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

SixteenBlue wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't think we should ignore the experiences of children. That elementary school kid talking about her two moms was talking about her personal experience right? That's a far cry from saying we should have 11-year-old theologians tell us what the laws of our non-theocracy should be. Especially ones that are so anti-Catholic.

This. Two completely different situations.

I'm not entirely sure that's even a good line to make. That kid had two moms and was okay with it, and then some other kid has two moms and he's not happy about it because he wants a dad because that's "normal". I guess we dismiss the kid in the second case because that's just society imprinting on him, right?

No, I would listen to a kid actually demonstrating why their same sex parents failed to do their job because of the fact that they were same sex. I don't believe this exists, but if it did, I'd take it into consideration.

Actually, the American Pediatric's Association has proven the contrary. They have shown that having two parents is always beneficial to the child, but the gender has no affect on the development of the child both social and with regards to sexual identity. This was essentially in response to the argument that gay parents will cause their child to become gay.

In other news; it appears Colorado will be passing same-sex marriage rights within the week. It's just a matter of time before we see national rights for gay marriage. The younger generation just doesn't see this as an issue.

Blondish83 wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't think we should ignore the experiences of children. That elementary school kid talking about her two moms was talking about her personal experience right? That's a far cry from saying we should have 11-year-old theologians tell us what the laws of our non-theocracy should be. Especially ones that are so anti-Catholic.

This. Two completely different situations.

I'm not entirely sure that's even a good line to make. That kid had two moms and was okay with it, and then some other kid has two moms and he's not happy about it because he wants a dad because that's "normal". I guess we dismiss the kid in the second case because that's just society imprinting on him, right?

No, I would listen to a kid actually demonstrating why their same sex parents failed to do their job because of the fact that they were same sex. I don't believe this exists, but if it did, I'd take it into consideration.

Actually, the American Pediatric's Association has proven the contrary. They have shown that having two parents is always beneficial to the child, but the gender has no affect on the development of the child both social and with regards to sexual identity. This was essentially in response to the argument that gay parents will cause their child to become gay.

In other news; it appears Colorado will be passing same-sex marriage rights within the week. It's just a matter of time before we see national rights for gay marriage. The younger generation just doesn't see this as an issue.

Of course they've proven that, that's basically common sense. I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not assuming the conclusion and validating only evidence that supports my assumption.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm not entirely sure that's even a good line to make. That kid had two moms and was okay with it, and then some other kid has two moms and he's not happy about it because he wants a dad because that's "normal". I guess we dismiss the kid in the second case because that's just society imprinting on him, right?

Where did you read the other kid has two moms?

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm not entirely sure that's even a good line to make. That kid had two moms and was okay with it, and then some other kid has two moms and he's not happy about it because he wants a dad because that's "normal". I guess we dismiss the kid in the second case because that's just society imprinting on him, right?

Where did you read the other kid has two moms?

It's a hypothetical situation. The "some other kid" is not the 11-year-old kid from the MPR article. I can imagine a kid wishing he had a "normal" family so he could "just fit in" and misplacing the blame on his parents instead of the people giving him crap over it.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't think we should ignore the experiences of children. That elementary school kid talking about her two moms was talking about her personal experience right? That's a far cry from saying we should have 11-year-old theologians tell us what the laws of our non-theocracy should be. Especially ones that are so anti-Catholic.

This. Two completely different situations.

I'm not entirely sure that's even a good line to make. That kid had two moms and was okay with it, and then some other kid has two moms and he's not happy about it because he wants a dad because that's "normal". I guess we dismiss the kid in the second case because that's just society imprinting on him, right?

No, I would listen to a kid actually demonstrating why their same sex parents failed to do their job because of the fact that they were same sex. I don't believe this exists, but if it did, I'd take it into consideration.

And now a third situation, I guess. My point wasn't that we shouldn't listen to children pontificating logically about the fitness of their parents. My point was that generally speaking, "well, my feels" from kids should either all be taken into account or not be taken into account at all. Were you similarly interested in hearing the kid in the video from months ago explain why she saw her parents as fit and acceptable? I'm going to guess no, because most of us just kind of stopped at "Well, the kid isn't bothered, isn't that great."

In today's debate in Minnesota on marriage equality, citizen Mike Frey decided to opine a little ditty that goes something like this:

"Anal sex is bad because when you have anal sex, you expose the colon to prolonged exposure to semen and that causes AIDS, which causes colds and other common diseases, and when you get sick, AIDS gets stronger and that is a total threat to society, and not only that, but did you hear that in Los Angeles, the gays got boils and a rash, and so because of anal sex, we shouldn't allow gay marriage."

I kid you not.

You can watch the train wreck yourself.

My condolences to his family and friends.

I hope his wife is a secret butt freak.

They all are.

Me thinks someone forgot to update his information from 1960(?)s fear-based rhetoric.

Also I'm pretty sure he just set a new record for highest density of logical fallacies and factual errors per unit time.

Enzymes cause AIDS, krev, okay?

Proenix Rev can back me up on this. The average gay male is aware of the existence of the condom, right?

And if a gay man or lesbian woman or their partner were known to contract an STI, they should use protection?

Just, I am not exactly sure if people know how condoms or dental dams work when I see this kind of talk.

I hesitate to call it testimony, because in my world testimony comes from facts, personal knowledge, or acquired and vetted expertise.

KingGorilla wrote:

I hesitate to call it testimony, because in my world testimony comes from facts, personal knowledge, or acquired and vetted expertise.

I'm pretty sure that guy's had secret rest stop anal. Oh I'm not saying he's gay, he just smells like rough trade to me.

KingGorilla wrote:

Proenix Rev can back me up on this. The average gay male is aware of the existence of the condom, right?

And if a gay man or lesbian woman or their partner were known to contract an STI, they should use protection?

Just, I am not exactly sure if people know how condoms or dental dams work when I see this kind of talk.

I hesitate to call it testimony, because in my world testimony comes from facts, personal knowledge, or acquired and vetted expertise.

I think most people know to use protection in those instances and I think people know how to use condoms and dental dams. The question is will they actually use them. That applies to both gay and straight people.

But Frey's "testimony" is gibberish. What's left out of his nonsense are the following facts:

1. Heterosexuals engage in anal sex, too.
2. Exposure to semen alone does not cause HIV infection.
3. The boils and rash in Los Angeles that Frey mentions was determined to be caused by an antibiotic resistant staph infection, not HIV or AIDS, and was found both in gay men who were HIV positive or had AIDS or had neither, as well as heterosexuals.
4. Whether marriage equality passes in Minnesota or not, people will still have unprotected sex with people that have STIs, heterosexuals will still engage in anal sex and oral sex (both of which fall under the definition of "sodomy"), and antibiotic-resistant staph infections will continue to be spread in the world.

Frey (who, as it turns out, is a Baptist preacher) is using fear tactics.

The people who are losing the war on gay marriage are so desperate at this point, they will do anything possible to try to stem the tide of marriage equality.

The sad thing is that Frey isn't introspective enough to realize that his ignorance is harming people.

Then again, maybe he is introspective enough and just doesn't care that he is spreading falsehoods to further his political agenda.

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.