The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

People need to get the record straight on DOMA. All it does is say if one state marries a gay couple another state can't be forced to recognize it. It doesn't outlaw gay marriage.

For those that are up-in-arms about gays not being able to marry as a violation of equal protection I just hope that you are as outraged about the rich paying a higher percentage taxes. Clearly they aren't being treated equally either.

**Of course equal protection actual says that people in the same circumstances have to be treated the same. Gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex and all people earning a high income are taxed at the same higher rate. If you want to change that you're going to have to change the law, not just get some justice to bend the rules.

The rich are the ones that don't want a straight percentage. If they really wanted it it would pass in a heartbeat. Between Capital Gains being less and payroll taxes ending at ~100,000 the rich are getting a sweetheart deal.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

The rich are the ones that don't want a straight percentage. If they really wanted it it would pass in a heartbeat. Between Capital Gains being less and payroll taxes ending at ~100,000 the rich are getting a sweetheart deal.

Whoosh.

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Whoosh.

Whooosh nothing. Every unrelated topic he starts his whine about how the rich is getting screwed by tax policy. And I call him on it every time. It's the biggest lie and falsehood ever perpetrated by the right.

As for gay marriage it's a foregone conclusion that it will happen. Every poll says so. I don't know if you have kids but if you do ask them what they're opinion is about it. I live in one of the most Republican leaning districts in Minnesota and my daughter tells me that as far as she knows all her classmates are pro gay marriage.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Whooosh nothing. Every unrelated topic he starts his whine about how the rich is getting screwed by tax policy. And I call him on it every time. It's the biggest lie and falsehood ever perpetrated by the right.

As for gay marriage it's a foregone conclusion that it will happen. Every poll says so. I don't know if you have kids but if you do ask them what they're opinion is about it. I live in one of the most Republican leaning districts in Minnesota and my daughter tells me that as far as she knows all her classmates are pro gay marriage.

I'd whoosh you again, but I don't want to send you into full meltdown.

I don't take positions on issues based upon their future popularity or unpopularity. I recognize not all people, apparently including you, take my approach.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

People need to get the record straight on DOMA. All it does is say if one state marries a gay couple another state can't be forced to recognize it. It doesn't outlaw gay marriage.

For those that are up-in-arms about gays not being able to marry as a violation of equal protection I just hope that you are as outraged about the rich paying a higher percentage taxes. Clearly they aren't being treated equally either.

On the "protected class" scale where race is a 10 and wardrobe choice is a 1, sexual orientation is probably a current 6 with a strong liklihood of moving towards an 8 or 9 in the future once old people die off and the demographics change. Economic status is about a 2.

Also, let's not ignore the fact that DOMA is a clear Congressional end-around of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. For someone who's a purported strict constructionist, I'd ask how you can logically maintain that DOMA is constitutional. If it's ok for states to ignore gay marriages, can they then ignore all other marriage licenses? divorce decrees? civil judgments in general? criminal convictions? What standard is used to define which legal documents a state must accept and which it can ignore?

 

[bronconick]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Well, now I've seen everything. Someone who thinks the rich are discriminated against.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

I'd whoosh you again, but I don't want to send you into full meltdown.

I don't take positions on issues based upon their future popularity or unpopularity. I recognize not all people, apparently including you, take my approach.

So what actually is a good reason to not accept gay marriage? The only legitimate reason I can think of is that it would convey financial burden on the State because then these people would be dependents. Financial reason was not ultimately a stopper for many of the other things that were wildly controversial such as abolishing slavery, prohibition to name a few. I have a hard time dealing with the moral argument because so much of what is currently legal and socially acceptable is considered immoral if you look at Christian values- credit card insurance/banking industry (usery), living in sin without marriage for heterosexuals/children without marriage (adultery), drinking (gluttony), gambling, letting people be homeless and uncared for. All things that Jesus railed about significantly more than homosexuality.

I have actually never had someone be able to answer this without just spouting it is just wrong- even my most libertarian friend who rants about freedom for the individual. Very curious to get an answer and in the past you have answered me in a nice coherent way about other stuff. I didn't nec. agree but I could understand your point.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Well, now I've seen everything. Someone who thinks the rich are discriminated against.

Didn't you know? The $50,000/year teacher won the class war, while the $1,000,000/year i-banker lost.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

So what actually is a good reason to not accept gay marriage? The only legitimate reason I can think of is that it would convey financial burden on the State because then these people would be dependents. Financial reason was not ultimately a stopper for many of the other things that were wildly controversial such as abolishing slavery, prohibition to name a few. I have a hard time dealing with the moral argument because so much of what is currently legal and socially acceptable is considered immoral if you look at Christian values- credit card insurance/banking industry (usery), living in sin without marriage for heterosexuals/children without marriage (adultery), drinking (gluttony), gambling, letting people be homeless and uncared for. All things that Jesus railed about significantly more than homosexuality.

I have actually never had someone be able to answer this without just spouting it is just wrong- even my most libertarian friend who rants about freedom for the individual. Very curious to get an answer and in the past you have answered me in a nice coherent way about other stuff. I didn't nec. agree but I could understand your point.

Do you really think I'm going to get into a serious discussion if this issue in here, with all these wahoos who will jump down my neck anytime I say anthing other than that gay marriage is great? I could have a discussion with you, as I find you reasonable, and reasoned, even if we disagree at times. But I'm not going to wade through the rubbish that would get thrown at me here if I tried to have such a discussion.

But, really, there are a variety of reasons, some of which I think are pretty obvious. A bit of googling could easily find them I'm sure. Sorry, but I've been around here long enough to know that some things just can't be discussed reasonably and in depth around here.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Didn't you know? The $50,000/year teacher won the class war, while the $1,000,000/year i-banker lost.

Those ****ing teachers.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Do you really think I'm going to get into a serious discussion if this issue in here, with all these wahoos who will jump down my neck anytime I say anthing other than that gay marriage is great? I could have a discussion with you, as I find you reasonable, and reasoned, even if we disagree at times. But I'm not going to wade through the rubbish that would get thrown at me here if I tried to have such a discussion.

But, really, there are a variety of reasons, some of which I think are pretty obvious. A bit of googling could easily find them I'm sure. Sorry, but I've been around here long enough to know that some things just can't be discussed reasonably and in depth around here.

You don't have to think gay marriage is great to support it. Some might call it simply the right thing to do.

Frankly, I don't give a **** about it, since I'm not gay, never plan to become gay, and don't plan on ever having kids (wife's with me on that one), so I don't need to worry about their potential rights. By the same token, though, gay people being married doesn't affect me at all, so why should I deny them the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married schmucks?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Rimbaud's Chart below sums up the issue nicely.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

On the "protected class" scale where race is a 10 and wardrobe choice is a 1, sexual orientation is probably a current 6 with a strong liklihood of moving towards an 8 or 9 in the future once old people die off and the demographics change. Economic status is about a 2.

Also, let's not ignore the fact that DOMA is a clear Congressional end-around of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. For someone who's a purported strict constructionist, I'd ask how you can logically maintain that DOMA is constitutional. If it's ok for states to ignore gay marriages, can they then ignore all other marriage licenses? divorce decrees? civil judgments in general? criminal convictions? What standard is used to define which legal documents a state must accept and which it can ignore?

Correct. And correct.

The last age group where otherwise sensible people are still hanging on to fears and hatreds about gays is mine -- people in their 40's. There are plenty of "I hate fags" types who are under 40, but they are in the same toxic waste dump with the racists -- that creepy 10% who will always be with us. After all, there is still the occasional swastika or N word scrawled in public rest rooms.

The death of a bigotry is always accompanied by desperate, intellectualized efforts to somehow justify their "peculiar institution." And people can watch "In the Heat of the Night" all they want, but the only cure for bigotry has ever been the bigots getting old and dying off, and their grandchildren either laughing about them or decorously changing the subject.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

You don't have to think gay marriage is great to support it. Some might call it simply the right thing to do.

Frankly, I don't give a **** about it, since I'm not gay, never plan to become gay, and don't plan on ever having kids (wife's with me on that one), so I don't need to worry about their potential rights. By the same token, though, gay people being married doesn't affect me at all, so why should I deny them the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married schmucks?

We take an interest, or should, in all sorts of issues that we don't directly engage in or aren't directly impacted by. To only engage those issues directly related to things we directly do makes no sense if you have any sense of civic or national interest or pride.

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Do you really think I'm going to get into a serious discussion if this issue in here, with all these wahoos who will jump down my neck anytime I say anthing other than that gay marriage is great? I could have a discussion with you, as I find you reasonable, and reasoned, even if we disagree at times. But I'm not going to wade through the rubbish that would get thrown at me here if I tried to have such a discussion.

But, really, there are a variety of reasons, some of which I think are pretty obvious. A bit of googling could easily find them I'm sure. Sorry, but I've been around here long enough to know that some things just can't be discussed reasonably and in depth around here.

Bob, why do you do this? When someone asks you a legitimate question, you dodge it and say you don't want to wade through all the wahoos responses so it's pointless to state your ideas. Usually you say this in the midst of chatting it up with the wahoos, while occasionally disparaging the fact that people can't have normal civil conversations on the board. If you wanted to start a calm, rational dialogue, you can. It's pretty easy to ignore people on here, all you do is not hit the 'reply' button near their posts.

By the way, I can still send you that evolution paper on how complex organ systems may have arisen throughout time.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Correct. And correct.

The last age group where otherwise sensible people are still hanging on to fears and hatreds about gays is mine -- people in their 40's. There are plenty of "I hate fags" types who are under 40, but they are in the same toxic waste dump with the racists -- that creepy 10% who will always be with us. After all, there is still the occasional swastika or N word scrawled in public rest rooms.

The death of a bigotry is always accompanied by desperate, intellectualized efforts to somehow justify their "peculiar institution." And people can watch "In the Heat of the Night" all they want, but the only cure for bigotry has ever been the bigots getting old and dying off, and their grandchildren either laughing about them or decorously changing the subject.

That scenario assumes that things always get better with the grandchildren in comparison to previous generations. That of course isn't true. Interesting that this would come from someone who I believe has advocated many times that people really don't change from generation to generation (I'm not saying it well, but I think you know what I'm talking about).

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

We take an interest, or should, in all sorts of issues that we don't directly engage in or aren't directly impacted by. To only engage those issues directly related to things we directly do makes no sense if you have any sense of civic or national interest or pride.

Meh. There's not enough time in the day to be interested in or active in every issue. While I have my general political principles and philosophies, sorry to say I put a greater emphasis on some issues over others. Some I honestly couldn't give a rip about (politicians wearing american flag lapel pins? BFD).

I generally prefer the status quo absent a valid reason for changing things (why fix what isn't broken), but I also prefer personal liberty over government intrusion.

In this context:
I wouldn't actively push for gay marriage where it's not already available since I simply don't give a **** and don't have enough interest to overcome the inertia of the status quo.
If other people push for it and it's put on a ballot before me, I'd vote for it simply because there's no valid reason for the government to deny it.
In places where it's already there (and hence, the status quo), I'd vote to keep it for both reasons.

Honestly though, it's way down on the list of things I look for when voting for politicians. I happen to think it's the right call, but it's about the political equivalent of an offsides penalty in the first quarter of a mid-season football game.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Bob, why do you do this? When someone asks you a legitimate question, you dodge it and say you don't want to wade through all the wahoos responses so it's pointless to state your ideas. Usually you say this in the midst of chatting it up with the wahoos, while occasionally disparaging the fact that people can't have normal civil conversations on the board. If you wanted to start a calm, rational dialogue, you can. It's pretty easy to ignore people on here, all you do is not hit the 'reply' button near their posts.

By the way, I can still send you that evolution paper on how complex organ systems may have arisen throughout time.

Coming from one who attacks me whenever this stuff comes up, this is rich.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Meh. There's not enough time in the day to be interested in or active in every issue. While I have my general political principles and philosophies, sorry to say I put a greater emphasis on some issues over others. Some I honestly couldn't give a rip about (politicians wearing american flag lapel pins? BFD).

I generally prefer the status quo absent a valid reason for changing things (why fix what isn't broken), but I also prefer personal liberty over government intrusion.

In this context:
I wouldn't actively push for gay marriage where it's not already available since I simply don't give a **** and don't have enough interest to overcome the inertia of the status quo.
If other people push for it and it's put on a ballot before me, I'd vote for it simply because there's no valid reason for the government to deny it.
In places where it's already there (and hence, the status quo), I'd vote to keep it for both reasons.

Honestly though, it's way down on the list of things I look for when voting for politicians. I happen to think it's the right call, but it's about the political equivalent of an offsides penalty in the first quarter of a mid-season football game.

Of course we can't take an interest in everything or nearly everything and have to pick and choose, and some things are a lot more important than others. It is important though to have broader interest in issues than just those who are most directly impacted and/or those who have a financial or emotional stake in something. Otherwise those interest groups tend to drive policies in all sorts of directions that aren't necessarily in the broader public interest. I believe that this happens far too much already, as most of the public is some combination of lazy, disinterested, jaded, cynical, etc. and don't pay much attention to hardly anything that goes on, or if they do pay attention, they don't make much effort to delve into and understand issues, and even if you find yourself on one side of an issue, at least understand where the other side is coming from.