The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

At least the moron was kind of open about gay sex being icky.

The word "testimony" originates from the Roman Senate where Senators would grab their balls and say something to the effect of, "I swear on these f*ckers right here that I'm telling the truth when I say this." Guys like Frey would probably think that was kinda gay, so I doubt he would ever testify in actuality.

NSMike wrote:

The word "testimony" originates from the Roman Senate where Senators would grab their balls and say something to the effect of, "I swear on these f*ckers right here that I'm telling the truth when I say this." Guys like Frey would probably think that was kinda gay, so I doubt he would ever testify in actuality.

If that is true, that is sort of awesome. I wonder if that would work in court. "I don't believe in the bible, but I will swear on my balls that my statements are true."

Phoenix Rev wrote:

... oral sex ... fall under the definition of "sodomy"...

Well I'll be. Had no idea.

IMAGE(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QtMeoAjvyT4/TwqWBUKRdwI/AAAAAAAADmA/64LxP_QyXjU/s1600/TheMoreYouKnow.jpg)

Nevin73 wrote:
NSMike wrote:

The word "testimony" originates from the Roman Senate where Senators would grab their balls and say something to the effect of, "I swear on these f*ckers right here that I'm telling the truth when I say this." Guys like Frey would probably think that was kinda gay, so I doubt he would ever testify in actuality.

If that is true, that is sort of awesome. I wonder if that would work in court. "I don't believe in the bible, but I will swear on my balls that my statements are true."

Hilariously, while the Roman Senate part my not be true, it might ACTUALLY be from the bible:

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/inde...

In the book of Genesis there are several passages in which a man who is taking an oath puts his hand "under the thigh" of the man to whom he is swearing: "And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house...Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: And I will make thee swear by the Lord...." The Hebrew word in this passage is yarek, which means 'thigh' throughout the Old Testament. My Biblical expert says that this ritual seems to come from the idea that the thigh is the locus of power, probably because it's near the genitals. He also notes that some modern interpreters of the Bible envision it as a swearing on the genitals, with "under the thigh" being a euphemism which goes all the way back to the Hebrew.

I think it is very likely that these Biblical passages are the source of the popular notion that testify derived from testicle.

The practice may not be, but the word is.

Somewhat related, John Eastman, the president of the National Organization for Marriage (a well-known anti-equality organization), was asked what he thought Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion on same-sex couples adopting was. His response was mind-boggling:

You're looking at what is the best course societywide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts' family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option.

Seriously. He stated that. Roberts has two adopted children, and this epic asshat just referred to adoption as a "second-best option". I have no words.

NSMike wrote:

The practice may not be, but the word is.

It's the other way around. "Testimony" is derived from the Latin testis, meaning "witness". "Testicle" is derived from the Latin testis ("testicle"), which is considered to be a usage for "witness", as in that the testicles bear witness to virility. Testis "to witness" is the primary origin for both words.

(There's some question as to whether or not testis "testicle" is actually not related to testis "to witness" at all but to testa "pot".)

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Somewhat related, John Eastman, the president of the National Organization for Marriage (a well-known anti-equality organization), was asked what he thought Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion on same-sex couples adopting was. His response was mind-boggling:

You're looking at what is the best course societywide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts' family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option.

Seriously. He stated that. Roberts has two adopted children, and this epic asshat just referred to adoption as a "second-best option". I have no words.

Honestly, I'm utterly confused by that. What's the first best option that he's hinting at? That the couple have biological children instead of adopting? Or that parent-less children go un-adopted?

And that's even before we get into what counts as the "optimal result" for the whole of society.

These people are making all this fuss about children with gay parents and are ignoring the real issue. The children in Sim City 5 raised by whatever random group of adults got to the house first that day.

What sort of environment is that to grow up in?!

If it helps to get their attention those first adults could all be men. Of mixed-races even!

When a conservative convention comes to town, the anonymous M4M hookup ads on Craiglist increase dramatically.

Not that this surprises anyone at all

Trachalio wrote:

When a conservative convention comes to town, the anonymous M4M hookup ads on Craiglist increase dramatically.

Not that this surprises anyone at all :P

I really wish that someone would finally break down and confirm my suspicions about the sort of logic it takes to live with such a hypocritical lifestyle. I really believe that the gays in the deep conservative circles think that they're "normal people" and that everyone who is gay but not them or in their circle is the dancing, family-ending, morally bankrupt, disease spreading stereotype that they've built into their heads. People who, of course, must be punished.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Somewhat related, John Eastman, the president of the National Organization for Marriage (a well-known anti-equality organization), was asked what he thought Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion on same-sex couples adopting was. His response was mind-boggling:

You're looking at what is the best course societywide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts' family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option.

Seriously. He stated that. Roberts has two adopted children, and this epic asshat just referred to adoption as a "second-best option". I have no words.

Oh, this one really f*cking gets me.

My two nephews are adopted. One was the fifth child of a woman who was having her elderly parent's raise her other four children because she couldn't be bothered and whose father was serving time for possession and distribution of drugs. The other was the child of a 19 year-old who got knocked during a one night stand and didn't want to deal with a kid.

Both of those children are living far, far better lives and are in much more loving homes than they would have if they remained with their biological parents. Getting adopted by my sister and my brother-in-law was, by far, the best option for them.

A tremendously large number of Earth species reproduce using the genetic material of one male and one female. Very, very few species have one male and one female raise the offspring to maturity. Not as few as have the male do it alone (poor seahorses) but way more species have just the female rear the young, and even more leave the young to fend for themselves. (They are the perfect Republicans, they either succeed or die without complaint (because complaining would make it easier for predators to find them)).

So maybe we shouldn't let the biological necessity (for now) that one man and one woman fertilize an egg say much about how we raise the resulting bootstrappers?

Bloo Driver wrote:
Trachalio wrote:

When a conservative convention comes to town, the anonymous M4M hookup ads on Craiglist increase dramatically.

Not that this surprises anyone at all :P

I really wish that someone would finally break down and confirm my suspicions about the sort of logic it takes to live with such a hypocritical lifestyle. I really believe that the gays in the deep conservative circles think that they're "normal people" and that everyone who is gay but not them or in their circle is the dancing, family-ending, morally bankrupt, disease spreading stereotype that they've built into their heads. People who, of course, must be punished.

Hmm...I never connected it until you said that:

As a simple example, consider a situation where, Alice, a driver, is about to pass through an intersection. Her light turns green, and so she begins moving forward when a car blows through the red-light and cuts her off. What she does not know is that the other driver was rushing to the hospital (among many other possible emergencies). Alice has previously done the same thing herself, for the same reason, and got angry at what she saw as other inconsiderate drivers getting in her way. It was okay in her mind when she was in that situation at another drivers expense, but, could not consider the possibility of another driver in the same situation; seeing it instead as at her own expense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame...

The twisted logic that everyone else has a 'wicked nature' but I only 'make mistakes'

Trachalio wrote:

When a conservative convention comes to town, the anonymous M4M hookup ads on Craiglist increase dramatically.

Not that this surprises anyone at all :P

I'd love for some of them to get their pictures posted so the lies can be exposed.

CheezePavilion wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame...

The twisted logic that everyone else has a 'wicked nature' but I only 'make mistakes'

The famous only moral abortion is my abortion argument follows this as well.

Some local-ish news today:

Senator Rob Portman, R OH, now favors gay marriage.

Turns out, his son is gay. Good on him for not letting rhetoric stifle the importance of his family to him, and making that into something relevant to the nation at large.

Seth wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame...

The twisted logic that everyone else has a 'wicked nature' but I only 'make mistakes'

The famous only moral abortion is my abortion argument follows this as well.

I think that poverty is in this category as well, and helps explain why people vote against their best interests. "I'm going through a hard time right now, but all the other poor people are dumb and lazy and deserve their poverty."

NSMike wrote:

Some local-ish news today:

Senator Rob Portman, R OH, now favors gay marriage.

Turns out, his son is gay. Good on him for not letting rhetoric stifle the importance of his family to him, and making that into something relevant to the nation at large.

Or shame on him for only being ok with it after finding out it affects his son. Everyone else's son... f*** them. My son... he must have rights!

Demosthenes wrote:
NSMike wrote:

Some local-ish news today:

Senator Rob Portman, R OH, now favors gay marriage.

Turns out, his son is gay. Good on him for not letting rhetoric stifle the importance of his family to him, and making that into something relevant to the nation at large.

Or shame on him for only being ok with it after finding out it affects his son. Everyone else's son... f*** them. My son... he must have rights!

Well, again, this goes back to my point (the one Cheeze summed up really well): when it's "other people", it's easy to demonize. And, to be completely honest, history has shown us again and again that sometimes the only way someone's mind will be changed is when a category of people are no longer "others". It's an eye-opening experience, and not one that everyone takes to. There are plenty of people who, in his shoes, would have just demonized his own son, sent him to gay therapy, or whatever else. There's something to be said for having that crossroads moment and taking a more enlightened path.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
NSMike wrote:

Some local-ish news today:

Senator Rob Portman, R OH, now favors gay marriage.

Turns out, his son is gay. Good on him for not letting rhetoric stifle the importance of his family to him, and making that into something relevant to the nation at large.

Or shame on him for only being ok with it after finding out it affects his son. Everyone else's son... f*** them. My son... he must have rights!

Well, again, this goes back to my point (the one Cheeze summed up really well): when it's "other people", it's easy to demonize. And, to be completely honest, history has shown us again and again that sometimes the only way someone's mind will be changed is when a category of people are no longer "others". It's an eye-opening experience, and not one that everyone takes to. There are plenty of people who, in his shoes, would have just demonized his own son, sent him to gay therapy, or whatever else. There's something to be said for having that crossroads moment and taking a more enlightened path.

I guess... still just annoys me that people act like that. We're all people, figuring out that we should all be treating everyone how we'd like to be treated should not be that hard.

Ideally, yes, Demosthenes, someone would think and change their minds on their own. But I'm hesitant to call anyone out for changing their minds for less-than-ideal reasons.

Bloo Driver wrote:

There's something to be said for having that crossroads moment and taking a more enlightened path.

Yes, but that doesn't mean he's still not a contemptible asshole. I mean this guy voted to prohibit gays from adopting children.

It's very telling that in the op-ed that explains his change of mind there's not anything that could remotely be considered an apology to same-sex couples.

A big man would have used the words to the extent of "I was wrong and I am sorry that I have spent the last 20 years demonizing millions of Americans just like my son and actively denying them basic human rights."

OG_slinger wrote:

A big man who has zero interest in re-election would have used the words to the extent of "I was wrong and I am sorry that I have spent the last 20 years demonizing millions of Americans just like my son and actively denying them basic human rights."

Not saying you're not right, just that context is important.

Honest question, if prostrating himself on the altar of apology would more likely result in his replacement with a Republican with a harder-line stance on LGBT issues, shouldn't we be pleased that he's minimizing the political fallout from his change of heart so he can continue to influence the direction of the larger right-wing movement from within?

OG_slinger wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

There's something to be said for having that crossroads moment and taking a more enlightened path.

Yes, but that doesn't mean he's still not a contemptible asshole. I mean this guy voted to prohibit gays from adopting children.

It's very telling that in the op-ed that explains his change of mind there's not anything that could remotely be considered an apology to same-sex couples.

A big man would have used the words to the extent of "I was wrong and I am sorry that I have spent the last 20 years demonizing millions of Americans just like my son and actively denying them basic human rights."

Kind of my thought too OG. I get what Mike and Bloo are saying, and I kind of agree... then I read this in his op ed you linked...

Jerk of a Father Still, APparently wrote:

Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay.

Emphasis mine, he announced this this week... so for two years that his son has been openly gay with him, he's continued to take these stances? Anyone got good quotes of him on this topic for the last two years? Was Portman up for reelection this past year?

Oi, let's not misunderstand me, here. I'm not saying he's a great man who should be anoited "humanitarian". I'm just saying the how of how he came to this particular decision is valid enough in my eyes.

Every crack helps in bringing down the wall, regardless of how it got there.

Demosthenes wrote:
Jerk of a Father Still, APparently wrote:

Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay.

Emphasis mine, he announced this this week... so for two years that his son has been openly gay with him, he's continued to take these stances? Anyone got good quotes of him on this topic for the last two years? Was Portman up for reelection this past year?

Sometimes, it takes time to come around on these things. Many coming out stories revolve around parents and family who aren't supportive initially but who, over time, come to change their minds about LGBT issues. It's okay for Senator Portman to have not had an epiphany when he son came out but to have evolved his views and changed his mind over the course of a couple years.

Jonman wrote:

Honest question, if prostrating himself on the altar of apology would more likely result in his replacement with a Republican with a harder-line stance on LGBT issues, shouldn't we be pleased that he's minimizing the political fallout from his change of heart so he can continue to influence the direction of the larger right-wing movement from within?

Take a look at the ongoing kerfuffle about gays that's happening at CPAC. Social conservatives--the base of the right-wing--aren't going to change their tune about gays and same sex marriage anytime soon. Probably never considering their demographics. They've essentially drawn a line in the sand and said that being in the GOP means being against gay marriage and if that changes they'll break away from the party.

I want that to happen. And the sooner the better. That's because it would turn social conservatives into a party of concentrated craziness and bigotry that wouldn't be capable of winning national elections and force the remaining bits of the GOP to adopt much more moderate positions for, well, everything if they ever hoped to hold political power again.