|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 13 and counting
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Meanwhile, the Repubs have started sending in the clowns again . . .
Maybe Dr. Carson ought to request a refund for his degree(s). First, choices exist only where there are genuine alternatives; second, what happens in prison is likely to be rape, and about power, not sex; third, this is classic conflation of behavior with orientation, and the two are not the same. Probably I've missed a few obvious additional glitches with this argument. By all means enlighten me.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But what does reality have to do with political statements?
Come to that, what does reality have to do with the need to try to control certain groups of people? It isn't as if the Constitution (the "Holy Book" of all these nasty people) said anything about the rights of anybody who isn't "me".
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Meanwhile, in Slovenia:
quote:
Today, March 3, Slovenia voted in favor of the freedom to marry to the country, amending the country's Marriage & Family Relations Act to include relationships between same-sex couples.
The amendment passed with a vote of 51-28 in the General Assembly. The bill was introduced on December 15 of 2014. On February 10, the Committe on Family, Social Policy, and Disability of the National Assembly voted to allow the bill to continue to the General Assembly, where it was voted on today.
The Slovene National Council now has seven days to decide whether or not the Assembly must vote again.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Probably I've missed a few obvious additional glitches with this argument. By all means enlighten me.
He also claimed that slavery was corrected through following the constitution... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'm confused as to why the host seemed to accept his basic assertion that some people go into prison straight and come out gay... the interwebs seems to be having a field day with that claim now though, so... ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Meanwhile, the Repubs have started sending in the clowns again . . .
Maybe Dr. Carson ought to request a refund for his degree(s).
It still boggles me that Carson believes this and loads of other crap. He's a brilliant neuro-surgeon, and has saved babies with brain tumors. I don't know if he still practices, but *that's* where he's needed.
Makes me wonder if something's gone wrong with him.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Makes me wonder if something's gone wrong with him.
I believe he is mentally ill.
For his sake, I hope it's all just a cynical act to make a ridiculous amount of money for himself.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The Alabama case does require popcorn. It's a massive violation of federal law but it's not clear what the remedy is. I'm thinking they could continue doing the court cases against probate judges and hold them personally liable for court costs.
I'm not sure what other things might bubble up and how the federal government will proceed. Does Marbury vs. Madison apply?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
An interesting article; The Case Against Gay Marriage: Top Law Firms Won’t Touch It talks about how it's getting hard to find a top law firm to defend the anti-same-sex marriage side of pending lawsuits.
quote:
But some conservatives say lawyers and scholars who support religious liberty and oppose a constitutional right to same-sex marriage have been bullied into silence. “The level of sheer desire to crush dissent is pretty unprecedented,” said Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge who teaches law at Stanford.
Law firms cite that defending anti-same sex clients bothers both partners and clients.
quote:
“It usually takes much longer for a position to become so disreputable that no respectable lawyer will touch it,” said Professor Yoshino, a writer for The Ethicists column in The New York Times Magazine and the author of “Speak Now,” a history of the challenge to Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Another factor is that donations for groups opposing same-sex marriage are starting to dry up. It may be hard to convince law firms to advocate unpopular and controversial positions. It's even harder to convince them to do it at reduced rates or pro bono.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Also as the article mentions, law firms are likely to want to recruit promising young lawyers. More young lawyers are likely to steer clear of a firm they associate with anti-same sex marriage court cases.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
A good justice case doesn't need to use power to emasculate a bad case. That's just a "might is right" argument, which actually takes on the clothes of the previous oppressors.
It's a dangerous path to take, both when the case is on the way up and when it has had significant success in changing perceptions. You can lose the moral high ground which you have struggled to gain.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Another factor is that when you're suing the government* over what you allege is a rights violation, if you win the government* is usually obligated to pay your legal expenses. The basic principle here is that you shouldn't have to pay money to gain your rights. If you do, they're not really 'rights' in the sense the term is typically understood. Given this, firms are sometimes willing to take cases on behalf of clients suing the government* even if they can't pay on the expectation that their fees will be paid by the government upon victory. Naturally firms making this kind of estimation have to assess the likelihood of victory, and the recent track record of suits in support of same-sex marriage bans is not favorable in that regard.
--------------------
*This is not necessarily the case in disputes between private parties, where legal costs are usually assigned as a penalty only in cases where the losing party seems to be making bad faith arguments.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Several lawyers have lamented that the top firms are shying away from working for the anti-same-sex marriage litigants on the theory that the court system depends on there being legal representation for all, even the most heinous. There are still plenty of lawyers who will take the job, but the top firms have decided it's bad for business and reputation.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
In an interesting NY Times article GOP struggles with shifts in Gay Marriage discusses the problem for the Republicans in the Presidential campaign. While their core supporters who show up in the primaries are anti same sex marriage, voters in general have become supporters, especially younger ones. The Democrats have decided to seize the pro Same Sex marriage plank instead of ducking it. So what was once a reliable GOP wedge issue is now looking more like a potential embarrassment. A number of the party strategists are hoping that the Supreme Court decides in favor of Same Sex marriage so the Republicans don't have to deal with a split in their ranks.
Of course the anti-same sex marriage faction has said it won't let a Supreme Court decision stop them. They're going to go for a constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriage.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In an interesting NY Times article GOP struggles with shifts in Gay Marriage discusses the problem for the Republicans in the Presidential campaign. While their core supporters who show up in the primaries are anti same sex marriage, voters in general have become supporters, especially younger ones. The Democrats have decided to seize the pro Same Sex marriage plank instead of ducking it. So what was once a reliable GOP wedge issue is now looking more like a potential embarrassment.
We had a thread along those lines about two-and-a-half years ago. Same-sex marriage went from a reliable way of turning out the Republican base in 2004 to something the Republican presidential candidate didn't want to even mention in 2012.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Reading through the Times article I was struck by this:
quote:
“This is an issue that is being decided by demography every single day — 59 percent of Americans support marriage equality, including 52 percent of Republicans under 50 and more than 60 percent of evangelicals under 30 — and also by human experience,” said Ken Mehlman, a businessman who came out as gay after serving as the Republican national chairman. “When people see couples who have married, they see love, they see more stability, they see more commitment and they see more compassionate care for people who are old and are sick and more stable homes where children are being raised.”
As we've previously discussed, Ken Mehlman isn't just "a businessman who came out as gay after serving as the Republican national chairman", he was George W. Bush's 2004 campaign manager. You'd think the fact that he managed the most anti-gay major party presidential campaign in U.S. history might bear mentioning in an article dealing with Republicans' troubles with gay-related issues, but apparently the Gray Lady doesn't think so.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
The Supreme Court had the oral arguments on same-sex marriage today. Transcripts here
What I got out of reading the transcripts:
I'm now less certain than I was that the court will rule in favor of same-sex marriage. I didn't really feel that anything said today implied such a ruling.
There are two, quite separate legal arguments on which a pro-marriage ruling could be based: 1. That marriage is a "fundamental right"; or 2. That banning same-sex marriage is some form of sexual discrimination - either it's just plain discriminatory against gay people; or discriminates on the grounds of sex since a man can marry a woman but not marry a man. It's possible that if the majority decides in favour of same-sex marriage they will still be split about the logic backing their decision.
The pro-same-sex lawyer (for the plaintiffs) comes across from the transcript as a bit bumbling. She got hammered by 3 conservative justices over and over again as they repeatedly say things along the lines of "For millennia, not a single other society" allowed same-sex marriage. She eventually admitted that she didn't know of any that had. The majority of her time was spent with those justices repeating that point over and over again at her. I found that quite astounding, given that it is factually false.* It's rather disturbing that the US Supreme court could be that ignorant of the anthropology of marriage at this point in time, and it suggests the American Anthropological Society was asleep at the wheel when it failed to provide the court with a briefing on this issue.
The lawyer for the federal government made a number of solid general arguments in favour of a pro-same-sex marriage decision (siding with the plaintiffs).
The main argument given by the anti-same-sex-marriage lawyer (for the defense) was that marriage has always, as part of its definition, included the idea that it is between people of the opposite sex. We see this definition present in many historical societies where gay people were fully respected. So the definition itself does not imply dislike, intolerance, or ill-will toward gay people, but rather is a universally used definition of marriage. So gay people in the present, who seek to marry, are not seeking the right to participate in the existing institution of marriage from which they have been arbitrarily excluded due to ill-will, but rather seeking to redefine the concept of marriage that has existed for millennia. The States who adopt a wait-and-see approach about the consequences of other countries and other States changing their definitions of marriage, are taking a reasonable and cautious approach to social engineering.
* Historical societies where same-sex marriage have occurred include:
- 10 of the historical African societies described by these anthropologists.
- Siwa until the mid-20th century
- Native American peoples prior to European colonization.
- Ancient Rome, with various same-sex marriages being attested to including that of Emperor Nero.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
On the other hand even the conservative Alito suggested that maybe it would be good to force states to recognize each others' marriages. Even if the Supremes decide not to force states to perform same sex marriages, if they say states must recognize each others' marriages, it's all over but the shouting. It's stupid if some people must travel out of state to get married and others don't have to, but people will generally* be able to have legally recognized marriages at least.
*I'm sure there will be a few people who simply can't travel out of state for whatever reason.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The pro-same-sex lawyer (for the plaintiffs) comes across from the transcript as a bit bumbling. She got hammered by 3 conservative justices over and over again as they repeatedly say things along the lines of "For millennia, not a single other society" allowed same-sex marriage. She eventually admitted that she didn't know of any that had. The majority of her time was spent with those justices repeating that point over and over again at her. I found that quite astounding, given that it is factually false.* It's rather disturbing that the US Supreme court could be that ignorant of the anthropology of marriage at this point in time, and it suggests the American Anthropological Society was asleep at the wheel when it failed to provide the court with a briefing on this issue.
The argument from tradition "this is a long-standing rule, therefore it is compliant with the U.S. Constitution" is a legally dubious one, which I believe was the larger point Ms. Bonauto (the plaintiff's lawyer) was trying to make. Plenty of things are long-standing throughout history, like gender discrimination, that are nonetheless unconstitutional. Notorious RBG made more or less this exact point [PDF] from the bench (pp. 10-11):
quote:
But [same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.
There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.
It's particularly amusing to see legal conservatives cite a bunch of foreign law, which is something they claim to consider anathema in other contexts.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I was also struck by the arguments discussed on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show this morning, about marriage being all about sexual intercourse and issue therefrom.
Aside from the fact that many same-sex couples have children, not infrequently their own issue from previous unions, there also seems no recognition that modern birth control methods (not to mention legislation re abortion as a right) have increasingly de-linked procreation from marriage. Married couples can choose to be childless. Married couples can adopt rather than procreate. Married couples can involve a third party -- surrogate or sperm donor (though one could consider Hagar, Sarai, & Abram in this light in producing Ishmael), or a lab and medical technology, in engendering children for the marriage.
While adoption has been around "for millenia," other items from the list have not been available until recently. At any rate, marriages from earlier times (at least among the privileged classes) was often more about property and the consolidation of wealth than about procreation.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442
|
Posted
Exciting day today in Ireland (hopefully) as it's finally referendum day
--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese
Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fullgospel
Shipmate
# 18233
|
Posted
'It's a great day for the Irish' - I can't write out the tune here, but going thru my head --
and maybe yours .... ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
on the one hand - self doubt
on the other, the universe that looks through your eyes - your eyes
Posts: 364 | From: Rubovia | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Early indications are promising.
And some membes of the 'NO' campaign are already conceding defeat.
Who'd have thought it?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Big yes votes in parts of Dublin, (70%), some no campaigners are conceding, go Ireland!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442
|
Posted
The result is in!
Yes in all but one constituency (though I think the official result is based on overall numbers not number of constituencies? I'm not sure). I'm so glad.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Who'd have thought it?
As a non-irish person living here, I actually didn't think it would be defeated, all the political parties were on the 'yes' side plus some other organisations too, the main people on the 'no' side were the Iona Institute and Mothers and Fathers Matter, (plus some churches).
I think the No campaign shot themselves in the foot slightly with a few of their campaign posters in any case - most of them basically going "won't somebody think of the children!" (Plus a slightly Orwellian one which said "equality for children first" obviously they thought some should be more equal than others)
It may have helped that the amendment is only to allow civil marriage (presumably leaving religious ceremonies to individual churches to decide on). There's already a conscience clause in the law which allows any priest or registrar to refuse to perform any marriage they don't agree with (to make sure Catholic priests aren't forced to marry divorcees etc) so it's not like the No side could argue that registrars etc could be forced out of their current jobs.
The turnout in most places was much higher than usual too - possibly that had an effect, I'm not sure.
--------------------
formerly cheesymarzipan.
Now containing 50% less cheese
Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
I was not surprised about the overall result, but that the pro vote was ligher in rural areas surprised me as I expected them to be more conservative.
Well done Ireland.
I'm having a drop of Tullamore Dew in celebration.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
The official vote is by overall numbers but the individual constituencies reported separately and over the course of quite a few hours hence much dissecting of those results by people waiting. All but one voted in favor but in some of the rural ones it was quite close (in contrast in Dublin a lot of the constituencies had over 70% yes).
I think only a few small religious groups (and two Church of Ireland bishops but only for civil marriage) supported the referendum. I suspect that only the Unitarian church is likely to be performing religious weddings (and possibly the Quakers who currently leave it up to the local meetings).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Although the RCC officially opposed, many RC priests voted Yes.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Although the RCC officially opposed, many RC priests voted Yes.
The advantage of a secret ballot though I know a few openly said they were voting yes. I wonder how many priests who voted no looked at their congregations today and wondered how many in them voted yes. Or the bishops the next time they face a group of their priests.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
So have the people who voted No started to complain about how they're afraid of persecution?
It will be interesting to see if they pick up the US model.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The advantage of a secret ballot though I know a few openly said they were voting yes. I wonder how many priests who voted no looked at their congregations today and wondered how many in them voted yes. Or the bishops the next time they face a group of their priests.
Surely some bishops voted yes too? I'm sure a proportion of priests and bishops are gay too and would very much understand the issue.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The advantage of a secret ballot though I know a few openly said they were voting yes. I wonder how many priests who voted no looked at their congregations today and wondered how many in them voted yes. Or the bishops the next time they face a group of their priests.
Surely some bishops voted yes too? I'm sure a proportion of priests and bishops are gay too and would very much understand the issue.
Being LGBT =/= agreeing with marriage equality - and you don't have to be closeted to be gay and conservative on that issue either. I have a significant number of openly and happily LGBT Christian friends who nonetheless disagree with marriage equality. I'm also slightly puzzled by the 'would understand the issue' comment - it's surely about agreeing or disagreeing rather than understanding the issue? I'm sure many No voters understood the question perfectly well....
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I'm also slightly puzzled by the 'would understand the issue' comment - it's surely about agreeing or disagreeing rather than understanding the issue? I'm sure many No voters understood the question perfectly well....
I meant understanding in terms of empathy rather than reasoning.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fullgospel
Shipmate
# 18233
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The advantage of a secret ballot though I know a few openly said they were voting yes. I wonder how many priests who voted no looked at their congregations today and wondered how many in them voted yes. Or the bishops the next time they face a group of their priests.
Surely some bishops voted yes too? I'm sure a proportion of priests and bishops are gay too and would very much understand the issue.
Being LGBT =/= agreeing with marriage equality - and you don't have to be closeted to be gay and conservative on that issue either. I have a significant number of openly and happily LGBT Christian friends who nonetheless disagree with marriage equality. I'm also slightly puzzled by the 'would understand the issue' comment - it's surely about agreeing or disagreeing rather than understanding the issue? I'm sure many No voters understood the question perfectly well....
Well, thank goodness for your significant number of lgbt anti-marriage equality friends, that it has not been made mandatory.
Then can continue being so open and happy.
But that was never even on the cards.
[ 26. May 2015, 14:24: Message edited by: fullgospel ]
--------------------
on the one hand - self doubt
on the other, the universe that looks through your eyes - your eyes
Posts: 364 | From: Rubovia | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
A senior Vatican Official termed the Irish referendum vote a defeat for humanity. Apparently they think that they need to do more evangelization of young people.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Great-sounding phrase. What a pity there's no indication of what on earth it could possibly mean.
I'm genuinely trying to think of any way that "humanity" has been defeated, even if you think that same-sex marriage is wrong.
I couldn't even come up with a procreation-based argument, seeing as how the people who might now get married were most unlikely to be doing any Catholic-approved procreating in the first place.
Methinks he just copied a phrase that Pope Francis had used in a different context, thought "Hey, that sounds GOOD!" and gave no consideration to whether it would make the slightest bit of sense.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fullgospel:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The advantage of a secret ballot though I know a few openly said they were voting yes. I wonder how many priests who voted no looked at their congregations today and wondered how many in them voted yes. Or the bishops the next time they face a group of their priests.
Surely some bishops voted yes too? I'm sure a proportion of priests and bishops are gay too and would very much understand the issue.
Being LGBT =/= agreeing with marriage equality - and you don't have to be closeted to be gay and conservative on that issue either. I have a significant number of openly and happily LGBT Christian friends who nonetheless disagree with marriage equality. I'm also slightly puzzled by the 'would understand the issue' comment - it's surely about agreeing or disagreeing rather than understanding the issue? I'm sure many No voters understood the question perfectly well....
Well, thank goodness for your significant number of lgbt anti-marriage equality friends, that it has not been made mandatory.
Then can continue being so open and happy.
But that was never even on the cards.
Um where did I say that I wasn't in favour of marriage equality? Why the snide comment? I was simply pointing out that being LGBT =/= believing in marriage equality, and conservative LGBT people exist too. That's it. Although I disagree, it is not mandatory for LGBT people to want to get married or to want marriage equality.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
A senior Vatican Official termed the Irish referendum vote a defeat for humanity. Apparently they think that they need to do more evangelization of young people.
Yeah, when I ask myself "which countries haven't really been exposed to Catholic teachings and evangelization?" (as I often do), Ireland is near the bottom of that list.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, when I ask myself "which countries haven't really been exposed to Catholic teachings and evangelization?" (as I often do), Ireland is near the bottom of that list.
Yes, but this time there will be no more "Mr Nice Guy".
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
[ 02. June 2015, 05:56: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The marriage debate in Australia has taken a bizarre turn in the last 24 hours, with several government MPs misrepresenting the French situation and basically suggesting the complete scrapping of heterosexual marriage as a government-recognised institution.
Given that the constitution gives the national Parliament power over "marriage" and not "civil unions", the problems with this particular thought bubble just pile up. But this is how keen some people are not to extend marriage. They'd rather retract it from millions of straight folk.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
Seriously? Is that likely or is that just empty gongs clanging? And there was me thinking that this couple were so far out on a limb that the tree is in another time-zone.
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Seriously? Is that likely or is that just empty gongs clanging? And there was me thinking that this couple were so far out on a limb that the tree is in another time-zone.
Ah yes. You've found our delightful local couple (and consequently, friends of friends).
The references to France were Monday night's and Tuesday's thought bubble. I don't think it's all that likely it would get further than that, not least because people (including myself) have started pointing out that the French system isn't at all like what they're calling "the French system".
But yeah, all talk on the "French" angle was completely erased by the spectacular own-goal scored by a member of the Australian Christian Lobby.
It's been an interesting week.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
Yes, that couple really are bizarre, and not thinking things through. For a start, with very few exceptions, Australian law does not allow divorce of a couple that are still living happily together. They would have to prove "irrevocable breakdown of the marriage". And they would forgo all the legal assumptions about one's spouse, e.g. being the legal next of kin, main heir unless specified, etc.
More logical is the stand taken by several hetero couples (most prominently the Canberra-based international rugby player David Pocock, and his [female] financee) who have declared that they won't get legally married until their gay friends have the legal right to marry.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I love the way Mr Jensen describes his wife as "the only woman I have ever loved" - I bet his mother loves him all the more for being so frank about it.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm trying to think through the logic of this - we don't want to be married, because gays might be allowed to be married, and that means that marriage is no longer what it was, that is, penis-vagina-baby. So we'll be divorced, because God intended divorce to be a holy and sacred state. Oh well, enjoy.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
In other news Mexico Supreme Court rules to permit same sex marrriage. Some states allow Gay marriage, others do not. The Supreme court ruled that such anti-same sex marriage laws are discriminatory. The laws are still on the books, but people can apply to the Federal court to get injunction to get married.
It's an important step, even if there's a lot more to go. As usual, the Catholic Church is against it, citing millennia of tradition.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It's an important step, even if there's a lot more to go. As usual, the Catholic Church is against it, citing millennia of tradition.
Also known as the "we've been wrong for centuries, where would we be if we started changing things just because they're wrong?" argument.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
bumping up for housekeeping reasons
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
