U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/)
-   -   The Even Gayer than the Gay thread (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/the-even-gayer-than-the-gay-thread-218270.html)

Mrs. Garrison 04-09-2015 06:54 PM

The Even Gayer than the Gay thread
 
continued from: http://www.u2interference.com/forums...ad-216541.html

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/004...ff_xlarge.jpeg

I clearly have no idea why i started this thread, other than to continue the old one and i thought the title was cool. Does that make me...gay? No. Other things might, but not that.

For instance, i would much rather be Gay than Cruze Ted. ;)

In the sun
In the sun I feel as one
In the sun
In the sun

Ok Seriously now, Discuss....

BVS 04-09-2015 07:27 PM

Barry Manilow got married. Congrats guys!

It's sad that he was scared to lose fans if he came out. It can't be a surprise to that many :shrug:


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

deep 04-09-2015 07:36 PM

Billy Bean Will Advocate For Baseball To Finally Become LGBT-Friendly

Mrs. Garrison 04-09-2015 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVS (Post 7929249)
Barry Manilow got married. Congrats guys!

It's sad that he was scared to lose fans if he came out. It can't be a surprise to that many :shrug:


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Good for him. And yeah, not exactly a big surprise but i wish them both happiness.

Galeongirl 04-10-2015 05:15 AM

Fabulous title. :wink:

Irvine511 04-10-2015 09:18 AM

The Even Gayer than the Gay thread
 
Ted Cruz is much less gay than that other Republican from Texas maybe running for president.

Mrs. Garrison 04-11-2015 10:05 AM

Texas should just stop producing candidates for any office outside of Texas.

Irvine511 04-25-2015 07:14 PM

While transgenderism and homosexuality are two very different things, they face the same enemy (misogyny) and are placed together in the often used acronym LGBT.

So I guess this is the thread where I come to say that I was absolutely transfixed by ABC's Bruce Jenner interview, and became emotional at several different points in the story. What a journey.

Even better was how deftly ABC handled their discussion of trans issues; journalists should take their cues from Diane Sawyer on this subject, and the respect, kindness, and empathy she extended to Bruce to allow her to tell her own story.

It was simply great TV, and I'm sure a moment for TG individuals.

And on a side note, the best TV I've seen this year was "Transparent" on Amazon. Definitely check that out if you can.

corianderstem 04-25-2015 09:40 PM

I had absolutely no intention of watching the interview, but my Twitter was going crazy with people saying such positive things about it, I ended up watching some of it. Good for him. What a brave thing to do.

Then I finally got around to starting Transparent, and the first two episodes have been excellent.

Irvine511 04-28-2015 02:34 PM

interesting:

Quote:

No clear answers on same-sex marriage: In Plain English

It could turn out to be a nailbiter. After two-and-a-half hours of oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases, it was not clear where Justice Anthony Kennedy – and therefore the rest of the Court – was headed. Let’s talk about the oral argument in Plain English.

The arguments started with what many people refer to as the “marriage question” – whether the Constitution requires states to allow same-sex marriages. Representing the same-sex couples challenging the state bans, Mary Bonauto ran into tough questions from Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia. Roberts suggested that adopting Bonauto’s position would “redefine” marriage, adding that “every definition I looked up until about a dozen years ago” defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The plaintiffs could not have been encouraged when Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is probably their best bet to join the Court’s more liberal Justices to strike down the bans, echoed this idea. He told Bonauto that the traditional definition of marriage has been around for millennia, but it has only been a little over a decade since the Court held that Texas could not criminalize sex between two consenting adults of the same sex. That may be a long time for scholars, he pointed out, but it isn’t very long compared to the big picture, and “it’s very difficult for the Court to say we know better.”

Two other members of the Court’s conservative bloc, Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, also left little doubt that their sympathies lay with the states. Like the Chief Justice, Alito reminded Bonauto that, until the end of the twentieth century, there weren’t any countries that allowed same-sex marriages. And later he expressed concern about whether ruling for Bonauto’s clients might require states to allow other kinds of marriages – such as a marriage between two men and two women. Scalia framed the question before the Court much as the states had in their briefs, telling Bonauto that the “issue is who should decide? You are asking us to decide for this society when no other state has had [same-sex marriage] until 2001?”

Arguing on behalf of the federal government in support of the plaintiffs, U.S. Solicitor General Don Verrilli faced a similar barrage of questions from the Court’s more conservative Justices during his fifteen minutes at the lectern. In particular, Justice Kennedy reminded Verrilli that in an earlier case, the Court had indicated that it should define a “fundamental right” in “its narrowest terms” – a precedent that would not necessarily bode well for the plaintiffs. What, he asked Verrilli, should the Court do about that rule in this case? As he had during Bonauto’s argument, Justice Scalia then suggested that the Court should leave the issue for “the people” to decide, but Verrilli countered in his final remarks that the plaintiffs in the case deserve to have their constitutional rights now, without being required to wait to gain public support.

John Bursch, the former solicitor general of Michigan, represented the four states. He began by emphasizing what was not before the Court: whether the four states were “ready” for same-sex marriage. The question, he made clear, was who gets to decide whether the states must allow same-sex marriages. And he asked the Court to uphold a different right: the voters’ “individual fundamental liberty interest” to define the meaning of marriage.

Bursch spent most of his oral argument time sparring with the Court’s four more liberal Justices – Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor – about the states’ rationale for prohibiting same-sex marriage. Bursch maintained that the states were not limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples because they wanted to confer second-class status on same-sex couples, but because of society’s vision of marriage as an institution centered around having children and encouraging parents to stay married and bonded to their children. The idea that marriage is about love and commitment is important, he said, but the state doesn’t have any interest in that idea. All four of the more liberal Justices seemed highly skeptical of his justifications. How, Justice Ginsburg asked, does allowing same-sex marriage take anything away from opposite-sex couples? Being married, Justice Sotomayor pointed out, doesn’t stop parents from getting divorced and abandoning their children. Justice Breyer chimed in, observing that a “very high percentage” of opposite-sex couples don’t have children, while a similarly high percentage of same-sex couples do.

Significantly, Justice Anthony Kennedy at times also seemed dubious of the states’ argument. Even if same-sex couples can’t have biological children together, he posited, they might still want the other benefits that come with marriage. Like his more liberal counterparts, he also appeared to question Bursch’s assertion that allowing same-sex marriages would harm opposite-sex marriages, as well as the contention that only opposite-sex couples can bond with their children.

After ninety minutes of oral argument on the marriage question, the Court turned to the second question in the case: whether states can prohibit same-sex marriages but nonetheless be required to recognize same-sex marriages that legally took place somewhere else. This question only comes into play if the states win on the marriage question; if the Court were to rule that each state is constitutionally required to allow same-sex marriages by its own citizens, it becomes a non-issue.

Arguing on behalf of the challengers in the case, Douglas Hallward-Dreimeier emphasized that the states’ refusal to recognize same-sex marriages is a “stark departure” from the general practice of recognizing virtually all marriages. This argument seemed to find some traction with the Chief Justice, who asked Joseph Whalen – arguing on behalf of the states – when his home state of Tennessee had last declined to recognize a marriage in another context besides same-sex marriage. The answer? 1970, in a case involving a stepfather who had married his stepdaughter. But at another point, the Chief Justice suggested that, given how mobile our society is these days, requiring states that don’t allow same-sex marriage to recognize same-sex marriages from other states would mean that “one state can basically set policy for the entire nation.”

So where does this leave us? Once again, it may all come down to Justice Kennedy, and he didn’t tip his hand during his questions and comments in the first part of today’s arguments. Kevin Russell, who contributes frequently to this blog, has suggested that the Chief Justice’s questions during the second part of the oral argument could be part of an effort to broker a compromise, in which the Court rules that there is no right to same-sex marriage but still gives the plaintiffs much of what they are seeking by requiring states to recognize same-sex marriages that happen somewhere else. Notably, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy was quiet during the arguments on the recognition question. Does that silence mean that he had already decided to rule for the plaintiffs on the first question, eliminating any need to worry about the second one? His colleagues will know the answer later on this week, when they meet to vote on the case. We won’t know until the Court issues its decision in late June, but when we do we will be back to report on it in Plain English.

Galeongirl 04-28-2015 03:01 PM

Is there any argument at all that isn't a fallacy? :crack: Now I've had lectures on that topic I see them everywhere, especially in the gay marriage case.

Irvine511 04-28-2015 03:13 PM

The Even Gayer than the Gay thread
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Galeongirl (Post 7934843)
Is there any argument at all that isn't a fallacy? :crack: Now I've had lectures on that topic I see them everywhere, especially in the gay marriage case.


Id say the two valid arguments are:

1. It is new
2. It's less likely to become a divisive social issue if it's left to the states

The invalid arguments are:

1. It hurts straight marriages
2. It hurts children
3. The state has any compelling interest in banning SSM because of 1 and 2

There may well be some compromise -- states dont have to offer SSM to their citizens, but a SSM is valid in all states. So if I get married in MD and move to TX, I'm still married.

Irvine511 04-28-2015 03:23 PM

someone broke this down for me, this seems to be the core of the anti-SSM argument:

(1) states create marriage to create a child-rearing norm: the point of marriage is to incentivize straight folks to "stick together for the kids," especially accidental offspring from hetero-sex.
(2) states DO NOT create marriage to laud the emotional/financial commitments of adults to each other. It's all about the kids.
(3) Same-sex marriages signal to society that marriage is not about child-rearing but about adult intimacy and interdependence, therefore weakening child-rearing norms and resulting in more kids being raised in split homes.

Galeongirl 04-28-2015 03:39 PM

Kinda mad how marriage and kids are somehow so intertwined for the enemies of SSM.... while there's so many straight marriages breaking apart and wrecking the kids...

I just want to get married, as for now I have zero intentions to EVER have kids. So how would that be judged then? There would be no "Think of the kids!!!".


I think your point 3 is pretty spot on, except for the conclusion of course. :wink:

deep 04-28-2015 04:00 PM

It seems to be the Kennedy show. All the news is Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy.

Some of his posturing seemed a bit disturbing, like he may want to split the baby in halve.

This very well could be a 5-4 vote, awhile back I had hoped for at least a 6-3.

Worse, is it possible that it could not be conclusive?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com