[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm not looking for anything, I'm trying to explain their reasoning.

Explain the reasoning behind the bill? Is ending discrimination not believable?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'll never be for any legislation that tells people who they're required to hire. Society is moving towards complete inclusion all on its own, and at a rapid pace, laws like this aren't much more than a thumb in the eye to cause friction and display differences, rather than encourage dialogue and unity. It goes back to that whole thing of telling people "you will do this", rather than, "let's talk about why this is important". The same people who want to negotiate with terrorist states until the cows come home won't even hold official discussions about social matters with its own citizens, choosing to legislate rather than talk and educate. There's something distinctly absurd about that, from my perspective.

Yeah but reasoning like that puts you against stuff like the Civil Rights Act. "Why don't we just explain it to them?" Because they're a bunch of unreasonable bigots, that's why. Yes, society does make legitimate progress these types of things. A lot of it is waiting for the old to die off too, though.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The same "exememption" they have under the ACA?

The same religious exemptions they have under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Fired lesbian teacher Carla Hale won’t get job back in deal with diocese | The Columbus Dispatch

Thanks. That goes back to this:

Everybody they employ sins, right? What line does a (practicing) homosexual cross that a woman having sex (or worse a child!) out of wedlock, or a man living with a woman he's not married to, or a person being divorced doesn't cross?

I may not like it, but as long as they're even-handed about such things, I have a much easier time swallowing it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Explain the reasoning behind the bill? Is ending discrimination not believable?

Of course ending discrimination is believable, it's happening on its own. There isn't a need for even more laws and layers of bureaucracy to make it happen, however.

Yeah but reasoning like that puts you against stuff like the Civil Rights Act. "Why don't we just explain it to them?" Because they're a bunch of unreasonable bigots, that's why. Yes, society does make legitimate progress these types of things. A lot of it is waiting for the old to die off too, though.

If you'll stop and look at this objectively, you'll see that you're also being "bigoted and unreasonable". Forcing change at the point of a sword, when you haven't even bothered to have meaningful discussions WRT the subject, is just as exclusionary and repulsive as the behavior you're forcing to change. It's a hostile practice that doesn't engender peaceful resolutions, and will lead to a slowing of the changes that you want, in the long run.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Thanks. That goes back to this:


I may not like it, but as long as they're even-handed about such things, I have a much easier time swallowing it.

I didn't post that, Chongo did.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Of course ending discrimination is believable, it's happening on its own. There isn't a need for even more laws and layers of bureaucracy to make it happen, however.

Tell that to the people who live in the most recalcitrant areas in the US.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If you'll stop and look at this objectively, you'll see that you're also being "bigoted and unreasonable".

Oh boy, this just turned into the Twilight Zone "who's the real monster?!"

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Forcing change at the point of a sword, when you haven't even bothered to have meaningful discussions WRT the subject, is just as exclusionary and repulsive as the behavior you're forcing to change. It's a hostile practice that doesn't engender peaceful resolutions, and will lead to a slowing of the changes that you want, in the long run.

This reminds me of the argument that the civil war wasn't necessary, change was coming, the north just didn't wait long enough for it.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I didn't post that, Chongo did.

Believe it or not, I made that mistake not once, but twice. I caught it the first time and either copy/paste broke or I'm extra retarded. Don't answer that.

[subego]

WRT the recalcitrant parts of the US, I'd be much happier letting people be bigots if freedom of movement wasn't tied to wealth.

[subego]

It's the same thing with abortion.

I'd much prefer having states where abortion is outlawed, and then the people who had a problem with abortion could go live in their echo chamber, and I can live in mine.

The problem is, any random 14-year-old, pregnant girl doesn't get this choice. They get what their parents decided.

Likewise with any random broke person.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's the same thing with abortion.

I'd much prefer having states where abortion is outlawed, and then the people who had a problem with abortion could go live in their echo chamber, and I can live in mine.

The problem is, any random 14-year-old, pregnant girl doesn't get this choice. They get what their parents decided.

Likewise with any random broke person.

This wouldn't work in your 14 year-old case, but given the extremists on both sides tend to endorse helping move their political opposites to a place they'd much prefer, perhaps thats the future – state assisted relocation.

[subego]

I feel it's one of the grand ironies of libertarianism that to actually make it work, you'd need a state granted "living wage" or something.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I feel it's one of the grand ironies of libertarianism that to actually make it work, you'd need a state granted "living wage" or something.

I'm afraid I don't see the connection with moving, unless you're saying those wages would help fuel such an endeavor.

[subego]

You can't just relocate someone. They need a job at the other end, or something to support them until they do.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

You can't just relocate someone. They need a job at the other end, or something to support them until they do.

Ah. Well, someone leaving a libertarian state would likely want to go to a state that would have public assistance. The opposite would be more problematic.

[subego]

This kind of system would need to be federal IMO.

If it's more difficult for you to enter a libertarian state, then you don't really have freedom of movement.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This kind of system would need to be federal IMO.

I'm sure the libertarians would be cool with that.

[subego]

Hence my initial qualifier, "grand irony".

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Tell that to the people who live in the most recalcitrant areas in the US.

Like blacks? The Civil Rights Act didn't do as much as you think. The Left will pass laws, high-five each other, and believe that they've instituted change. Then when it doesn't happen they start with the "you're all bigots and savages, obey the law!" What are you going to do? Make people like someone who's different? Send them to jail if they don't? (The jails are already full.) Sue them? (That will cause others to lose their jobs and stir-up even more economic turmoil.) Writing new legislation doesn't instill trust or shift hearts and minds, discussion and familiarity does. Yeah, it takes longer, and it's harder, but it's real change, that you can believe in. Not just something barked out from a podium or written on paper to make some people feel better about themselves.

Speaking of the Civil Rights Act, you know who made more of an impact than MLK down here? Oprah. White Southerners saw blacks on a regular basis, but they didn't talk with them or listen to them, but that woman got on TV and broke those barriers, sharing her opinions and views, made people see that so many differences in race were only skin deep. She's the first black person to be invited in a lot of living rooms down here. Laws didn't change that, getting to know someone did.

Locally, the people here didn't know anyone who was gay, other than a few closeted types who would deny it if the subject ever came up, so they didn't "like" them. The first openly gay couple who moved into the area had a rough time of things at first, not that the locals were actually abusive, but they did avoid and shun them. Over time we got to know them, and then another couple moved in (lesbian family this time), and we all became friends. Then others got to know them, realized they're "just folks", and now they're simply "Ted and Allan", the community's most flamboyant neighbors. They get invited to the holiday and general gatherings, weddings, parties, etc. like anyone else. Allan makes the best casseroles in the county, and has the blue ribbons to prove it.

Oh boy, this just turned into the Twilight Zone "who's the real monster?!"

Ah sarcasm.. The refuge of the oft-times intellectually lazy.

This reminds me of the argument that the civil war wasn't necessary, change was coming, the north just didn't wait long enough for it.

The North didn't attack the South over slavery, they attacked over their declaration of secession. Slavery was the tipping point in why those states separated, but it wasn't the absolute reason (there were Union slave states at the start of the war, FYI).

Believe it or not, I made that mistake not once, but twice. I caught it the first time and either copy/paste broke or I'm extra retarded. Don't answer that.

Ah, okay.

[Chongo]

This would have made things real interesting (ENDA lawsuits) had the APA not made a staement that is was "error" the DSM-V lists pedophilia as an orientation.

APA to correct manual: Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation - Washington Times

About a week ago, a blog called NeonTommy, produced at Annenberg Digital News at the University of Southern California, said the APA had drawn a “very distinct line” between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder in its new manual.

According to the DSM-5, pedophilia “refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality,” NeonTommy wrote.

The APA said in its statement that “‘sexual orientation’ is not a term used in the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder and its use in the DSM-5 text discussion is an error and should read ‘sexual interest.’”

“In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a ‘paraphilia,’ not a ‘sexual orientation.’ This error will be corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual,” the organization said. The error appeared on page 698, said a spokeswoman.

[The Final Dakar]

This probably doesn't belong in here, but given the prevalence of slipper slope arguments, I thought it deserved to be noted.

'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

A federal judge in Utah has struck down part of that state's law banning polygamy, after a lawsuit was brought by the stars of the television reality series "Sister Wives."

The ruling late Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups threw out the law's section prohibiting "cohabitation," saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom.

But the judge said he would keep in place the ban on bigamy "in the literal sense -- the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into more than one purportedly legal marriage."

[subego]

Good for them.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This probably doesn't belong in here, but given the prevalence of slipper slope arguments, I thought it deserved to be noted.

'Sister Wives' case: Judge strikes down part of Utah polygamy law - CNN.com

I'm good with any judges that are pro constitution, pro freedom of the individual to live as (s)he sees fit.

[subego]

Yup.

Though polygamy as it's practiced by the Mormons is sketchy IMO, consenting adults can shack-up however they want. Even if misguided.

[Chongo]

Misguided? Please elaborate.

[subego]

I think a large percentage of women who enter into a polygamous Mormon relationship are mistaken about it being a good idea.

In most circumstances, I'd say it's a pretty horrible idea.

So... misguided.

But even though they're misguided, that's not a reason to outlaw it.

[subego]

So does the Duck Dynasty thing go in this thread, the white privilege thread, or do we need a redneck duck hunter thread too?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

So does the Duck Dynasty thing go in this thread, the white privilege thread, or do we need a redneck duck hunter thread too?

I was going to start a Lounge thread that said "Duck Dynasty Patriarch goes Quackers" But yeah, his comments cover so many subjects they deserve their own thread.

[subego]

Probably a better title than "Redneck Confused by Faggotry".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Probably a better title than "Redneck Confused by Faggotry".

Well, not even that. A lot of straight men enjoy anal sex. A story was related at a dinner few weeks ago where someone had their first "back door" experience with a woman and who related almost with rue that he had had so many years of "average" sex when there had been "prime rib" right next door.

I guess Duck Dynasty doesn't care for "prime rib".

[subego]

Duck dude is talking about pitching.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Duck dude is talking about pitching.

That's exactly what straight dudes do with women. What did I fail to communicate?

[subego]

That it wasn't the girl banging the guy.

[The Final Dakar]

The "next door" was implying next to vagina.

Also, I, uh, would think most people would think of the dude put it in the girl's butt first, not the other way around. /raised eyebrow

[subego]

Exactly.

The fact you needed to qualify sex between a man and a woman (even anal) as "straight" is what threw me.

Since you felt the need to qualify, I assumed you were discussing something where there'd be a question.

[The Final Dakar]

I have not missed these confusion conversations.

[subego]

Should I reexplain?

I was rushed when I wrote that.

[The Final Dakar]

No, I understood your explanation, just not the logic behind it.

[The Final Dakar]

Well, while we're here: New Mexico Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage - ABC News

New Mexico became the latest state to legalize gay marriage Thursday as its highest court declared it is unconstitutional to deny a marriage license to gay and lesbian couples.

Justice Edward L. Chavez said in the ruling that none of New Mexico's marriage statutes specifically prohibits same-gender marriages, but the state's laws as a whole have prevented same-sex couples from marrying. The justices said gay and lesbian couples are a discrete group that has been subjected to a history of discrimination and violence.

"Accordingly, New Mexico may neither constitutionally deny same-gender couples the right to marry nor deprive them of the rights, protections and responsibilities of marriage laws, unless the proponents of the legislation — the opponents of same-gender marriage — prove that the discrimination caused by the legislation is 'substantially related to an important government interest,'" Chavez wrote.

The Democratic-controlled Legislature repeatedly has turned down proposals for domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and a constitutional amendment that would have allowed voters to decide whether to legalize gay marriage. Measures to ban same-sex marriage also have failed.

[The Final Dakar]

I also forgot, I applaud Obama trolling Putin
U.S. delegation to Russian Olympics includes gay athletes - CNN.com

The United States' delegation to the upcoming Winter Olympics in Russia won't include a member of President Barack Obama's family or an active Cabinet secretary, but it will include openly gay athletes - a clear jab at Russia's recent anti-gay laws.
Billie Jean King, the tennis legend, will join figure skater Brian Boitano at the games' opening ceremonies on February 7, the White House said Tuesday.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

No, I understood your explanation, just not the logic behind it.

What part of the logic (reasoning) are you confused about?

DDD was talking about how he didn't see the appeal of a man's anus.

I assumed your statement was relevant to that.


**** me, right?

[subego]

WRT this, Bobby Jindal reminisced "In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment".

What ****ing planet are you on?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

What part of the logic (reasoning) are you confused about?

DDD was talking about how he didn't see the appeal of a man's anus.

I assumed your statement was relevant to that.


**** me, right?

Originally Posted by subego 

WRT this, Bobby Jindal reminisced "In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment".

What ****ing planet are you on?

Start a real thread for this. Not here.

[subego]

It's bad form to slam someone, and then tell then to go shove their response in another thread.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's bad form to slam someone, and then tell then to go shove their response in another thread.

Uh, argumentative tangents regularly get shunted to their own thread.

In fact I said

his comments cover so many subjects they deserve their own thread

before anyway.

[subego]

And then made your own comment anyways.

WTF?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

And then made your own comment anyways.

WTF?

In response to your response. It's called me not considering the consequences.

[subego]

Are you intentionally trying to be a jerk?

If not, fine. That's all that matters. I'll drop it.

If yes, what did I do to prompt this?

[The Final Dakar]

Intentionally - no. I never realize how far this stuff will go, but once I had real news to post, the tangent became a derail. Hence, new thread.

[The Final Dakar]

Well this just hit: Judge Strikes Down Utah's Same-Sex Marriage Ban - ABC News

U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby issued a 53-page ruling Friday saying Utah's law passed by voters in 2004 violates gay and lesbian couples' rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

Shelby said the state failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way.

During a nearly four-hour hearing earlier this month in Salt Lake City, attorneys for the state argued that Utah's law promotes the state's interest in "responsible procreation" and the "optimal mode of child-rearing." They also asserted it's not the courts' role to determine how a state defines marriage, and that the Supreme Court ruling doesn't give same-sex couples the universal right to marry.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Intentionally - no. I never realize how far this stuff will go, but once I had real news to post, the tangent became a derail. Hence, new thread.

Fair enough. No worries then.

[The Final Dakar]

Didn't get to post this: Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News

The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state. The ruling comes after a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.

I'm cool with this. Having a situation where hundreds of couples could be an anomaly, or worse, see their marriage annulled, rather than wait just a few more months for final clarity on the situation seems like a bad idea for me.

[Shaddim]

The "rush to get married anywhere you can" always bothered me. One, because rushing any decision like that is mega-bad. Two, if it's stripped due to court order, you're in worse shape than when you started. The courts will work this out, it's best to just let them.

[The Final Dakar]

Judge rules Oklahoma's gay marriage ban unconstitutional | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com

A U.S. District judge has ruled that Oklahoma’s ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional.

Judge Terence Kern made the ruling on Tuesday. The ruling was immediately put on hold, pending appeals.

In the ruling, the judge remarked "...the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights."

The judge also said equal protection is at the heart of our legal system.

...

"The court declares that Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by precluding same-sex couples from receiving an Oklahoma marriage license," Judge Kern wrote.