Did the LGBT community pick the wrong fight.

In reply to mad_machine:

Key distinction: They didn't get them back, in most areas of the country, they finally got them.

The worries will wear off, all the while, some douchebags will use this as a get rich quick scheme, and the world turns on.

The raw deal is that the peculiar actions of SCOTUS probably aren't a good omen of things to come. Legislatures exist for a reason, just like Executive and Judicial branches. Blurring of those lines usually means we get screwed.

If you think about it, all of the past 20-30 years has seen the world or at least the US, turn on certain elemental but very polarizing concepts in politics and lifestyles: alcohol access, blue laws, interracial relationships, abortion, gay marriage, etc. Most of those have been seized upon by both sides of the political fence for membership and fundraising purposes. Everything has become an "us vs them" issue and where you stand on those issues can define not only who you are but also how far you will advance in that world.
A number of years ago I got political and ran for a judicial position. I was frequently asked my position on those types of issues. Since I had represented several clients trying to obtain beer or liquor licenses against corrupt and deceitful local beer boards(my favorite was the board that measured the distance incorrectly so the Chairman of the Board could get a beer selling tenant in a rental building but measured correctly for other applicants) I was viewed as unacceptible to the conservative religious types. Anyway, the litmus tests have become the norm and just a part of our culture as people get their news off the tv or the internet.
What I see is that the laws need to be changed to cover many issues that arise in daily life but the law hasnt caught up to society. Gay marriage and divorce is such an issue. Children born out of wedlock is a much bigger issue along with children being raised by other family members. These two are the norm here in the bible belt of east tennessee.
The problem is that the politicians who pander to the voters(not the same as the general public) arent ready to address any of the issues.

whenry wrote: The problem is that the politicians who pander to the voters(not the same as the general public) aren't even remotely interested in addressing any of the issues.

FTFY. SVreX made an excellent post a while ago about who benefits from perpetuating chaos. Hint: It's the Democratic and Republican politicians.

politician's task list:

1: get job

2: do job? x- wrong -x

-

2: keep job

whenry wrote: Everything has become an "us vs them" issue and where you stand on those issues can define not only who you are but also how far you will advance in that world.

I am generally a moderate with some liberal leanings.. but the people I work with do not know where to place me. To my conservative friends, I am a flaming liberal, to my liberal friends, I am very conservative.

All because I refuse to do the "Us vs Them" mentality of it all and I enjoy shooting holes in the arguments on both sides. My biggest thing (and is what tips me towards liberal) is that I am all for "equality" not as in the rich need to be taxed into the poorhouse.. but that everyone should have equal access to medicine and education. As I have said, if you are healthy and educated, you can do anything..

Some people do not understand that

mad_machine wrote:

whenry wrote: Everything has become an "us vs them" issue and where you stand on those issues can define not only who you are but also how far you will advance in that world.

I am generally a moderate with some liberal leanings.. but the people I work with do not know where to place me. To my conservative friends, I am a flaming liberal, to my liberal friends, I am very conservative. All because I refuse to do the "Us vs Them" mentality of it all and I enjoy shooting holes in the arguments on both sides. My biggest thing (and is what tips me towards liberal) is that I am all for "equality" not as in the rich need to be taxed into the poorhouse.. but that everyone should have equal access to medicine and education. As I have said, if you are healthy and educated, you can do anything.. Some people do not understand that

I hear you 100%. Totally the same way.

I find it so strange when people define themselves by an ethos like "liberal" or "conservative". I define my politics by a guideline of how I evaluate and choose a position on individual issues. My best personal description is: pragmatic, active-moderate with a libertarian bias.

Translation: I believe in doing what provides the most gain and least harm using resources most efficiently; that this generally lies in balancing the opposing sides on an issue; and that default is people should be free to do what they want barring compelling argument to the contrary.

I may have to add "egalitarian" in there based on your earlier description because I do believe that, within reason, people should be afforded with genuinely equal opportunity to access the fundamentals that will allow them to create a life for themselves (food, shelter, education, and health care).

I also tick people off, because I believe the best theories are the ones that are able to respond to critique, not just provide evidence.

Fletch1 wrote: You own a bake store, to give an example. A gay couple walks in; wants a cake. You say, "Sorry, my religion forbids supporting gay marriage."

They are not being asked to support gay marriage. They're being asked to bake a cake. Would the same shop NOT bake a cake for a gay person's birthday? It's the same damn thing here. They are refusing to bake a cake because there is gayness involved.

Duke wrote: And, the *next* $64,000 question: Assuming all parties are consenting adults, why are we limiting marriages to 2 people?

I heard from somebody who knows the law much better than I do that it has to do with inheritance, property and other rights.

Also, I saw this linked and thought it outlined very well how there is already a victim mentality from the religious right. The culture war in the U.S.A. is not close to being over, but I don't think it is going to end anytime soon.

http://time.com/3938050/orthodox-christians-must-now-learn-to-live-as-exiles-in-our-own-country/

most of the country is still Christian in some manner.. and they are exiles.. that is some serious victimhood mentality.

"It is the view of four Supreme Court justices, in effect declaring from the bench the decline and fall of the traditional American social, political, and legal order."

I would like to know more about these eroding traditional values. While you're at it, could someone expand upon "the good 'ol days" that everyone keeps going on about?

1957

If you happened to be white, straight, male, and Protestant/Christian.

Otherwise the "good old days" weren't for most people. But history is often viewed through rose colored glasses.

And yesterday at lunch I had an otherwise intelligent co-worker actually ask me what was to stop people from marrying children or their dog now. Sigh, really dude doesn't "consenting adult" mean anything?

Then one of the ugliest men ever said "I just don't want to see two f**s kissing, it turns my stomach." Hate to break it to ya buddy but nobody wants to see you lip locking your woman either. Keep the PDA inside or simply avert your eyes.

It was a spirited discussion at lunch.

Duke wrote: And, the *next* $64,000 question: Assuming all parties are consenting adults, why are we limiting marriages to 2 people?

Short Answer: Although there is not necessarily a moral reason not to do so, it would be a practical legal mess. This mess could presumably be sorted out (business contracts can exist between multiple parties), but no one has thusfar been motivated to figure it out.

Longer Answer: Think about what happens when it dissolves. Who is actually married to who? Are all parties married to each other? Are multiple partners married to a central partner? Does each partner have a separate contract with each individual partner? If one person wants a divorce, does that dissolve the whole partnership, or only get that individual out? How do you divide up property? What if there are kids? Who has custody rights? Only the biological parents? Arguably, all parties would have had a hand in raising any children and feel personally attached. How do you divide up alimony and child support? What if you have five partners and two of them don't get along with each other, but get along fine with the other three in the marriage. How do you manage that divorce?

KyAllroad wrote: Then one of the ugliest men ever said "I just don't want to see two f**s kissing, it turns my stomach." Hate to break it to ya buddy but nobody wants to see you lip locking your woman either. Keep the PDA inside or simply avert your eyes.

And I don't ever want to be subjected to E36 M3ty music, but there's no shortage of it out there on the radio and on TV.

Regarding that polygamy question: but just think of all the legal costs involved with such a complicated system! You'd think some enterprising lawyers would be frothing at the bit to create whole new frontiers of billable hours.

polygamy is actually biblical. Look it up, it's in there

mad_machine wrote: polygamy is actually biblical. Look it up, it's in there

Oh dude, come on.

I try to stay out of these threads, but responses like this are just ignorant.

Saying something is "in the Bible" gives absolutely no context. Murder is in the Bible too. It doesn't mean it's not sinful.

tuna55 wrote:

mad_machine wrote: polygamy is actually biblical. Look it up, it's in there

Oh dude, come on. I try to stay out of these threads, but responses like this are just ignorant. Saying something is "in the Bible" gives absolutely no context. Murder is in the Bible too. It doesn't mean it's not sinful.

Except, it's not in there in a negative (or positive) way. More a matter of fact associated with fairly positive figures in the Old Testament (e.g. King Solomon). Really, most of the old kings of Israel had multiple wives. Monogamy doesn't become popular until under Roman rule.

Beer Baron wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

mad_machine wrote: polygamy is actually biblical. Look it up, it's in there

Oh dude, come on. I try to stay out of these threads, but responses like this are just ignorant. Saying something is "in the Bible" gives absolutely no context. Murder is in the Bible too. It doesn't mean it's not sinful.

Except, it's not in there in a negative (or positive) way. More a matter of fact associated with fairly positive figures in the Old Testament (e.g. King Solomon). Really, most of the old kings of Israel had multiple wives. Monogamy doesn't become popular until under Roman rule.

Gosh, you guys really need to read the thing before attempting to become internet experts. It's all quite clear.

Ok. How about this:

In 2 Samuel 12:8, God said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would have given David even more.

This is why people tear their hair out. In some areas, it seems that the bible is against polygamy, in others it seems to say if you're important enough it will be overlooked, or if circumstances warranted it, it might be allowed to deviate from the ideal biblical path of marriage.

tuna55 wrote: Gosh, you guys really need to read the thing before attempting to become internet experts. It's all quite clear.

The point is, it's not clear. The Bible doesn't really come out for or against polygamy. It doesn't matter anyway, because the system of law in this country is not based on the Bible (and should not be).

I do not see a real moral argument against polygamy. I do see a practical argument against writing it into law. If someone wants to resolve those practical issues, they are welcome to.

It's a totally separate issue from gay marriage, because all that needs to be done is take the existing system, and remove gender from the equation (arguably simplifying it).

I'm out. I don't want to play anymore.

When you've actually read the whole thing, come back and we'll talk.

Growing up I read a lot of science fiction. Heinlein very prominently and he was more than ok with non-traditional marriage systems.

As long as the parties involved are consenting adults I have absolutely NO problem with people getting through life in whatever way floats their boat. Honestly there is a lot to be said for a group marriage: increased stability, shared responsibilities, theoretically greater financial security.

tuna55 wrote: When you've actually read the whole thing, come back and we'll talk.

What if I had already read it 20x by the time I was twelve and still think it's nonsense?

Actually reading the bible is the best cure there is for believing it was proxied by divinity.