Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools?

[burd]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Isn't it possible to be against SSM but still be friendly/neutral to the homosexual crowd?

The Oak Alley plantation near New Orleans has a book on display listing the price that was paid for each slave, along with some of the factors that affected that price, such as age, gender, physical and physical condition. Like a Kelly Blue Book listing for used humans. Surrounded by the physical beauty of the place, it was a horrifying reminder of the folly we are capable of when we convince ourselves that other classes of people are somehow less human than we are. And for some reason, it seems that God is cited as authority for those beliefs as often as not.

 

[LynahFan]

Not equivalent. Natural law and all that. But, like I told Handy, we're going to disagree on this for a long, long time.

I don't even feel like Googling it, but I am 100% certain that the exact phrase "natural law" was used, and used vociferously, in defense of anti-miscgenation laws.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I don't even feel like Googling it, but I am 100% certain that the exact phrase "natural law" was used, and used vociferously, in defense of anti-miscgenation laws.

You are correct. Not just anti-miscegenation but American racism in general, from the Colonial period on. "Natural Law" has been an evergreen justification for every conceivable hidebound bigotry. It's the Christian equivalent of pseudo-science.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Not equivalent. Natural law and all that. But, like I told Handy, we're going to disagree on this for a long, long time.

Natural Law...nothing like using God to justify persecution.

Just remember God loves everyone...except gays or anyone else you happen to dislike.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I don't know if there is a God, but if there is I'd like to believe He would be furious at people invoking His name to justify hatred.

 

[unofan]

Not equivalent. Natural law and all that. But, like I told Handy, we're going to disagree on this for a long, long time.

It's 100% equivalent. The fact that you won't answer it is telling.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

As much fun as it might be to join the anti-joe feeding frenzy, I can understand why some people aren't quite on board yet with the concept of gay marriage as the issue has moved very swiftly. I suspect for the remaining holdouts its possible to accept but not like the ruling, but then over time come to terms with it. That's not on a par with bigotry so lets ease up a little.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

No one has to be on board, but using God as your justification has been and always will be weaksauce man. Apparently "turn the other cheek" only counts if they are people you dont find icky.

As I said a few posts ago he can feel how he wants that is his right and none of us should ever take that away from him. He doesnt get to pretend though he (or the bigots he supports) are "gay friendly" if they want to deny them basic human rights. Invoking "Natural Law" only makes it worse.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Not equivalent. Natural law and all that. But, like I told Handy, we're going to disagree on this for a long, long time.

Natural Law my ***. Read some actual science on gender.

 

[unofan]

As much fun as it might be to join the anti-joe feeding frenzy, I can understand why some people aren't quite on board yet with the concept of gay marriage as the issue has moved very swiftly. I suspect for the remaining holdouts its possible to accept but not like the ruling, but then over time come to terms with it. That's not on a par with bigotry so lets ease up a little.

<img src="http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/imagine-how-stupid-you-are-going-to-look-in-40-years.jpg"></img>

I'm sure people in the 60's said the exact same things after Loving v. Virginia came down as Bob and Joe are doing now. In fact, it's pretty clear they did. That they can't see the equivalence and cite "natural law" really doesn't help their cause.

 

[LynahFan]

No one has to be on board, but using God as your justification has been and always will be weaksauce man. Apparently "turn the other cheek" only counts if they are people you dont find icky.

As I said a few posts ago he can feel how he wants that is his right and none of us should ever take that away from him. He doesnt get to pretend though he (or the bigots he supports) are "gay friendly" if they want to deny them basic human rights. Invoking "Natural Law" only makes it worse.

This.

There is a world of difference between:

a) Yes, I recognize that there is a fundamental right to SSM and understand why the Court ruled that way even though it doesn't square with my personal beliefs

and

b) while I believe in treating people civilly, I would restrict the rights of people based on their sexuality and I wish the Court would rule according to my beliefs.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

No one has to be on board, but using God as your justification has been and always will be weaksauce man. Apparently "turn the other cheek" only counts if they are people you dont find icky.

As I said a few posts ago he can feel how he wants that is his right and none of us should ever take that away from him. He doesnt get to pretend though he (or the bigots he supports) are "gay friendly" if they want to deny them basic human rights. Invoking "Natural Law" only makes it worse.

Putting aside USCHO posters my issue is that while truly religious people have objections based on church teachings that I can respect, its too hard to parse out who is authentic in their devotion to their faith and who is just using that as a cover. As I've said before, in my observation sometime in the 1980's voting Republican became an acceptable proxy for actually going to church amongst conservatives. So if Jebbers!, Walker, Cruz etc bases their objections to same sex marriage on a religious pretext, the lamestream media needs to follow up with 1) are you in favor of unions that confer all the same rights, 2) would you be okay with a gay teacher instructing your kids, 3) where are you on gays adopting? If you start getting "oh God tells me gays shoudn't be elementary school teachers" that's when you know you're dealing with a fvking idiot.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I suspect for the remaining holdouts its possible to accept but not like the ruling, but then over time come to terms with it. That's not on a par with bigotry so lets ease up a little.

It is exactly the same, Rover.

Also: people do not "come to terms with it." Very few people overcome their childhood messaging -- there are plenty of studies that demonstrate that sexists die sexist and racists die racist, and homophobes are going to die homophobic. Society as a whole changes because the next generation doesn't have the message continually reinforced among peers and authority figures, and so gradually it becomes a losing memetic proposition. But as we've seen in this country wherever the message continues to be reinforced you can have communities that stay frozen in time indefinitely. It takes a long time to drain a swamp.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

If you start getting "oh God tells me gays shoudn't be elementary school teachers" that's when you know you're dealing with a fvking idiot.

But you don't get that. There are always a dozen rationalizations. So you get "because gay people are sexually predatory" or "because having gay role models decreases the stability and happiness of impressionable students" or "I just don't want someone pushing an activist agenda on our kids." All of which are completely BS and just fig leaves to hide "because the Man in the Sky..."

Gay marriage / adoption is exactly the same. The people who hold bigoted beliefs come pre-armed with a hundred utterly fallacious pseudo-scientific rationalizations for what is, at root, just a religious objection which itself was based on the fear and ignorance of iron age zealots who thought magnets were possessed by demons.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kos nails the Republicans' central problem with Trump.

Of course, his support among these voters defies reason—he's not a fiscal conservative (as Jeb! has breathlessly tried to point out), he's not a Bible-thumping Christian (as his multiple marriages suggest), and he's certainly no moderate (pick your favorite statement, any statement). As the New York Times writes:

Trumpism, the data and interviews suggest, is an attitude, not an ideology.

That means that a party that has grown increasingly dependent on starving its voters of real facts in order to stoke emotions like fear and anger, has no way of stopping Trump.

That's it in a nutshell. There are a dozen solid conservative reasons to dump Trump, but the GOP embraced an Echo Chamber that turned its back on reason and now is being hoist by its own petard.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Guys I'm sorry but that ruling got handed down a couple of months ago. Lets give people a small amount of time to get used to it before we start throwing around labels like "bigot". People who think we should pass a Constitutional amendment are idiots. People who want to refuse to do their jobs under the guise of their religious beliefs are idiots. But, if someone needs a little bit to embrace the new legal status here I think we can give them a little bit.

Recall I live in the state that legalized gay marriage first. When it happened it was a completely new thing. I wasn't out celebrating in the street nor was I protesting the Mass Supreme Judicial Court. But in a little while (weeks? a month? I don't remember exactly) I knew the state had done a great thing.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Guys I'm sorry but that ruling got handed down a couple of months ago. Lets give people a small amount of time to get used to it before we start throwing around labels like "bigot".

Out of politeness I suggest we simply refer to the belief as bigoted. It probably turns out that every one of us holds at least one bigoted belief. It is unfair for a whole person to be labeled because of one belief, however misguided and hateful.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

But you don't get that. There are always a dozen rationalizations. So you get "because gay people are sexually predatory" or "because having gay role models decreases the stability and happiness of impressionable students" or "I just don't want someone pushing an activist agenda on our kids." All of which are completely BS and just fig leaves to hide "because the Man in the Sky..."

Gay marriage / adoption is exactly the same. The people who hold bigoted beliefs come pre-armed with a hundred utterly fallacious pseudo-scientific rationalizations for what is, at root, just a religious objection which itself was based on the fear and ignorance of iron age zealots who thought magnets were possessed by demons.

What you'd really get is an answer like Scott Walker's here. I don't care what side of the fence you are on politically, that reporter/candidate exchange is an example of precisely why I despise politics and politicians of every sphere.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

What you'd really get is an answer like Scott Walker's here. I don't care what side of the fence you are on politically, that reporter/candidate exchange is an example of precisely why I despise politics and politicians of every sphere.

The Onion even honored Walker for his inability to give straight answers.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Out of politeness I suggest we simply refer to the belief as bigoted. It probably turns out that every one of us holds at least one bigoted belief. It is unfair for a whole person to be labeled because of one belief, however misguided and hateful.

My angle is that people may come around to having the same stance as you or I but it might take them a little longer than you or I to get there. Slandering them during that time they're sorting it all out isn't helping the cause any.

Makes me think of an event when I was a teenager. My step father ran for a local political office and after a nasty campaign won the race. Reading the write-up in the paper the next day, he's talking about how hard is opponent worked and how he'd welcome his help during the transition. Talking to him the next day, I said " you hate the guy. what's up with this stuff in the paper." He said to me "the election's over. I won. What good does it do blasting the guy in the paper afterwards?"

The gay marriage question is decided. Our side won. What good does it do laying waste to the side that lost now, when a good portion of them could end up being allies eventually?