.

[quotes]and second, that while the precedent bans states from passing laws that are born out of animosity toward homosexuals, that's not what is going on here.[/QUOTE]
That's debatable.


“This court is persuaded that Louisiana has a legitimate interest ... whether obsolete in the opinion of some, or not, in the opinion of others ... in linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents,” Feldman wrote.
That's an interesting position to take in a world of adoption, divorce, and re-marrying.


Feldman said he had “arduously studied” those decisions but concluded that they “thus far exemplify a pageant of empathy; decisions impelled by a response of innate pathos.”
That too, is an interesting take. Equal protections claims aren't about pathos, but even if they were, protecting "traditional" marriage sort of emerges from the same place.

"Defendants rejoin that the laws serve a central state interest of linking children to an intact family formed by their biological parents.
That's ground to outlaw divorce, or elderly marriage, etc., etc.

Of even more consequence, in this Court's judgment, defendants assert a legitimate state interest in safeguarding that fundamental social change, in this instance, is better cultivated through democratic consensus. This Court agrees."
Here it sounds like he elevates safeguarding social change over the rights of others.


Speaking of rights:
Public attitude might be becoming more diverse, but any right to same-sex marriage is not yet so entrenched as to be fundamental.
In order to be recognized, rights have to be "fundamental"? Talking about rights being entrenched, his argument seems to boil down to, "Not yet, we're not ready." Sounds like empathy to me.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2014, 04:10 PM
 
Christian Group Plans Protest Over Michael Sam Joining Cowboys « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth
Jack Burkman heads the group which claims to have 3.62 million members in 41 states. Burkman says, “We cannot just stand idly by as Christian values and morals are trampled. We will do whatever we can to preserve family values in this country.”
Apparently being gay and in the NFL tramples American values. What wackos.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2014, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That too, is an interesting take. Equal protections claims aren't about pathos, but even if they were, protecting "traditional" marriage sort of emerges from the same place.
Is he saying the claim originates in pathos, or the rationale for the recent decisions originates in pathos?

I think he may be accusing the other judges of letting their emotions get in the way of strictly interpreting what legal precedent says on the matter.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2014, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is he saying the claim originates in pathos, or the rationale for the recent decisions originates in pathos?

I think he may be accusing the other judges of letting their emotions get in the way of strictly interpreting what legal precedent says on the matter.
Aren't most citing the recent supreme court decision?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 4, 2014, 05:08 PM
 
Well, you guys missed your chance to celebrate the victory over gay marriage. The trains is back under way!
Court rules against gay marriage bans in 2 states
The unanimous decision by the three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago bumps the number of states where gay marriage will be legal from 19 to 21.
Almost to half! Gaytopia is coming!

Thursday's 40-page ruling sharply criticized the reasons both states gave for the bans, saying, "The only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction — that same-sex couples and their children don't need marriage because same-sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended — is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously."
Republican appointee Judge Richard Posner wrote Thursday's opinion for the panel. During oral arguments last month, he had likened same-sex marriage bans to now-defunct laws that once outlawed interracial marriage. They derived from "hate" and "savage discrimination" of gays, he said.
The states argued that the prohibitions helped foster a centuries-old tradition of marriage between men and women, and that the regulation of the institution of marriage was a tool for society to attempt to prevent pregnancies out of wedlock.
Yes, preventing pregnancies out of wedlock, we as a society are soooo worried about that.


"Not that allowing same-sex marriage will change in the short run the negative views that many Americans hold of same-sex marriage," the ruling continued. "But it will enhance the status of these marriages in the eyes of other Americans, and in the long run it may convert some of the opponents of such marriage by demonstrating that homosexual married couples are in essential respects, notably in the care of their adopted children, like other married couples."
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2014, 09:59 AM
 
Apparently this is from Posner's decision:
At oral argument the state‘s lawyer was asked whether “Indiana’s law is about successfully raising children,” and since “you agree same-sex couples can successfully raise children, why shouldn’t the ban be lifted as to them?” The lawyer answered that “the assumption is that with opposite-sex couples there is very little thought given during the sexual act, sometimes, to whether babies may be a consequence.” In other words, Indiana’s government thinks that straight couples tend to be sexually irresponsible, producing unwanted children by the carload, and so must be pressured (in the form of governmental encouragement of marriage through a combination of sticks and carrots) to marry, but that gay couples, unable as they are to produce children wanted or unwanted, are model parents—model citizens really—so have no need for marriage. Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2014, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Aren't most citing the recent supreme court decision?
Prop 8 was flipped on a technicality, and the problem with DOMA was how it ****ed with states where gay marriage was legal.

Neither of these are solid enough to start flipping state marriage bans.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2014, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Prop 8 was flipped on a technicality, and the problem with DOMA was how it ****ed with states where gay marriage was legal.

Neither of these are solid enough to start flipping state marriage bans.
I'm not well versed enough in the legalese to keep this going. But I'm under the impression Windsor is getting cited in many of these cases.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2014, 11:36 AM
 
Oh, interesting fact about Posner, he was considered to fill Sandra Day O' Connor's spot on the SCOTUS by W. What a pick that would have been. (He's pretty conservative everywhere else)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2014, 11:38 AM
 
You mean Y ANAL?

Me neither.

Let me put it this way. We can have 9 of the top justices split down the middle on any given issue. Everything is basically always up for interpretation, and a 5-4 split indicates things still are up for interpretation, except for the part where we've arbitrarily declared the SCOTUS as the end point.

Some could read the Wilson decision as grounds to flip marriage bans, some may not see it that way.

As much as a support gay marriage, I tend to fall on the constructionist side. I don't see flipping DOMA as enough.

That brings us back to my original question. Is the LA judge saying the claim originates in pathos, or the decision of his fellow justices originates in pathos?

Scalia basically made the same argument in his dissent of the case which overturned sodomy laws (was that Lawrence v. Texas?). He correctly pointed out how at the time the Federal Government could, under certain circumstances, fire you for having the butt sex. That's constitutional but a state ban isn't? He accused the other judges of deciding with their heart rather than by what is firmly entrenched precedent: being gay was legit grounds for discharge from the military.
( Last edited by subego; Sep 5, 2014 at 12:28 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2014, 12:43 PM
 
One step closer to REAL marriage equality.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Part Of Utah's Polygamy Ban : The Two-Way : NPR

A federal judge on Wednesday finalized a ruling that strikes down part of Utah's ban on polygamy.

The case is high profile partly because the suit was brought forth by the Brown family, the stars of the TLC show Sister Wives. It's also important because as it works its way through the appeals process, it has the potential to become a landmark.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2014, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
One step closer to REAL marriage equality.
If only you weren't being smugly disingenuous.

I look forward to seeing the outcry over this ruling.

Edit: Oh
Utah's bigamy law was stricter than the laws in 49 other states, making it illegal to even purport to be married to multiple partners or live together. Most bigamy laws prohibit people from having multiple legal marriage licenses. The judge left in place that portion of Utah's bigamy law.
So this is the equivalent of decriminalizing weed, not legalizing it. Move along nothing to see here.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2014, 05:38 PM
 
MmmHmm
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2014, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
If only you weren't being smugly disingenuous.

I look forward to seeing the outcry over this ruling.

Edit: Oh


So this is the equivalent of decriminalizing weed, not legalizing it. Move along nothing to see here.
You seem angry that polygamy might also find its way into the "equal marriage" debate. Do you consider polygamy less legitimate than gay marriage?
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:35 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2