[Shaddim]

I guess it could look that way, until you're on the receiving end of it. There's nothing right about using a stick to try and correct moral opinions. Such views are dying out on their own, there's no reason to legislate every damned thing.

[Chongo]

So is it momentum, or marketing and intimidation?
Same-sex marriage, marketing, and intimidation | LifeSiteNews.com

[subego]

Marketing is scummy. Film at 11.

[Shaddim]

I'm very much pro-gay marriage, I'm pro-anything as long as those involved are consenting adults. It's simply the idea that someone is trying to force people to be nice or tolerant that chaps my ass. F*** that, I don't want anyone to pay lip service just because there's a gun to their head, they need to be able to tell me how they feel and why. That's important to me.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm very much pro-gay marriage, I'm pro-anything as long as those involved are consenting adults. It's simply the idea that someone is trying to force people to be nice or tolerant that chaps my ass. F*** that, I don't want anyone to pay lip service just because there's a gun to their head, they need to be able to tell me how they feel and why. That's important to me.

Define consenting adults.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Such views are dying out on their own, there's no reason to legislate every damned thing.

I definitely don't agree with that. Slavery didn't die out on its own, racism didn't die out on it's own, sexism isn't dying out on its own, and homophobia isn't dying out on its own. In fact, IMO, when those that were formerly in the status quo sense that the tide has turned, they fight tooth and nail to impose their view on everyone: Dred Scott and overturning the Missouri Compromise, Jim Crow, DOMA. All of those set back society's progress in the name of preserving dying values (slavery, inequality, and 'traditional' marriage). Maybe there'd be less legislation to advance causes if there was less legislation to obstruct changes in societal values in the first place.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I definitely don't agree with that. Slavery didn't die out on its own, racism didn't die out on it's own, sexism isn't dying out on its own, and homophobia isn't dying out on its own.

Do you know what differentiates the first three from the last?

[Shaddim]

You obviously didn't live anywhere near the South. Yes, they are ending "on their own", just because laws were passed didn't mean that attitudes or behaviors changed, quite the contrary. Passing laws stopped people from drinking alcohol? No. Passing laws stopped people from using narcotics? No. It's the same thing I tell Republicans where I live, legislating morality does not work. You'd think that Dems would know that, from all the finger-wagging they did during and after prohibition.

[Waragainstsleep]

Legislating doesn't work for everyone but there are plenty of people who are very solidly opposed to weed simply because it has been illegal for so long.
It really depends what you're trying to legislate, why and how people feel about it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You obviously didn't live anywhere near the South. Yes, they are ending "on their own", just because laws were passed didn't mean that attitudes or behaviors changed, quite the contrary.

Wrong. After the the 14th, blacks did have more rights. It took Jim Crow to curtail those rights. But overall they still weren't slaves, so behavior changed even if attitude didn't. After Civil Rights, desegregation happened, and blacks had access to better schools and weren't humiliated into switching seats on the bus or drinking from different fountains, because the law protected them. Again, behavior changed, even though attitude didn't. And with recent string of gay marriage rights, again homosexuals have access to rights that must be respected even if attitudes haven't changed.

I can't see how someone could argue that blacks would have the same rights today if Jim Crow hadn't been overturned. The law doesn't change people minds, particularly instantly, but that's an absurd, idiotic argument to make. The law can influence attitudes, however. Further, by forcing the situation it serves to illustrate that previous fears and prejudices were unfounded, undermining previous arguments. (i.e., blacks can be just as smart as whites, accepting gays will not make the country turn gay, gay marriage will not end traditional marriage, etc. etc.)

[Shaddim]

That's not reality, at all. The industrial revolution was responsible for more change in the status of blacks than anything else, by a huge margin. You could change what they were officially called ("slaves") but it didn't change their reality, until improved mechanical harvesters greatly decreased the need for massive amounts of manual labor. Few left their old way of life until there was nothing left of it, as more practical and cost effective means were implemented. The Irish in major cities were as much slaves as any other group, and don't forget the Chinese during the railroad boom (and even Latinos in a few areas today), and it's about money and what people are willing to do to make it. As the old slave owners died (and their children, and their children's children) so did the memory that blacks were once solely a working caste.

What does this have to do with gays? Not much, really. No one has ever enslaved homosexuals to exploit their superior fashion sense.

[andi*pandi]

I think the larger point you raise, whether or not gays are exploited like slaves were... is that it takes the older generation dying out for progress to happen. However, what I think Dakar's point was, is it takes some initiatives (laws even) for behavior to become commonplace enough that kids are raised up believing equality is status quo.

The bus driver could go home and grumble to his wife about how he had to let the $%^&* black people sit whereever they wanted, so sure, racism is not knocked out, but the fact they got to sit whereever they wanted at all, was progress.

[Shaddim]

Even after the bus protests, most blacks still didn't ride in the front, despite the laws that were on the books. That was mostly PR and media manipulation, not reality. When did things actually change? Not for quite some time, like after Good Times and The Jeffersons hit the airwaves (mid-70s). IOW, much later than you'll see in most history textbooks. Isn't revisionism wonderful?

[subego]

You can overturn segregation laws without replacing them with integration laws.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Even after the bus protests, most blacks still didn't ride in the front, despite the laws that were on the books. That was mostly PR and media manipulation, not reality. When did things actually change? Not for quite some time, like after Good Times and The Jeffersons hit the airwaves (mid-70s). IOW, much later than you'll see in most history textbooks. Isn't revisionism wonderful?

Well, I was generalizing, of course.

How did Good Times and Jefferson's get greenlit? Did black people start making more money, making them a market audience? How did TV executives come to realize not just that black people were good to market to, but that white people would also like these shows? For that matter, how did Archie Bunker, get away with the things it did? In the 1950s the only roles on TV for black people were servants, in the 1970s you had a successful businessman getting the last word to a racist white cabbie reluctantly adapting to a new era.

Something made perceptions change.

[Shaddim]

There were consumers in America who were under represented for goods and services, and both were great vehicles to market those goods and services*. The shows, in turn, helped foster goodwill (for the most part), by providing a window into black life, rose-colored and oddly distorted though it was. They helped pave the way for Oprah, who has done more to help normalize race relations in the USA than any other person who's ever lived, certainly more than any piece of gov't legislation, simply by being herself.



*I can only imagine how much V05 hot oil treatment they helped sell. 100s of millions of bottles, no doubt.

[andi*pandi]

Yes... lots of V05. Then surely then there was some similar product they could have sold to black people in 1950? Why didn't they make a show then for black people? Or are you saying the 70s TV shows themselves did more for civil rights then laws and desegregation? Who made those shows? Why? How did they grow up? Did their childhood perceptions of black people shape the shows they would later make?

(not arguing, just wondering... I think this whole topic could be someone's history dissertation and I don't think we have the answers.)

[subego]

I think you have to pin a lot on All in the Family for portraying a sympathetic racist.


Edit: a more accurate phrasing of the above is "a character with whom you can empathize despite their racism".

[The Final Dakar]

Presbyterian Assembly: Gay Marriage Is Christian - ABC News

Is this big? I have no idea. I suspect not.

[Shaddim]

I would hope they would, it's a mostly gay/bi Christian organization. It sounds quite official, but it doesn't represent the US Presbyterian Church.

Holy shit! There's a lot of historical retcon going on, that's amazing (and damned scary).

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Presbyterian Assembly: Gay Marriage Is Christian - ABC News

Is this big? I have no idea. I suspect not.

It will result in a split, just as the Anglican church has done.

[Waragainstsleep]

Surely these people must realise that history will remember them the way it remembers people who supported race segregation and those who opposed votes for women?

[Chongo]

yep.
Matthew 7:21-23 RSVCE - Concerning Self-Deception - “Not - Bible Gateway

Concerning Self-Deception
21 “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

[Waragainstsleep]

So you're damned if you do....

[The Final Dakar]

What the hell do bible passages have to do with how US law treats people?

The answer is nothing

[Chongo]

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

As always you don't actually answer with an actual argument.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

That sounds like an argument to rewrite it to me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Surely these people must realise that history will remember them the way it remembers people who supported race segregation and those who opposed votes for women?

I doubt it. Out of the gate, gays had neither been denied a vote nor segregated. Sexual orientation is not the same as race and gender that it'd ever be fully equitable as a protected class as their plights are simply not comparable and the biological components are not equally understood. As long as the question of a definitive genetic foundation for human sexuality remains, so too will homosexuality will be relegated a psycho-social phenomena, not comparable to race and gender. If science advances to such a degree that a definitive genetic component for homosexuality is identified, the new horror will be in seeking to modify or eliminate it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As long as the question of a definitive genetic foundation for human sexuality remains, so too will homosexuality will be relegated a psycho-social phenomena, not comparable to race and gender. If science advances to such a degree that a definitive genetic component for homosexuality is identified, the new horror will be in seeking to modify or eliminate it.

Heads I win, Tails you lose.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If science advances to such a degree that a definitive genetic component for homosexuality is identified, the new horror will be in seeking to modify or eliminate it.

That begs question, will it be considered a genetic defect?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

That begs question, will it be considered a genetic defect?

Only by the sorts of assholes who currently consider it a defect. Or a sin.

Of course those who think it a sin should immediately change their tune if definitive evidence of a genetic cause were discovered, but they won't. They'll just keep arguing that the evidence is wrong.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As long as the question of a definitive genetic foundation for human sexuality remains, so too will homosexuality will be relegated a psycho-social phenomena, not comparable to race and gender.

That question won't go away until the religious motivation behind it does. And it will. You just have to give them equal rights and then wait a generation or two. Sadly.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

That question won't go away until the religious motivation behind it does. And it will. You just have to give them equal rights and then wait a generation or two. Sadly.

Distaste for homosexuality transcends regions, races, religions, and cultures. You'll no more eliminate that question than you will homosexuals themselves.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Only by the sorts of assholes who currently consider it a defect. Or a sin.

I won't question whether or not it's a "defect", but there isn't a soul on this earth without sin. Some Christians will elevate this behavior above all others as particularly egregious, but that's not Scripture.

Of course those who think it a sin should immediately change their tune if definitive evidence of a genetic cause were discovered, but they won't. They'll just keep arguing that the evidence is wrong.

This goes both ways; those who insist it's genetic when the lion's share of evidence for sexual orientation is that it's psycho-social environmental. If science can be so easily hijacked and manipulated by politics, perhaps we need a new Wall of Separation.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Only by the sorts of assholes who currently consider it a defect. Or a sin.

Of course those who think it a sin should immediately change their tune if definitive evidence of a genetic cause were discovered, but they won't. They'll just keep arguing that the evidence is wrong.

Sodomy is a "sin", sex between 2 men is a "sin". (Between 2 women is a grey area, it isn't discussed in scripture beyond some women living together, where it's implied that they were "together".) Genetics or not, it doesn't matter.

However, since no one is perfect and we live in a state of Grace, because "all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God", so as long as you;

1. Love God
2. Love your neighbor
3. Actively work (from your heart) to be a good person

then the substance of Grace is stronger than the nature of sin, and salvation is the eternal reward.

[Chongo]

All sex outside sacramental marriage is a sin.

"More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.”

Our Lady of Fatima

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Sodomy is a "sin", sex between 2 men is a "sin". (Between 2 women is a grey area, it isn't discussed in scripture beyond some women living together, where it's implied that they were "together".) Genetics or not, it doesn't matter.

However, since no one is perfect and we live in a state of Grace, because "all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God", so as long as you;

1. Love God
2. Love your neighbor
3. Actively work (from your heart) to be a good person

then the substance of Grace is stronger than the nature of sin, and salvation is the eternal reward.

I forget, you are a believer right? To some extent anyway?

I'm really not sure why god deserves love or even respect to be honest. If he exists, he has clearly made a huge mess of everything and blaming us would be a cop out for anyone let alone an omnipotent being.
Luckily you don't need him to do the other two.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

All sex outside sacramental marriage is a sin.


Our Lady of Fatima

Thats just what they told her to spoil her fun.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm really not sure why god deserves love or even respect to be honest. If he exists, he has clearly made a huge mess of everything and blaming us would be a cop out for anyone let alone an omnipotent being.

Really? Is that all that you see when you wake up in the morning? A huge mess of everything? God will not get love and respect from people who don't know Him; those who might question why He didn't merely create a planet of automatons and candy. i.e. Faith holds that there is more to existence than the physical vehicle and environment we occupy here on earth.

Luckily you don't need him to do the other two.

True, but faith might do wonders for a more optimistic point of view.

[Chongo]

Take a look and opine. I know, some of you hate videos. Don't worry, it's not about the Cristeros.

The Third Way on Vimeo

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Distaste for homosexuality transcends regions, races, religions, and cultures. You'll no more eliminate that question than you will homosexuals themselves.

That's interesting. In the US most of the distaste for homosexuals comes from the religious sector, though obviously not all of those claiming religious reasons are being honest – a good many people just find the concept disgusting. Still, I don't think disgust is that great a motivator, and if religious opposition were to dry up overnight, I'm pretty sure the question would be relegated to a very small minority, and one that likely wouldn't hold much sway.

[The Final Dakar]

Double-whammy time!

Federal Appeals Court: Utah Can't Ban Gay Marriage - ABC News

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled for the first time that states must allow gay couples to marry, finding the Constitution protects same-sex relationships and putting a remarkable legal winning streak across the country one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision from a three-judge panel in Denver upheld a lower court ruling that struck down Utah's gay marriage ban. The panel immediately put on the ruling on hold so it could be appealed, either to the entire 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or directly to the nation's highest court.

Judge Strikes Down Indiana Ban on Gay Marriage - ABC News

A federal judge struck down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday in a ruling that immediately allows gay couples to wed.

U.S. District Judge Richard Young ruled that the state's ban violates the U.S. Constitution's equal-protection clause because it treats couples differently based on their sexual orientation.

"Same-sex couples, who would otherwise qualify to marry in Indiana, have the right to marry in Indiana," he wrote. "These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such."

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I forget, you are a believer right? To some extent anyway?

I'm really not sure why god deserves love or even respect to be honest. If he exists, he has clearly made a huge mess of everything and blaming us would be a cop out for anyone let alone an omnipotent being.
Luckily you don't need him to do the other two.

We've made the mess, your assumption is that some divine being should clean it up for us. Oh yeah, that's a great way to teach "youngsters" to be responsible. You don't believe in a God, yet feel there's something to blame It for? How does that work?

I'm more of a believer in the "Omniscient Clockmaker" theory (aka. the universe is set into motion and then observed), but ultimately, live or die, it's up to us to learn to be more than our base nature. If we fail as a species, it's on us due to our behavior.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's interesting. In the US most of the distaste for homosexuals comes from the religious sector, though obviously not all of those claiming religious reasons are being honest – a good many people just find the concept disgusting. Still, I don't think disgust is that great a motivator, and if religious opposition were to dry up overnight, I'm pretty sure the question would be relegated to a very small minority, and one that likely wouldn't hold much sway.

From what I've noticed over the years, there's no shortage of infighting within the gay community itself, much less how external observers view them. If they can't keep from being so vicious and nasty towards each other, how can others get a more favorable impression?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

From what I've noticed over the years, there's no shortage of infighting within the gay community itself, much less how external observers view them. If they can't keep from being so vicious and nasty towards each other, how can others get a more favorable impression?

What is infighting?

[Shaddim]

Infighting - Synonyms and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[The Final Dakar]

I meant examples, but whatever. It's a stupid point because once again, rights are not dependent on our liking the people involved. In fact, I think this qualifies as victim blaming. "The gays wouldn't have so much opposition if they were more likable!"

BTW, don't think I've heard this reasoning before:
Federal appeals court overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage - Los Angeles Times

"A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.

This is something I brought up back when DOMA was at the SCOTUS. Probably won't mean shit int he long run, but its nice to see it acknowledged, by a judge no less.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's interesting. In the US most of the distaste for homosexuals comes from the religious sector, though obviously not all of those claiming religious reasons are being honest – a good many people just find the concept disgusting. Still, I don't think disgust is that great a motivator, and if religious opposition were to dry up overnight, I'm pretty sure the question would be relegated to a very small minority, and one that likely wouldn't hold much sway.

Can you cite your source that "most of the distaste comes from the religious sector"?

EDIT: I only ask because, of the people that surround me, most in support of gay-marriage are religious.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Can you cite your source that "most of the distaste comes from the religious sector"?

The loudest protestation. Not a legit source, just observation. The groups I can recall fighting marriage equality all have some significant funding from religious groups.