Sadly, this is basically what the defense tried to prove today: unless kids have one daddy who works and one mommy who stays home pregnant and cooking chicken pot pies, they will turn gay.
O_O Buh Whah?
I fear that a pink and purple blur will descend in the first wave, followed by a phalanx of flannel, lastly the 7 inch heels supporting 300 pound frames with 5 o'clock shadows.
You just described my NYE.
Sadly, this is basically what the defense tried to prove today: unless kids have one daddy who works and one mommy who stays home pregnant and cooking chicken pot pies, they will turn gay.
FACT: I was raised by a single unpregnant, working mother, who made pies.
FACT: I have no desire to make sweet, sweet loving with another chap.
We can therefore conclude that chicken pot pies are a functional innoculation against the gay.
KingGorilla wrote:I fear that a pink and purple blur will descend in the first wave, followed by a phalanx of flannel, lastly the 7 inch heels supporting 300 pound frames with 5 o'clock shadows.
You just described my NYE.
You left out a sweater vest contingent.
Even if it makes it to the Supreme Court, they will only decide that issue one way or the other. That does not mean, however, that the Supreme Court will rule on whether or not gay marriage is constitutional.
Surely no one argues that gay marriage itself is unconstitutional, do they? I can see how Prop 8 might be ruled constitutional, but I have a really hard time seeing an argument that the U.S Constitution as is prohibits gays from marrying.
OG_slinger wrote:Sadly, this is basically what the defense tried to prove today: unless kids have one daddy who works and one mommy who stays home pregnant and cooking chicken pot pies, they will turn gay.
FACT: I was raised by a single unpregnant, working mother, who made pies.
FACT: I have no desire to make sweet, sweet loving with another chap.We can therefore conclude that chicken pot pies are a functional innoculation against the gay.
Interesting choice for the way you phrased the second fact... You may in fact be gay.
Signs of gayness include:
- sexual attraction to men
- lack of sexual attraction to men
- sleeping more
- sleeping less
- you are not hungry
- you cannot stop eating
- you are much more irratable than usual.
hmm, on second thought that might be depression...
More seriously though:
Did I just see people dismiss safety fears because those that might perpetrate violence could be gay? Are homosexuals somehow less than human and unable to commit violence against another human being, in spite of historical evidence to the contrary? Furthermore somehow equating the decision to not testify for fear of retaliation as meaning that they were necessarily wrong I believe to be patently absurd.
Did I just see people dismiss safety fears because those that might perpetrate violence could be gay? Are homosexuals somehow less than human and unable to commit violence against another human being, in spite of historical evidence to the contrary? Furthermore somehow equating the decision to not testify for fear of retaliation as meaning that they were necessarily wrong I believe to be patently absurd.
I don't think people would be poking as much fun were it not for the fact that the man in question, Dr. Tam, made a bunch of ridiculous statements (gay marriage will lead to legalization of prostitution and pedophilia), then suddenly backed down when it was time to back these statements up in court. Also, he was apparently still in the courtroom today so he couldn't have been too worried about violent retaliation.
Did I just see people dismiss safety fears because those that might perpetrate violence could be gay? Are homosexuals somehow less than human and unable to commit violence against another human being, in spite of historical evidence to the contrary? Furthermore somehow equating the decision to not testify for fear of retaliation as meaning that they were necessarily wrong I believe to be patently absurd.
No, I dismissed the possibly because it was ludicrous. I don't find it impossible that people would be moved to violence over this, but pay close attention to how and where Tam has backed out citing fear to his person - the trial itself. Has there been outbreaks of violence or even shoving and pushing around the courthouse? I haven't seen any report of it (and I think if there was, the media would be very happy to jump all over the resulting circus). And look at the timing: shortly after video of his testimony - which was effectively him saying exactly what the defense is trying to prove was never said. There are a handful of reasons to see this simply as a cop-out and not a man actually in fear for his life.
And on the other hand even if he was afraid for his life, he has no more reason to be afraid than his lawyer, members of the prosecution, or those who are testifying for the prosecution. There's no reason to think the man is actually afraid for his life, but even if he is it shows that he very simply lacks the conviction he claims to.
Nosferatu wrote:Did I just see people dismiss safety fears because those that might perpetrate violence could be gay? Are homosexuals somehow less than human and unable to commit violence against another human being, in spite of historical evidence to the contrary? Furthermore somehow equating the decision to not testify for fear of retaliation as meaning that they were necessarily wrong I believe to be patently absurd.
I don't think people would be poking as much fun were it not for the fact that the man in question, Dr. Tam, made a bunch of ridiculous statements (gay marriage will lead to legalization of prostitution and pedophilia), then suddenly backed down when it was time to back these statements up in court. Also, he was apparently still in the courtroom today so he couldn't have been too worried about violent retaliation.
Wait he showed up, but just refused to testify? OK that is just stupid.
I suspect that the defense knows better than to take the religious angle on this. They've been working very hard to make their case seem as rational and practical as they can muster, and going all leviticus on this will just take them more than two steps back. Religion as a basis of motivation has not done well in the courtroom lately.
Attorney asks Lamb if he is familiar with the emails from East Anglia citing the fudging of climate science data. Lamb says he knows of the issue, but hasn't read the emails. Attorney asks if we shouldn't be skeptical of research in his field since we know scientists fudge the data. Lamb says he is not an expert on the history of psychology.
So was the argument seriously "since there was some emails about climatologists fudging data, any kind of data put together by scientists is now suspect"?
edit: It seems the issue with Tam is not exactly recent, so at least I revoke my claim that he's doing this out of convenient timing.
She said she met someone and fell in love but was petrified of showing her any affection at all in public. She kept her distance sat opposite at the table instead of next to her, etc. (Let me interject here that even though I am completely out of the closet, I still have that moment of pause when I want to hold Rubb Ed's hand during dinner. Just for a moment, I worry who my see me and what it might lead to. As a matter of fact, we were having dinner a couple of years ago here in Phoenix at a very posh restaurant and one of the other patrons complained about Rubb and I holding hands. The manager told her that if she didn't like it, she was welcome to leave and never come back!)
This is just one of those microcosmic things that I think every gay man and lesbian goes through, no matter how long they've been out. I still find myself stopping and debating whether I should mention the chorus I'm in is the gay men's chorus if it's someone who I haven't specifically told "I'm gay" to. Hell, this past Sunday, I was at a Trader Joe's, wearing a t-shirt for the chorus which flat out says it's the gay men's chorus, and when someone stopped me and asked if I was a member, I hesitated for a second.
Believe me, with all the stories we hear over the years about GLBT folks getting hurt or killed because they didn't hide themselves to the wrong person, it's no wonder most of us have these defensive mechanisms up. It's frustrating, and I inevitably feel stupid when they kick in, but it's an ingrained mechanism. It also explains why us gay folks tend to hang around one another a whole lot: it's one of the few times in our lives, once we're aware of who we are, where we can put those guards down.
It also explains why things like the Stonewall Riots and the gay bar raid in Fort Worth are viewed as such blows to us. Gay-friendly establishments being raided can be as much an affront to our sense of safety as having our homes broken into. It removes a place from us where we can safely be ourselves.
I cannot read this any other way than that he wants to play the victim here. He goes out and spouts his horrific anti-gay diatribes, writes literature to be disseminated in churches and then has to audacity to claim that challenging him on his beliefs is "invasions of his personal beliefs."
Asshole.
Fixed for you, honey.
I cannot read this any other way than that he wants to play the victim here. He goes out and spouts his horrific anti-gay diatribes, writes literature to be disseminated in churches and then has to audacity to claim that challenging him on his beliefs is "invasions of his personal beliefs."
Madness.
Yeah, the audacity of some people. How dare we force someone into a court of law to justify how they believe and want to live their life.
The irony is choking me.
SocialChameleon wrote:I think it speaks volumes about the legal weaknesses of the pro-Prop 8 position, and the commendable strength of the commitment of the attorneys involved to their professional integrity, even if they don't agree with the argument they're presenting.
It also speaks volumes about why most people hate attorneys for whoring themselves out for a couple of dollars.
As an attorney I find this offensive.
When I whore myself out, it is certainly for a lot more than "a couple" of dollars.
Awesome thread, Rev. Thanks for the updates.
Going back to the something said on the first day, if marriage is first and foremost about procreation, doesn't that mean that if you have kids then you shouldn't be allowed to get divorced?
I love that the attorneys keep asking about the ACLU. Didn't the ACLU defend Ollie North?
OG_slinger wrote:SocialChameleon wrote:I think it speaks volumes about the legal weaknesses of the pro-Prop 8 position, and the commendable strength of the commitment of the attorneys involved to their professional integrity, even if they don't agree with the argument they're presenting.
It also speaks volumes about why most people hate attorneys for whoring themselves out for a couple of dollars.
As an attorney I find this offensive.
When I whore myself out, it is certainly for a lot more than "a couple" of dollars.
Sadly, this is basically what the defense tried to prove today: unless kids have one daddy who works and one mommy who stays home pregnant and cooking chicken pot pies, they will turn gay.
How dare you disparage the exquisite art of chicken pot pie making!
Attorney asks Lamb if he is familiar with the emails from East Anglia citing the fudging of climate science data. Lamb says he knows of the issue, but hasn't read the emails. Attorney asks if we shouldn't be skeptical of research in his field since we know scientists fudge the data. Lamb says he is not an expert on the history of psychology.So was the argument seriously "since there was some emails about climatologists fudging data, any kind of data put together by scientists is now suspect"?
Not to drag this down that, as we discussed it in another thread. But those e-mails did not even provide any credence to the idea of fudging climate data.
Further, even if they do, at best the two are completely un-related. At worst the people defending Prop 8 have pretty much said all research is BS, even theirs.
Much of this rather reminds me of the 4th Act of Milk as Harvey is openly debating the gay ban in the 70's. The senator was very eloquent when preaching to his own flock. But all there was was BS and rhetoric.
I half expect, at some point, this attorney will attack someone for believing in evolution as "just a theory."
Further, even if they do, at best the two are completely un-related. At worst the people defending Prop 8 have pretty much said all research is BS, even theirs.
That was pretty much my point. You would expect a little more from someone with a law degree, not the legal equivalent of sitting down, loosening your tie, giving a far off gaze and saying "Yeah man, but what do we really know?"
KingGorilla wrote:Further, even if they do, at best the two are completely un-related. At worst the people defending Prop 8 have pretty much said all research is BS, even theirs.
That was pretty much my point. You would expect a little more from someone with a law degree, not the legal equivalent of sitting down, loosening your tie, giving a far off gaze and saying "Yeah man, but what do we really know?"
You work with what you got. And in this case they've got nothing but the fear and bigotry of a large number of people.
Pages