equality blooms with spring

[INDY500]

would you like to cite your sources?

Here's the latest article I read. There are others.
The New Blacklist

ever been to a pro-life or pro-choice march? you'll see lots of verbal intimidation. please show me a contentious social issue in which both sides discuss the issue by mutually affirming the worth and value of the other side's argument.

No actually. But you do that unanimously I'm sure. The point of the google maps is to give those that donated pause should there be a next time. "They will know where I live." It sure sounds like intimidation.

or maybe it's just really unpopular in Hollywood given the fact that most people in the arts work with gay people all the time.

you can assume all you want, but does it surprise you that such a thing would be unpopular amongst the "Hollywood Left"?

Fine, but they should recognize that makes their personal scolding and lecturing as well as any "messages" their products deliver on the matter nothing less than propaganda.

 

[martha]

Still focusing on the rowdy guys and not the issues.

Kinda makes me wonder if you have anything else to say?

 

[Irvine511]

Here's the latest article I read. There are others.
The New Blacklist

The Weekly Standard

just pointing that out.

do you think this is in any way comparable to the actual 1950s McCarthy-era blacklist? or is this just hysterical hyperbole?

No actually. But you do that unanimously I'm sure. The point of the google maps is to give those that donated pause should there be a next time. "They will know where I live." It sure sounds like intimidation.

yes, it's done unanimously. and it's public information. anyone can look it up. i suppose it's tough when the gays get organized, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the pale here, nothing illegal, and nothing that hasn't been done before.

Fine, but they should recognize that makes their personal scolding and lecturing as well as any "messages" their products deliver on the matter nothing less than propaganda.

so it's the "uppity" thing again. that's really what it seems to be boiling down to. i understand that you don't like being called a bigot or homophobic. i'm sure segregationists didn't like to be called racists either.

 

[INDY500]

Tradition don't mean shit!!!

Spoken like a true progressive including the obligatory profanity.

 

[anitram]

I buried my grandmother today.

She lived 88 very excellent years on this planet. The last few were hard, but overall she had a good life and a good family. She was one of 6 children, born on a farm and only finished the 6th grade. She was literate and liked to read (especially the tabloids), and very pious. She prayed 5 rosaries every day, never missed a weekly mass so long as she was healthy enough to attend. She buried her husband 26 years ago, never remarried, and instead moved in with her son and baked anything her grandchildren wanted. She loved the old Pope, she had a cherished rosary from Fatima, and while she was very proud that her grandchildren were successful, she would have been perfectly happy if we were less ambitious and more traditional (yes, I bet she's still hoping that I make an honest woman of myself...).

I remember distinctly when gay marriage was an issue here. One of her sisters-in-law was talking about how she's always voted for the Liberals but won't this time because they're for "gays marrying, can you imagine such a thing?" And my grandmother's response was "well, Anne, I don't think they want to marry us...."

That's my bright line test. If you fail it, my opinion of you is very low.

 

[U2isthebest]

^Your grandma rocks.

 

[martha]

INDY must have me on ignore. Could someone else ask him those questions again?

 

[BVS]

Spoken like a true progressive including the obligatory profanity.

Where did "tradition" play with interracial marriage, women's rights, or any other social issues where conservatives have been on the wrong side of history?

And my one four letter word isn't offensive at all, not compared to some of the comparisons and leaps of logic you make...

 

[Irvine511]

Spoken like a true progressive including the obligatory profanity.

i think the point is that tradition also gave us racism, sexism, slavery, genocide, etc. that while tradition is nice and can be looked to in order to give some a sense of structure, meaning, and purpose, deference to tradition simply because it's tradition is little more than a Flat Earth way of viewing the world.

we burned witches at the stake out of tradition.

 

[martha]

Where did "tradition" play with interracial marriage, women's rights,

Iowa's had a pretty strong tradition of being on the advanced side of these two things.

 

[INDY500]

i think the point is that tradition also gave us racism, sexism, slavery, genocide, etc. that while tradition is nice and can be looked to in order to give some a sense of structure, meaning, and purpose, deference to tradition simply because it's tradition is little more than a Flat Earth way of viewing the world.

Funny way to make that point.

Conservatives are for change and reform. Not the change for change's sake, tradition is shit, worry about the consequences later kind of change. But prudent, informed change. Change that improves society--thus preserving it.

If I thought redefining marriage would improve society I would favor it.

 

[Irvine511]

Funny way to make that point.

Conservatives are for change and reform. Not the change for change's sake, tradition is shit, worry about the consequences later kind of change. But prudent, informed change. Change that improves society--thus preserving it.

If I thought redefining marriage would improve society I would favor it.

you're for change we can believe in? cool. i don't disagree with how you've presented change above.

another question: do you think "redefining" marriage will worsen society? if so, how?

another question: do you only approve "change" when it can be proved that it will "improve" society? can you site examples of this? how do you know if something will pass the improvement test?

am i to take your above position as an endorsement of the NRO editorial where gay people are told, essentially, to go to hell because their relationships offer nothing of value to society?

 

[Irvine511]

also, wasn't the whole raison d'etre of the life of, you know, Christ, to change how people thought?

that Rebel from Nazareth.

 

[BVS]

Conservatives are for change and reform.

Can you show me anywhere in any conservative platform where they've been about change or reform?

But prudent, informed change. Change that improves society--thus preserving it.

I'm sorry but in all honesty I've never seen anything truly informed when it comes to this issue from the conservative side, and that's not bias speaking, because I can acknowledge when I see informed opposition, I just have never seen it concerning this issue.

If I thought redefining marriage would improve society I would favor it.

But it will improve other people's society and not effect yours, yet that isn't good enough for you to favor it. You've spent years in here trying to show how it will change your society and failed with every turn. And it came down to tradition and a word.


How long will you have to look at Iowa in order to make your informed decision if it indeed harms society or not?

 

[U2isthebest]

also, wasn't the whole raison d'etre of the life of, you know, Christ, to change how people thought?

that Rebel from Nazareth.

The sad thing is, if Jesus walked into the average American Evangelical mega-church today, they'd kick him out for being too "radical".

 

[martha]

Conservatives are for change and reform.

It's funny you should redefine conservative like that.


Anyway, I was slogging through an extra-long chapter just now, reading about the spread of democracy in Europe in the early twentieth century, and it occurred to me that as much as these conservatives are always shouting about the "tradition" of marriage for the last 2500 years, and how they should be allowed to vote on the marriages of complete strangers, the "tradition" of being allowed to vote on anything is only about 100 years old for most of these conservatives. Most of them wouldn't have been allowed to vote on anything at all at the turn of the last century.

Somehow I find that ironic.

 

[Bluer White]

Indy, I understand where you're coming from. But when you get right down to it, the marriage contract is just a piece of paper recognized by the state. It doesn't need to be blessed by my church, or your church, or even the Bible. Each one of us attaches our own values to the contract.

Whether it's between a man and a woman, or simply two consenting adults....it really has no impact on my own personal affairs. I don't think we should necessarily ban social contracts that might make you and I uncomfortable.


Life really is too short to rain on someone else's parade. Even if it's a tacky gay pride parade.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Funny way to make that point.

Conservatives are for change and reform. Not the change for change's sake, tradition is shit, worry about the consequences later kind of change. But prudent, informed change. Change that improves society--thus preserving it.

If I thought redefining marriage would improve society I would favor it.

So you get veto over other peoples liberties, you are only reinforcing the false stereotype that Martha is promoting.

 

[martha]

Then maybe it isn't as false as we'd hoped?

 

[Irvine511]

I don't think we should necessarily ban social contracts that might make you and I uncomfortable.

but what about marriage being natural, eternal, 5,000 years of tradition, etc.

also, what's the source of discomfort? doesn't the presence of discomfort indicate that there's something wrong, but more likely with the one who is feeling discomfort? it reminds me of a time in college when someone had put a porno on -- this was back in the days of VHS -- and there was one scene with a black man and a white woman, and someone walked out of the room because that particular scene made him uncomfortable.

he had the problem, did he not?

 

[financeguy]

i think the point is that tradition also gave us racism, sexism, slavery, genocide, etc. that while tradition is nice and can be looked to in order to give some a sense of structure, meaning, and purpose, deference to tradition simply because it's tradition is little more than a Flat Earth way of viewing the world.

we burned witches at the stake out of tradition.

Funny to have a big Israel supporter lecturing about things like racism and slavery and genocide.

But leaving that aside, what you've done here is exaggerrate to a ridiculous extent, so that opposing legal change to mandate gay marriage upon states where the majority of citizens don't want it legalised, is, apparently, equivalent to burning witches - i.e. committing murder - for the sake of preserving tradition.

It's a bit like a homophobe blaming all gays for the murders committed by Jeffrey Dahmer.

 

[deep]

The sad thing is, if Jesus walked into the average American Evangelical mega-church today, they'd kick him out for being too "radical".

that isn't true




Jesus would get a plane ride

 

[Irvine511]

Funny to have a big Israel supporter lecturing about things like racism and slavery and genocide.

funny to have a Hamas sympathizer make this comparison.

But leaving that aside, what you've done here is exaggerrate to a ridiculous extent, so that opposing legal change to mandate gay marriage upon states where the majority of citizens don't want it legalised, is, apparently, equivalent to burning witches - i.e. committing murder - for the sake of preserving tradition.

no, it's more equivalent to the terrible, terrible, unelected, unaccountable judges who imposed interracial marriage on the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1967.

the burning witches at the stake point was in direct regards to the selective application of "tradition" -- generally speaking, conservatives call upon tradition whenever it best serves to solidify existing power structures and maintain the status quo.

It's a bit like a homophobe blaming all gays for the murders committed by Jeffrey Dahmer.

can i blame all gay bashings on straights?

 

[BVS]

But leaving that aside, what you've done here is exaggerrate to a ridiculous extent, so that opposing legal change to mandate gay marriage upon states where the majority of citizens don't want it legalised, is, apparently, equivalent to burning witches - i.e. committing murder - for the sake of preserving tradition.

It's a bit like a homophobe blaming all gays for the murders committed by Jeffrey Dahmer.

Unsuprisingly you missed the point by miles...

 

[financeguy]

funny to have a Hamas sympathizer make this comparison.

From my perspective, it's just disappointing to see someone who has made very, very good posts completely annihilating the case for war in Iraq - and the prosecution of that war - then turn around and label critics of Israeli policies as Hamas sympathizers. It's just disappointing and seems to me inconsistent with your other posts....but we digress.

the burning witches at the stake point was in direct regards to the selective application of "tradition" -- generally speaking, conservatives call upon tradition whenever it best serves to solidify existing power structures and maintain the status quo.

But this is a complete value judgement. It is no more or less valid than a right winger saying 'generally speaking, leftists call upon violent revolution to overthrow tradition whenever it best serves their agenda to get rid of existing power structures and the status quo.' It doesn't really tell us anything about the conservative point of view - in much the same way as a Fox News talking head claiming that all leftwingers support the Stalinist purges tell us anything about what leftwing thought really represents.

can i blame all gay bashings on straights?

You can certainly blame it on institutionalised homophobia, and you'd probably have a very legitimate point in so doing.

 

[financeguy]

I'm sorry but in all honesty I've never seen anything truly informed when it comes to this issue from the conservative side, and that's not bias speaking, because I can acknowledge when I see informed opposition, I just have never seen it concerning this issue.

Log Cabin Republicans - Home

 

[financeguy]

It's funny you should redefine conservative like that.


Anyway, I was slogging through an extra-long chapter just now, reading about the spread of democracy in Europe in the early twentieth century, and it occurred to me that as much as these conservatives are always shouting about the "tradition" of marriage for the last 2500 years, and how they should be allowed to vote on the marriages of complete strangers, the "tradition" of being allowed to vote on anything is only about 100 years old for most of these conservatives. Most of them wouldn't have been allowed to vote on anything at all at the turn of the last century.

Somehow I find that ironic.

What were leftwingers were advocating for in the same period and what did it lead to?

 

[BVS]

Log Cabin Republicans - Home

Yes, but they would not be the opposition on this issue.

 

[BVS]

Tradition is something celebrated on college campuses or within families, it has absolutely no place in law and equality.

What is so hard about that to understand?

 

[financeguy]

Tradition is something celebrated on college campuses or within families, it has absolutely no place in law and equality.

What is so hard about that to understand?

You are advocating your own personal preference as a basis for jurisprudence, because for some reason that I don't quite understand, you advocate change for change's sake ahead of building on well worn paths and learned experience in human society. (I am making a general point here, so don't, if you please, respond by misconstruing my post as claiming the case for gay marriage is just change for change's sake.)

It's pure nonsense to say tradition has no place outside of college campuses and families.