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

I heard you, KingGorilla, and I was thinking the same thing.

Stengah wrote:

Yes, they're still christians, and they still believe in God, but they did realize that they were horribly wrong on the issue of homosexuality. The whole point of that article and the speeches they do is to share with others how they were wrong, and what being so wrong cost them, in an attempt to help prevent others from making their mistake. I have no idea how you can read it and think otherwise.

No, no, no. They realized they were wrong about how they treated their *son*. Not once did they acknowledge that their religious teachings about homosexuality were wrong. Not once did they ask for their son's forgiveness for putting him through the hell of making him choose between his religion and his sexuality.

All they did was make a little carve out in their belief system that basically involved them ignoring their son's sexual preference in favor of loving him (the ole "love the sinner, hate the sin" routine) and they only reached that point after they thought they'd never see him again.

I have no idea how you can read that article and not see that it's sole purpose was to elicit undeserved sympathy for a woman who killed her son because of her crazy religious beliefs, which she basically doubled-down on at the end.

NSMike wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I can understand your frustration if you are not separating the parts of the Bible that are narrative from the instructional bits. FYI, Lot impregnating his daughters is not meant to be instructional.

How do you tell the difference?

Also the second half of this Q&A clip deals with reading narrative.

No offense, Nomad, I watched the Big Think video, but I think I may have inadvertently thrown things off the rails with that question. I appreciate the effort, but I hope you'll forgive me if I don't continue the derail.

The next chapter in marriage equality in the U.S. looks like it will happen in New Jersey.

The first part of that chapter deals with the NJ Assembly and Senate looking to override Gov. Christie's 2013 veto of a gay marriage bill. Specifically, they asking the GOP leadership to allow a conscience vote on the issue (i.e. GOP members will be allowed to vote against the party line without repercussions). Apparently, some members of the NJ GOP disagree with Christie and want to vote to override his veto, but fear the consequences because of Christie's power and popularity. No date has been scheduled for the override vote.

The second part of the chapter deals with marriage equality advocated filing suit in NJ Superior Court looking for a summary judgement for the courts to allow gay marriage in the Garden State. This is based on the NJ Supreme Court's ruling several years ago that gay couples must be afforded the same rights as married heterosexual couples. The NJ Legislature then passed the state's civil unions bill. Then, last week, the SCOTUS struck down DOMA and gay couples are now at a disadvantage because without marriage, they are not entitled to all the federal benefits that gay couples in states that allow gay marriage would get (since some federal benefits are based on state of residence). The only way to get equality is to allow gay marriage. Arguments in the lawsuit are set for mid-August.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Specifically, they asking the GOP leadership to allow a conscience vote on the issue (i.e. GOP members will be allowed to vote against the party line without repercussions). Apparently, some members of the NJ GOP disagree with Christie and want to vote to override his veto, but fear the consequences because of Christie's power and popularity.

I'm sorry to sound sarcastic, but how exactly do they plan to achieve this? Through everyone putting their heads down on their desks and doing a raised-hand count? How do you convince a political party of any stripe not to hold breaking ranks against someone?

Bloo Driver wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

Specifically, they asking the GOP leadership to allow a conscience vote on the issue (i.e. GOP members will be allowed to vote against the party line without repercussions). Apparently, some members of the NJ GOP disagree with Christie and want to vote to override his veto, but fear the consequences because of Christie's power and popularity.

I'm sorry to sound sarcastic, but how exactly do they plan to achieve this? Through everyone putting their heads down on their desks and doing a raised-hand count? How do you convince a political party of any stripe not to hold breaking ranks against someone?

Anonymous voting?

Demosthenes wrote:

Anonymous voting?

Maybe. I just have trouble thinking there is such a thing. The folks have to know (or be strongly sure) who is opposed to the idea and will just assume the "traitors" voted against Christie. The whole exercise just seems a touch silly, is all.

As a side note, the fact we have to have a "conscience vote" its own special thing speaks volumes.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Anonymous voting?

Maybe. I just have trouble thinking there is such a thing. The folks have to know (or be strongly sure) who is opposed to the idea and will just assume the "traitors" voted against Christie. The whole exercise just seems a touch silly, is all.

As a side note, the fact we have to have a "conscience vote" its own special thing speaks volumes.

In what way? To me it worries me that they have such a thing as a conscience vote, as they should be voting with the opinions and belief of their electorate where such things do not violate our liberties. The idea that they are voting their own conscience seems counter to representing the people, except where the two coincide. Given that the majority of Americans are now in support of gay marriage, the fact that we don't have it is what speaks volumes about our obnoxious political process.

Demosthenes wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Anonymous voting?

Maybe. I just have trouble thinking there is such a thing. The folks have to know (or be strongly sure) who is opposed to the idea and will just assume the "traitors" voted against Christie. The whole exercise just seems a touch silly, is all.

As a side note, the fact we have to have a "conscience vote" its own special thing speaks volumes.

In what way? To me it worries me that they have such a thing as a conscience vote, as they should be voting with the opinions and belief of their electorate where such things do not violate our liberties. The idea that they are voting their own conscience seems counter to representing the people, except where the two coincide. Given that the majority of Americans are now in support of gay marriage, the fact that we don't have it is what speaks volumes about our obnoxious political process.

This would worry me if at any point I thought they were actually attempting to represent the vote of the people.

In reality, conscience vote is what should be happening every time since that's what they sold the voters during the election. It's not like the commercials said "I will vote the party line every time. Vote for me."

Edit: I also think this situation speaks volumes about the marriage-equality fight.

Demosthenes wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Anonymous voting?

Maybe. I just have trouble thinking there is such a thing. The folks have to know (or be strongly sure) who is opposed to the idea and will just assume the "traitors" voted against Christie. The whole exercise just seems a touch silly, is all.

As a side note, the fact we have to have a "conscience vote" its own special thing speaks volumes.

In what way? To me it worries me that they have such a thing as a conscience vote, as they should be voting with the opinions and belief of their electorate where such things do not violate our liberties. The idea that they are voting their own conscience seems counter to representing the people, except where the two coincide. Given that the majority of Americans are now in support of gay marriage, the fact that we don't have it is what speaks volumes about our obnoxious political process.

I get what you're saying, but I was more speaking to the point that it was a "do what the Party says, or else" situation that the idea of a conscience vote seems to have sprung from. That's a problem. It's certainly ALSO a problem that people will make the self-righteous moral appeal to their conscience and vote against what their constituents may have shown they would want.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Anonymous voting?

Maybe. I just have trouble thinking there is such a thing. The folks have to know (or be strongly sure) who is opposed to the idea and will just assume the "traitors" voted against Christie. The whole exercise just seems a touch silly, is all.

As a side note, the fact we have to have a "conscience vote" its own special thing speaks volumes.

In what way? To me it worries me that they have such a thing as a conscience vote, as they should be voting with the opinions and belief of their electorate where such things do not violate our liberties. The idea that they are voting their own conscience seems counter to representing the people, except where the two coincide. Given that the majority of Americans are now in support of gay marriage, the fact that we don't have it is what speaks volumes about our obnoxious political process.

This would worry me if at any point I thought they were actually attempting to represent the vote of the people.

In reality, conscience vote is what should be happening every time since that's what they sold the voters during the election. It's not like the commercials said "I will vote the party line every time. Vote for me."

Edit: I also think this situation speaks volumes about the marriage-equality fight.

...touche. Oh man, that makes me feel even worse about it. I totally knew all of this in the back of my head, but thinking about it in this light is kind of depressing.

Party line voting and conscience voting make a bit more sense in the context of a multi-party parliamentary system. Under the assumption that your party is part of a coalition, and that your party leadership is working in good faith with the leadership of the other parties in the coalition to craft compromises to support the goals of all of the participating parties, that kind of policy is an attempt to continue to maintain leadership of the coalition and to actually legislate (i.e. do their jobs) even if sometimes the fine details aren't an exact match for party policies. Of course, if the party leadership routinely abuse that, there's going to be dissension in the ranks. If the compromises routinely ignore the goals of some of the parties in the coalition, that will break the coalition and possibly lead to the majority coalition's loss of leadership, etc.

In a two-party system, they still make a little bit of sense, under the assumption that the leadership of the two parties is working to craft practical compromises to make it easier to pass legislation (i.e. do their jobs). And again, if the party leadership abuses it, or the goals of the minority party are abused by the majority party, or the party leadership fails to adequately explain the reasoning behind the compromises, etc. it falls apart.

Unfortunately, it also falls apart when one or more of the parties involved aren't actually trying to craft compromises.

IMAGE(http://explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Rob/debate.png)

NSMike wrote:

IMAGE(http://explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Rob/debate.png)

...I sooooo want to put that on my cube wall, but I suspect I'd get in trouble for not being inclusive of other people's religious beliefs... and yes, my brain would explode at the irony of that.

On today's edition of "The 700 Club," Pat Robertson pines for a "Vomit" button on Facebook for photos of gay people.

What you’re saying is, “Yes, I like this kind of thing.” You’ve got a couple of same-sex guys kissing. You “Like” that. Well, that makes me want to throw up. To me, I would punch “Vomit,” not “Like”… They don’t give you that option on Facebook.

Here's the video:

So, let me see if I have this right...

Two guys kissing is vomit inducing, but a televangelist who fleeces people out of their money so he can live a lavish lifestyle is just peachy keen?

I wish that were actually true. I wish he really did vomit when he saw them. I would post pictures on his FB page all day long.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

On today's edition of "The 700 Club," Pat Robertson pines for a "Vomit" button on Facebook for photos of gay people.

What you’re saying is, “Yes, I like this kind of thing.” You’ve got a couple of same-sex guys kissing. You “Like” that. Well, that makes me want to throw up. To me, I would punch “Vomit,” not “Like”… They don’t give you that option on Facebook.

Here's the video:

So, let me see if I have this right...

Two guys kissing is vomit inducing, but a televangelist who fleeces people out of their money so he can live a lavish lifestyle is just peachy keen?

This man is such a parody of what Christianity is supposed to be about. Kindness? Loving? Faith that God knows more than you do? There's none of that with Pat Robertson. If he showed up on air with a "God Hates Fags" sign, I wouldn't be remotely shocked.

I think he should be flogged for wearing an electric blue sport coat.

This man is such a parody of what Christianity is supposed to be about. Kindness? Loving? Faith that God knows more than you do? There's none of that with Pat Robertson. If he showed up on air with a "God Hates Fags" sign, I wouldn't be remotely shocked.

To be fair, he's been doing that without the sign for a while, as evidenced (apparently, YouTube blockage at work be damned) by that video.

Still makes him a tool who apparently failed the main lesson of the Bible, but ya know, that's never stopped any other money-hoarding at the expense of his flock TV-evangelist.

I have absolutely reached my fill of anti-gay bigots that demand that LGBT folks and their allies not take issue with their bigotry.

The most recent bigot to spout this crap is none other than Orson Scott Card.

Card is notoriously anti-gay and has been a strong supporter of NOM. He is so anti-gay that he stated that if the government allowed gay marriage, he would "act to destroy that government and bring it down."

Now that Section 3 of DOMA and Prop. 8 have fallen, Card is all but begging that everyone just chill and respect him and his views and stop the talk about boycotting his movie "Ender's Game."

Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

Oh, Sweet Jesus. The irony is so damn thick, you would need a warehouse full of chainsaws to cut it.

Here is a man who has actively worked to crush my marriage to Rubb Ed and the marriage of all other gays and lesbians across this nation and, now, when a boycott is called, he plays the martyr begging for tolerance from the marriage equality forces.

Unbelievable.

I'm surprised the studio doesn't have a tracking anklet and gag order on him to shut the hell up before his movie comes out on DVD and blu-ray.

Anyone else here read Ender's Game? There is a lot of repressed homosexual fantasy in there.

KingGorilla wrote:

Anyone else here read Ender's Game? There is a lot of repressed homosexual fantasy in there.

I didn't take that away from Ender's Game especially, although it's been years since I've read it.

I do recall that the protagonist in A Planet Called Treason (one of his earlier novels) develops hermaphroditic mutations, for which he becomes exiled, and he even passes as a woman for a while. That might be an interesting one to re-read if you want to examine Card's exploration of gender in fiction (I was too young when I read it to retain more than just a vague memory at this point).

Interestingly last week's Conference Call discusses how difficult it is to divorce an author from his or her works, and whether one should "take a stand" against a work by an author who has repugnant views. My perception (again, many years removed) of Ender's Game is that it's a good work of fiction which does not reflect the author's unfortunate bigotry.

In Card's The Homecoming Saga, he has a gay character make himself have sex with a woman so that they can have kids.

gore wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Anyone else here read Ender's Game? There is a lot of repressed homosexual fantasy in there.

I didn't take that away from Ender's Game especially, although it's been years since I've read it.

It is a lot like the scenes in Top Gun where you can just feel the sexual tension between Maverick and the Ice Man-showering, playing volleyball, rubbing scented oils onto eachother's thighs(watch the director's cut). What sticks out in my mind is the naked, steamy, slippery wrestling in the showers in Ender's Game.

I am not going to psycho analyze Card, but there is some unresolved homosexuality in Ender's Game.

KingGorilla wrote:
gore wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Anyone else here read Ender's Game? There is a lot of repressed homosexual fantasy in there.

I didn't take that away from Ender's Game especially, although it's been years since I've read it.

It is a lot like the scenes in Top Gun where you can just feel the sexual tension between Maverick and the Ice Man-showering, playing volleyball, rubbing scented oils onto eachother's thighs(watch the director's cut). What sticks out in my mind is the naked, steamy, slippery wrestling in the showers in Ender's Game.

I am not going to psycho analyze Card, but there is some unresolved homosexuality in Ender's Game.

I think I've heard this story before. Vocal anti-gay spokesbigot turns out to be a big fabulous homo...

RoughneckGeek wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:
gore wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Anyone else here read Ender's Game? There is a lot of repressed homosexual fantasy in there.

I didn't take that away from Ender's Game especially, although it's been years since I've read it.

It is a lot like the scenes in Top Gun where you can just feel the sexual tension between Maverick and the Ice Man-showering, playing volleyball, rubbing scented oils onto eachother's thighs(watch the director's cut). What sticks out in my mind is the naked, steamy, slippery wrestling in the showers in Ender's Game.

I am not going to psycho analyze Card, but there is some unresolved homosexuality in Ender's Game.

I think I've heard this story before. Vocal anti-gay spokesbigot turns out to be a big fabulous homo...

Not saying anything new here, but I don't care what he does, or thinks in his private life; as soon as he crosses the line into public advocacy, and major donations in support of movements to deny rights to people, he loses my financial support.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

In Card's The Homecoming Saga, he has a gay character make himself have sex with a woman so that they can have kids.

He doesn't particularly enjoy it though. Plus that series is one big religious circle jerk where everyone who loves "God" (literally a magical sky computer) is good and decent and such and everyone who rejects him wanting to go their own way in life is evil and selfish and likely to cause the end of humanity.