It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:24 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2629 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 128, 129, 130, 131, 132  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 6:18 pm 
Offline
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:08 am
Posts: 9735
Location: the dry land
It could be Lindsay Lohan's big come back. And Rodman's.

Actually, if you want civil, secular laws to reflect Abrahamic religion, there's a pretty strong case for polygamy. And for sending in a handmaid. Apparently it's not adultery if you send in a handmaid because your uterus doesn't work.

_________________
When you can do nothing what can you do?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 6:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:59 pm
Posts: 2196
Yeah, but I haven't been keeping up with them, yova.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:06 am
Posts: 2210
I know polygamy has come up in our discussions before. I generally find it to be a red herring much like marrying your pet, or your mother, or a child. If you honestly believe that homosexuality is no different than bestiality, incest or paedophilia, well I guess that tells us what we need to know about your opinions on that subject.

Polygamy is a different beast though. All of the messy legal issues regarding inheritance etc. aside, I personally don’t care what consenting adults do in their own personal lives. If more then two people can have a successful relationship I say more power to them. If they want to get married, who am I to say no?

The problem with polygamy is that it is almost always polygyny be practiced (one man with multiple wives), and more often then not the women are getting the short end of the stick (I’m sorry, I tried to find a non-pun-ish way of saying that and couldn’t think of anything). They are often coerced or forced or belong to cultures in which women have little to no rights. And that is the very definition of non-consensual. Until we have a society in which women have true equality with men (and we clearly do not have that in the U.S.), I will be suspicious of any attempts to legalize polygamy.

On the other hand, if the three of them (Britney, Lindsay, and Dennis, or any combination of Kardashian) really want to get married, they can have each other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:22 pm 
Offline
not something I would recommend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 12845
Location: Florida
(Anecdotal side note - various variations of non-monogamous commitment are very popular amongst gay men including "closed polyamorous" relationships. I've seen stats suggesting that possibly 50% of men in committed relationships choose some version non-monogamy. Not for me, thanks, but arrangements of that nature are relatively common in places with a lot of options for gay men.)

_________________
everything happens so much

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:06 am
Posts: 2210
Interesting. Part of me believes that such a high degree of deviance (non-judgemental, as in deviating from the “norm” of monogamy) is due to the long history of homosexuality being treated as deviant (judgemental, as in immoral). I have to think that as homosexuality comes to be viewed as one of several normal types of sexual orientation, that deviation will decrease and gay men will gravitate toward more traditional monogamous relationships.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:37 am
Posts: 4688
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
yovargas wrote:
nerdanel wrote:
Why can't you understand her current position?


For one, I have no idea what the "conscientious objector's marriage license" she mentioned would mean, or would entail, or would accomplish or...just...just what??? That "solution" to her concern is certainly a unique one to me and I'm rather gobsmacked by it. Would a piece of paper issued by the state saying "We understand you are not gay" solve this perceived moral conflict?? I ask that seriously.....I don't understand.....


I agree. If, hypothetically, the state permitted couples in a relationship that I found immoral to marry - for example, an arranged marriage where one or both parties has not consented - I would certainly advocate against it but I would hardly then try to 'exit' the new definition of marriage if I lost. I also wouldn't feel the need to get a special marriage license 'for consenting couples' for, to me, that would achieve nothing. I wouldn't be happy that people were having their rights violated, but if I was married I wouldn't feel that it affected my marriage personally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:59 am 
Offline
Feeling grateful
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:41 am
Posts: 32645
I have nothing more to say about this subject, except that a picture is worth a thousand words.

Image
Abby Wambach Kissing Her Wife Sarah Huffman After World Cup Win

_________________
Woods is most felt. Nice! it's gentle on your mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:53 am 
Offline
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:43 am
Posts: 38573
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
I saw that happening, but that is a much better shot! So great. :)

_________________
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 4:34 pm 
Offline
Happy as a clam at high tide (when reading)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:03 pm
Posts: 10582
Ditto, Prim. Much better than the TV angle.


---------------
GNU Terry Pratchett

_________________
GNU Terry Pratchett

Trouble began, and not for the first time, with an apple. (Terry Pratchett)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:21 pm 
Offline
not something I would recommend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 12845
Location: Florida
This guy seems kinda mad about something:


_________________
everything happens so much

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 11:09 pm 
Offline
Pleasantly Twisted
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 8996
Location: Black Creek Bottoms
I'd be cranky with a sword sticking out of my arm too, but not like that.

_________________

Resentment is no excuse for baldface stupidity.
-- Garrison Keillor

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:45 pm 
Offline
Just Keep Singin'
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:35 am
Posts: 4645
Location: Boston, MA
tinwë wrote:
Interesting. Part of me believes that such a high degree of deviance (non-judgemental, as in deviating from the “norm” of monogamy) is due to the long history of homosexuality being treated as deviant (judgemental, as in immoral). I have to think that as homosexuality comes to be viewed as one of several normal types of sexual orientation, that deviation will decrease and gay men will gravitate toward more traditional monogamous relationships.


I agree. I also wonder if people who believe that same-sex activity is "sinful" might think differently if they could be brought around to understanding (as much of science has already decided) that sexuality is basically on a continuum and morality does not depend upon what sex your partner is. That same-sex attraction/relationships are not inherently "immoral" or "sinful" any more than left-handedness.

_________________
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:50 pm 
Offline
not something I would recommend
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 pm
Posts: 12845
Location: Florida
I don't really wanna get too osgilliated on the topic but - I disagree. If that were true, lesbians would be much the same but instead, it seems like they are ultra-monogamous. My conclusion is that simply when left to their own devices to decide entirely on their own what the want, men and women (as a group) want very different things.

_________________
everything happens so much

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:10 pm 
Offline
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:43 am
Posts: 38573
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
At least until a man finds someone he really does want to spend his life with, maybe so. And some never do (or try monogamy and just can't live that way).

And there are definitely women with this approach to life, as well. I've known some. It takes all kinds. Fortunately people in general seem to understand that a little better now.

I knew an older woman who was married to the same man all her life, but they both went their own way, traveling the world, working all over; they had kids and a house together, but once the kids grew up, she at least had a series of long, serious relationships with other men. Yet she and her husband also lived together for long periods, traveled together sometimes, and seemed perfectly satisfied with their lives. She died a while back, well past ninety. I know for a fact she did not have an upbringing that would have influenced her to live that life, not at all; her parents were very conservative. It was just who she was.

_________________
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 8:52 pm 
Offline
Aagragaah
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:31 pm
Posts: 12715
Location: Out on the banks
"In 1963, we should not have honored SCOTUS decision to creat a wall of separation between prayer & school. Kim Davis for Rosa Parks Award."

That's a tweet by @SteveKingIA, an Iowa Congressperson.

My brain is stuck in an infinite loop of but... but... but...

_________________
Image
‘There’s no greys, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.’
‘It’s a lot more complicated than that -’
‘No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.’
Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:21 pm 
Offline
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:08 am
Posts: 9735
Location: the dry land
Rep. King (R-IA) has that effect on those outside his fan base.

My aunt shared this on Facebook. It was written by someone named J. Russell Lloyd, a lawyer in East Kentucky. It's probably one of the clearest and most concise descriptions of the Davis case I've seen so far.

Quote:
So the saga continues. For those of you who are not very political or are not from our fair (usually) Commonwealth, Judge David Bunning imposed a sentence of incarceration for civil contempt on Kim Davis, the County Clerk of Rowan County for her failure to comply with an Order from his Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The sentence is for a violation of an Order of the Court; not because Ms. Davis is Christian and not because Ms. Davis believes that same sex marriage is a sin.

There are two (2) types of contempt: criminal and civil. Contempt is defined, in this case, as a willful and intentional violation of an Order of the Court. Criminal contempt means that you are in jail (or otherwise punished) for a sentence certain. Civil contempt means that the contemnor (Kim Davis) is in complete control of the duration of their punishment. Once you cease to defy an Order of the Court, the punishment stops.

A couple of things to know:

First, Judge Bunning was appointed by President Bush (43) and is the son of retired Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning. He is a conservative through and through. The Bunnings do not take their political beliefs lightly.

Second, this is the only time that I can remember seeing a contemnor get through an entire appellate process before being required to comply with a Court Order. Usually, one is required to comply with an Order of the Court regardless of the appeal. If compliance is refused, then a contempt sentence is enforced, regardless of whether or not you are appealing the Order. Kim Davis got special treatment on this issue.
Kim Davis is in jail because she willfully and intentionally violated an Order of the Court. She received all the due process allowed her (all the way to the US Supreme Court). She no longer has any cause (good or otherwise) to refuse compliance with a Court Order in a Nation of Laws.
Third, Judge Bunning threw Ms. Davis a life preserver. After imposing a sentence for contempt, Judge Bunning took a break. When Court resumed, he interviewed the Deputy Clerks for Rowan County as to whether they would comply with his Order. Five (5) of the six (6) deputies affirmed that they would comply with his Order. He then recalled Ms. Davis and asked whether she could refrain from interfering with the deputies while they issued marriage licenses. If she would do that, then he was satisfied that she was not in contempt and could go home. Ms. Davis refused even that much. Ms. Davis' guarantee of personal religious freedom does not extend her the right to impose those beliefs on others, particularly when she is acting as the government.

Predictably, an outcry of judicial tyranny and religious persecution has arisen. This is not religious persecution. In the United States, we do not examine the sincerity or reasonableness of your religious beliefs in the public arena. You can believe any and everything in the name of your faith. However, the government may not deny you services based upon the religious belief of the government, its agents or employees. When that happens, then a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment occurs, which is precisely what happened when Ms. Davis refused to issue marriage licenses under "God's Authority".

As far as judicial tyranny goes, the outcry is completely unwarranted. Ms. Davis is subject to the jurisdiction (read authority) of the Court. She got access to justice in a way that few will ever experience. She was given special consideration at every step. This is not tyranny by any conceivable definition of the word, and to call it tyranny diminishes the claimant.

For those who may be tempted to take the outcry seriously, let me ask you to consider whether you would tolerate a government that denied you access to services and status available to everyone else because of religious beliefs that you did not share. If we are to continue to be a nation of laws, then we must do so much better. We must stop giving attention and authority to those who seek to take us back to a time when the government cried "God Wills It" and the cry became law.


TL;DR: Davis victimized herself. Judge Bunning is not some sort of liberal crusader, he threw Davis a rope that she refused to take, and thus he had no choice but to hold her in contempt of court. He opted to throw her in jail because he figured her supporters would pay her fines for her and she'd miss the message. It's actually an already accepted practice for clerks to appoint deputies specifically to do tasks they find personally objectionable and in every other county where the clerk or people in the clerk's office have found the Obergfell decision incompatible with their beliefs they simply reorganized things so that public servants who objected to serving their newly expanded public would no longer be in a position to issue marriage licenses. But Davis wouldn't even do that; not only did she refuse to comply with the law but she forbid her subordinates from doing so as well. If she'd been willing to even do that, she would've walked away free. But clearly it pleases her to play the martyr. And under Kentucky law, as an elected official, she'll draw pay until her term ends, so really she's got nothing to lose on her path to being a right wing media darling.

_________________
When you can do nothing what can you do?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:20 am 
Offline
Lali Beag Bídeach
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:42 pm
Posts: 13236
Location: Rivendell
That's a great article. Thank you for sharing, River.

The only thing I saw that has made me go ?? is Huckabee's assertion that Kim Davis can't comply with the law because there is no law, per se, that says gay marriage is allowed.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/mike-h ... should-be/

(This is not my link, but someone else's from FB.)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 11:30 am 
Offline
bioalchemist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:08 am
Posts: 9735
Location: the dry land
Yeah, it's probably the most quality thing I've read about the whole fiasco. It actually contained some important nuances that have been lost in the rest of the shuffle.

Dialing up teh crazy gets presidential candidates attention and, in the age of Trump and reality shows, any attention is good attention.

_________________
When you can do nothing what can you do?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:35 pm 
Offline
Living in hope
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:43 am
Posts: 38573
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Aren't laws mostly specifying things we can't do, and the possible penalties for doing them anyway? We don't live in a society where everything that is not compulsory is forbidden, and vice versa, like the ants in The Sword in the Stone.

And the same-sex marriage decision did change the law. It invalidated a whole lot of state-level laws and even state constitutional amendments.

_________________
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 06, 2015 8:03 pm 
Offline
Aagragaah
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:31 pm
Posts: 12715
Location: Out on the banks
There's no law that says that eating bacon is allowed, but I bet Huckabee would not be on board with a Muslim clerk who attempted to discriminate against pork-eating citizens.

_________________
Image
‘There’s no greys, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.’
‘It’s a lot more complicated than that -’
‘No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.’
Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2629 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 128, 129, 130, 131, 132  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group