US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

[FireIceTalon]

You lost the argument here, FiT.

-Bolty

[kandrathe]

So, you were lying about your wages in the Hillary thread? I'd expect nothing less from a right-winged libertarian douche bag. You said this in a post, quote un quote:

For me, with my experience and skills, I do computational analysis for an hour and they give me $50.

Way to put your foot in your mouth, idiot. So either you are lying, or you suffer from short-term memory loss, or you (mistakenly) thought I wouldn't have the wits to recall that post. Which is it? Regardless, this is an L for you.

It's a range of pay where $50 is the top end. With this, as with the remainder of your post you just make lots of assumptions, and reflect your character, not mine.

At least I dont worship authors who romanticize the raping of 12 year old girls

You keep attempting to re-harvest this nut, even though

• I do not worship Ayn Rand,
• you made up some fantasy to justify your derision of me,
• you have bought into the discrediting narrative of her interest in William Hickman,
• but, yes, I have read and have seen her works in film, along with millions, upon millions of other people,
• I've read many more loathsome authors.

The bottom line is; we've never discussed her works, including her philosophy, so you really have no idea how I feel about Ayn Rand, or her works.

BUT, in the context of this thread, libertarians (and I would posit Objectivists) in philosophy are in favor of the "State" applying equal protection to all people, gay and straight alike. While we don't like in principle social welfare programs, it would be wrong for the government to discriminate against certain groups who may receive it. I am against the government approving or denying marriages in general, or any other personal relationship between adults. I don't think we should be benefited or taxed differently for having a relationship.

Probably this post will get me banned.

I think you've danced on that line from the beginning.

[LemmingofGlory]

Kandrathe, how'd you make him madder than I did? Damn. I called him a straight-up crackpot, which... I think he successfully demonstrated. But I guess you were the greater capitalist strawman boogeyman. *inclines head respectfully*

At least I dont worship authors who romanticize the raping of 12 year old girls

Seriously tumblr level meltdown, wow. #triggered


ALABAMA UPDATE TIME
AP reports federal judge orders Alabama county clerks offices to issue marriage licenses. Meanwhile, "The Alabama Supreme Court has muddied the issue by granting time for gay marriage opponents to voice their opinion about the impacts of same-sex weddings." as if the matter was still up for dispute.

I am, at least, heartened to see that county clerks are resigning in MS and AR as they realize they cannot perform their duties professionally by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It really boggles the mind that so many people cannot separate the notion of civil marriage from church marriage. A friend of mine suggested to me that these people essentially have a very low level of emotional awareness and function on a level of "I don't like it, and that's all there is to it. There are no details that will make me view this differently, because I just don't like it." I'm not actually sure if I'm convinced this is a significant reason, because if something doesn't actually affect you it's really hard to get butthurt about it unless there's something nipping at your heels to make you keep giving a shit.

-Lem

[DeeBye]

I am, at least, heartened to see that county clerks are resigning in MS and AR as they realize they cannot perform their duties professionally by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
-Lem

I'm surprised people are quitting over this. They might think it's a meaningful gesture, but they are only punishing themselves. What are they hoping it ultimately accomplishes? If I was told I couldn't do something that was a part of the duties of my job, I'd just take a paid break.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vbI-P6mFbg

[Taem]

A friend of mine suggested to me that these people essentially have a very low level of emotional awareness and function on a level of "I don't like it, and that's all there is to it. There are no details that will make me view this differently, because I just don't like it." I'm not actually sure if I'm convinced this is a significant reason, because if something doesn't actually affect you it's really hard to get butthurt about it unless there's something nipping at your heels to make you keep giving a shit.

Interesting theory; I feel like you're implying that those who whole-heatedly disagree with gay marriage might secretly be toying with the idea of homosexuality themselves. The reason I feel that this so is, according to your logic, those who "despise" gay marriage must loathe it due to constantly thinking about it [via your comment @something nipping at the heels] nodding to an internal struggle of said individual. Following this line of logic, what could cause someone to think so deeply about said subject unless they were either being constantly harassed by an aggressive homosexual (unlikely), or they harbored similar desires that they could not accept, thus grew to hate it as a way of protecting themselves from it. Of course, I could also be reading too deeply between the lines here, but I can see no other outcome of the situation you present that would cause the same amount of vitriol as per your hypothesis.

[LemmingofGlory]

Interesting theory; I feel like you're implying that those who whole-heatedly disagree with gay marriage might secretly be toying with the idea of homosexuality themselves.

I was thinking more recurrent condemnations of it in church sermons, for instance. If the thinking becomes part of an identity ("I am X, and X do not accept homosexuality"), the objection is even more in-grained.

The reason I feel that this so is, according to your logic, those who "despise" gay marriage must loathe it due to constantly thinking about it [via your comment @something nipping at the heels] nodding to an internal struggle of said individual. Following this line of logic, what could cause someone to think so deeply about said subject unless they were either being constantly harassed by an aggressive homosexual (unlikely), or they harbored similar desires that they could not accept, thus grew to hate it as a way of protecting themselves from it. Of course, I could also be reading too deeply between the lines here, but I can see no other outcome of the situation you present that would cause the same amount of vitriol as per your hypothesis.

The thing is, it's not always vitriol. Opposition is often disturbingly calm, and perhaps doesn't rise to the level of "despise" (hence my use of "butthurt"). It's often just a very insistent conviction. For instance! This video seems to take the approach of turning a simple position into an identity: "This is who I am." It's disingenuous in the extreme, and encouraging the development of identities around opinions is toxic, which is why this idiotic video has already been delightfully parodied.

-Lem

[LavCat]

As a religious person who is gay I applaud that officials are resigning their positions rather than going against their conscience.

Besides, who would want to be married by someone who does not want to marry them?

[DeeBye]

I was thinking more recurrent condemnations of it in church sermons

Even that argument doesn't hold water. Many Christian religions don't allow divorce, and adultery is a sin. Both of these relate directly to marriage, but I don't see the same vehemence against divorcees and adulterers.

[LemmingofGlory]

Even that argument doesn't hold water. Many Christian religions don't allow divorce, and adultery is a sin. Both of these relate directly to marriage, but I don't see the same vehemence against divorcees and adulterers.

Not anymore. Times have changed since being shunned for being divorced or cheating (note the disuse of "adulterer" as a stigma in modern parlance) were commonplace. But these things could, in the past and especially for women, result in being ostracized. There wasn't a united movement to do it. It just happened. Over time, those attitudes changed.

Fundamentally, this is identity politics. People are gay, as a characteristic. And I think opponents of gay civil marriage identify so strongly as "Christian" that they consider opposing gay anything a fundamental characteristic of that identity. They're trying to appear persecuted so that they look like victims because their analogy is broken.

-Lem

[DeeBye]

Fundamentally, this is identity politics. People are gay, as a characteristic. And I think opponents of gay civil marriage identify so strongly as "Christian" that they consider opposing gay anything a fundamental characteristic of that identity. They're trying to appear persecuted so that they look like victims because their analogy is broken.

-Lem

I'm happy that this isn't really a thing in Canada. I wouldn't want to choose who I vote for based purely on their views of gay marriage. There are way more important things.

[LavCat]

Fundamentally, this is identity politics. People are gay, as a characteristic. And I think opponents of gay civil marriage identify so strongly as "Christian" that they consider opposing gay anything a fundamental characteristic of that identity. They're trying to appear persecuted so that they look like victims because their analogy is broken.

-Lem

I'm happy that this isn't really a thing in Canada. I wouldn't want to choose who I vote for based purely on their views of gay marriage. There are way more important things.

Poutine?

[Bolty]

And I think opponents of gay civil marriage identify so strongly as "Christian" that they consider opposing gay anything a fundamental characteristic of that identity.

This applies to most peoples' viewpoints in life, as far as I've seen. Humans have a fundamental need to identify with groups, as we are tribal animals by instinct. It is a survival mechanism. We allow our opinions to be formed by the groups we identify with. Perhaps we joined those groups based on geography, perhaps we joined those groups based on upbringing, or perhaps we joined those groups because they held a belief we shared. Further beliefs come from that identity.

One can cynically claim that "people are sheep" who don't think for themselves, and by doing so imply that they are above these petty mentalities, able to evaluate stances objectively in every aspect of their lives. But I think anyone would be hard-pressed to factually claim they have never been influenced by the groups they belong to, even if subconsciously.

Myself included.

However, when a belief is challenged, it does take a strong mind to evaluate that challenge objectively rather than instinctually react to the challenge and shut it down. Our very biology screams at us to reject anything that could threaten our group identity, because without the group, we're stranded, alone from the tribe.

Not everyone can overcome that instinct. Harder yet is to figure out if your bias is interfering in an objective analysis of a challenge, or if the challenge is crap and deserves rejection.

Some challenges are pretty easy to evaluate and determine if there's an objective reason to reject them. Gay marriage is one of those, which makes me feel sorry for those who still can't overcome that challenge to their belief.

[LemmingofGlory]

I'm happy that this isn't really a thing in Canada. I wouldn't want to choose who I vote for based purely on their views of gay marriage. There are way more important things.

Well, it's nice of you to trivialize the decision making process, but it does tend to be difficult to support candidates that use your demographic as a boogeyman even if you do happen to agree with them on other issues. If you don't see that, change the dialogue from sexual orientation to race and see if that clicks with you. Would you find it easy to support a politician that was openly racist? "The races just ought not mix." sounds backwards and damages credibility. It's not so much that this one issue is the end all, but being against it is a red flag. Americans more and more tend to vote for the lesser of two evils, I think, instead of for candidates they particularly like.

-Lem

[LemmingofGlory]

And I think opponents of gay civil marriage identify so strongly as "Christian" that they consider opposing gay anything a fundamental characteristic of that identity.

This applies to most peoples' viewpoints in life, as far as I've seen. Humans have a fundamental need to identify with groups, as we are tribal animals by instinct. It is a survival mechanism. We allow our opinions to be formed by the groups we identify with. Perhaps we joined those groups based on geography, perhaps we joined those groups based on upbringing, or perhaps we joined those groups because they held a belief we shared. Further beliefs come from that identity.

I agree! I'm drawing a distinction between the levels of reasoning to the conclusion. "I oppose gay marriage because I am a Christian" basically sounds like "This an axiom of Christianity", which (as many other Christians would attest) it is not. But even if it was, there should be another step of reasoning to determine whether the opposition must be broad or simply within their own denomination.

However, when a belief is challenged, it does take a strong mind to evaluate that challenge objectively rather than instinctually react to the challenge and shut it down. Our very biology screams at us to reject anything that could threaten our group identity, because without the group, we're stranded, alone from the tribe.

I'm keenly aware. I was raised by a mentally ill parent who suffered from (what I know now to have been) paranoid delusions. I had no outside social interactions except through gaming. I had to tear apart my entire worldview and build it up again when I finally, well, escaped. It was very uncomfortable. I felt out of place pretty much constantly, because I had no local/regional culture. I mostly consider my culture to be Internet.

So, yeah, I know this pretty deeply from first hand accounts. It's why I think it's so important to look square in the eye anything sacred or taboo and ask, "Should this be viewed this way? Do I have a good reason?" Deep convictions do best when well supported. (And it's fine to have unsupported beliefs, but know that you can't expect other people to also take stock in them.)

I learned by watching Pete how to call bullshit on garbage ideas. It actually really helped me get out from under the diseased worldview I was raised in. I'd thank him if he was still around. Dunno how he'd take that though.

Some challenges are pretty easy to evaluate and determine if there's an objective reason to reject them. Gay marriage is one of those, which makes me feel sorry for those who still can't overcome that challenge to their belief.

It is and it isn't. The idea of sexual orientation is non-intuitive for many people who've just never thought about it. So, they might get stuck on the gay part before getting to the marriage part. It's that lack of exposure that limits understanding. As an extreme example of limited point of view, I didn't understand sexual attraction until I was 19 because I was brought up to think it was some kind of intellectual decision. For example, I was told I'd be attracted to people who liked mowing the grass because I hated doing it and that would make us compatible. Similarly, desiring a family was what made my mom attracted to men (she explained).

Environment matters a whole lot. Even something (like sexual attraction) that is basically intuitive can be molded by an insular environment in order to fit its confines.

-Lem

[kandrathe]

It is and it isn't. The idea of sexual orientation is non-intuitive for many people who've just never thought about it. So, they might get stuck on the gay part before getting to the marriage part. It's that lack of exposure that limits understanding. As an extreme example of limited point of view, I didn't understand sexual attraction until I was 19 because I was brought up to think it was some kind of intellectual decision.

My upbringing was more as an intellectual type, raised with two sisters and a father who didn't do many activities other than farm work. I never did the "male bonding", stuff like weightlifting, and kickboxing until I was more like 25. I was disgusted by the "womanizing" aspects of peer male 20 somethings while in college.

For me, also 19. I happened to be in a ballet troupe at the time, and one of my best friends came out and professed his love for me. I had suspected he was gay, but it didn't matter to me. But, it was awkward then being knowingly desired by him. In that moment of sexual identity clarity, I told him I was definitely a heterosexual, but I very much valued his friendship. He felt rebuffed, and being relegated to "the friend zone" ruined our relationship.

[DeeBye]

Well, it's nice of you to trivialize the decision making process, but it does tend to be difficult to support candidates that use your demographic as a boogeyman even if you do happen to agree with them on other issues.

I'm not trivializing it at all. I'm just stating that it's sad that people actually do this, and politicians pander to them.

[LemmingofGlory]

For me, also 19. I happened to be in a ballet troupe at the time, and one of my best friends came out and professed his love for me. I had suspected he was gay, but it didn't matter to me. But, it was awkward then being knowingly desired by him. In that moment of sexual identity clarity, I told him I was definitely a heterosexual, but I very much valued his friendship. He felt rebuffed, and being relegated to "the friend zone" ruined our relationship.

Damn, dude. I always have to pursue. I don't even know what it's like to be pursued. Maybe it's because I'm a short, bearish nerd. (Kudos, I guess?) It can be legitimately difficult to continue a friendship if you're really crushing on someone. Sometimes you just have to distance yourself so you don't act like a weirdo. It's not always as petulant as the fedora/cargo shorts/socks-with-sandals "friend zone."

I'm not trivializing it at all. I'm just stating that it's sad that people actually do this, and politicians pander to them.

What's worse is when it becomes a dominant political strategy. As far as same-sex marriage goes in the U.S., it has been a dominant political strategy to oppose gay marriage even for Democratic candidates. Neither Obama nor Hillary flip-flopped until sometime in the past 3 years, and that's embarrassing considering these are Ivy League educated people who have a LOT of "real world" experience. They're not people from insular, sheltered communities repeating the cultural mores of their tiny mid-western villages. These are people who are basically spitting in the faces of their friends and expecting them to say "Okay, I get why you're doing this right now, and it's okay."

Of course, when Republican candidates do it, it's straight-up fear mongering. They're stoking the Evangelical vote. Democrats are just trying to not alienate the on-the-fence voters.

-Lem

[Bolty]

It was interesting seeing the reaction of the Republican presidential candidates to the Supreme Court ruling. It varied from "well, that's the decision, let's live with it and move forward" to "vote for me and I'll champion a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."

The former are pretty clearly politicians who had to oppose gay marriage to pander to their voter base, and are likely pretty happy the decision has been finalized so they didn't have to make it a platform issue. The latter are the prototypical homophobic fear-mongerers.

I think it's been pointed out in this thread even that the decision actually helps the GOP. Since polls show that the majority of Americans now actually support gay marriage*, the Republicans stood to lose out by continuing to make it a high-priority issue. Now they can drop it.

*citation needed but I'm too lazy

[kandrathe]

...

Since polls show that the majority of Americans now actually support gay marriage*, the Republicans stood to lose out by continuing to make it a high-priority issue. Now they can drop it.

*citation needed but I'm too lazy

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/08/graph...-marriage/

Argh. Republicans.... Now, if only...

• Promote Immigration - we need more hard working smart people.
• Decriminalize drug use - drug users are victims of drug sellers
• Promote cost effective clean energy - why not?
• Stop warmongering...
• Drop the whole push for Voter ID - yes, stop fraud, maybe automate past punched cards
• Fix Obamacare - stop trying to repeal it.

I'm sure I could think of more...


More of a southern red neck issue, but;

** Enough with the Confederate flags - it is a symbol of an age of slavery. Yes, you have the right to wave it, or a Nazi one, or whatever, but you also will be judged by what you are saying with that symbol.

[Mavfin]

to "vote for me and I'll champion a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."

Well, the one talking loudest about a constitutional amendment, imo, is really just playing both sides of the street. He has to know that no such amendment would ever be introduced, let alone be ratified. Takes 3/4 of the states for it to happen, and it won't happen. But it makes good sound bites...

On the other hand, some of the most serious religious opponents of the change are just going to marginalize themselves even more.