Conservative pro-traditional marriage clown visited an escor
Moderator: Available
Just as a matter of interesting trivia, I believe there is an exception to the rule even now. There is a standing invitation to Episcopal (and hence Anglican, I expect) priests who convert themselves (and their congregations? not sure) to the RC church. Since Episcopal priests can marry, if they are married when they convert, they become married RC priests. We had such a priest when I lived in Texas. Our parish was not involved--he was transferred to us afterwards.
Mike
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
IJ
You can "explain" all you like......"explain" being code for "spin" in this context.
Your "explaination" ring both false AND hollow.
I have patiently delt with your posts, broke them down one by one and shown them to be innaccurate, self contridictory and/or flawed.
You don't agree????
Ok, by me.
I don't agree with you either---problem is that the State and socity at large ALSO does not agree with you.
At the end of the day, the ONLY problem you have with "protected classes" is that YOUR not currently one of them.
Spin away IJ.
Nope, I not any longer in YOUR corner--not the issues corner.
(If people threateing to kick my ass to my FACE for supporting the issue of gay marriage, I doubt my disappointment with a sloppy thinking is going to stop me. )
Would suggest that if your willing to be such a blow hard with a guy that bascially agrees with you---then I shudder to think of how you treat people that don't.
Its a perfect "explaintion" of why the things are NOT better in most States.
Weak arguments, poor reasoning, social engineering from the bench rather than the legislature where such questions belong, over hyped/conflated verbage about "slavery".
Self contridictory and self negating statements, spin and overly parsed points......its stuff JUST LIKE THIS that keeps things from getting better, faster.
But hey, don't listen to me----look at the all the States that have listened to JUST such arguments for decades now and have made fundamental changes in the how they sanction and define "marriage"........................
Oh, wait.
You have to look at the facts at some point IJ, and the facts are that your.......ahm....."arguments" just are not getting it done.
Since your so fond of paltitudes---doing the same old thing and expecting to get different results is crazy.
You can "explain" all you like......"explain" being code for "spin" in this context.
Your "explaination" ring both false AND hollow.
I have patiently delt with your posts, broke them down one by one and shown them to be innaccurate, self contridictory and/or flawed.
You don't agree????
Ok, by me.
I don't agree with you either---problem is that the State and socity at large ALSO does not agree with you.
At the end of the day, the ONLY problem you have with "protected classes" is that YOUR not currently one of them.
Spin away IJ.
Nope, I not any longer in YOUR corner--not the issues corner.
(If people threateing to kick my ass to my FACE for supporting the issue of gay marriage, I doubt my disappointment with a sloppy thinking is going to stop me. )
Would suggest that if your willing to be such a blow hard with a guy that bascially agrees with you---then I shudder to think of how you treat people that don't.
Its a perfect "explaintion" of why the things are NOT better in most States.
Weak arguments, poor reasoning, social engineering from the bench rather than the legislature where such questions belong, over hyped/conflated verbage about "slavery".
Self contridictory and self negating statements, spin and overly parsed points......its stuff JUST LIKE THIS that keeps things from getting better, faster.
But hey, don't listen to me----look at the all the States that have listened to JUST such arguments for decades now and have made fundamental changes in the how they sanction and define "marriage"........................
Oh, wait.
You have to look at the facts at some point IJ, and the facts are that your.......ahm....."arguments" just are not getting it done.
Since your so fond of paltitudes---doing the same old thing and expecting to get different results is crazy.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
You are a very lucky person, Gene. Obviously others weren't so lucky.Gene DeMambro wrote:I haven't.Bill Glasheen wrote:
(I've seen it personally...)
Gene
The Diocese of Richmond dumped a real loser on us in Hampton when I was a kid. He was a "cool" priest who would take some of the altar boys out on special trips to get stuff. Of course parents were delighted that their boys were getting excited about church activites rather than doing stuff on the street. Trust was built.
One time he took a group of boys out on an overnight trip. The boys woke up the next morning in his bed. Details will be left out.
There were other episodes...
Parishioners got together and contacted the bishop. The bishop did nothing. Parents of the boys complained to my dad who helped build the church (second of his 3 businesses) and was influential in the community. My father called the bishop and did one of those cowboy movie drama deals. He told the bishop he wanted this priest out of town by sundown, or the local TV stations would be reporting live outside the rectory door. Within half an hour, we saw the priest frantically throwing his stuff in the car. It was the last we saw of him.
The Church would sometimes try to intimidate parishioners into silence and acquiescence with excommunication. My dad never put up with any of that. It was never about the institution to him. It was about doing the right thing.
Years later, people from other parishes (in other states) contacted my dad about more "stuff" - from the same priest. Ya think??
Ever wonder why various Catholic Diocese are getting sued for mega millions? You know me, Gene. I am no friend of trial attorneys. The fact that you personally haven't seen anything is moot. As they say, money talks. There wouldn't be all these lawsuits if there wasn't a consistent pattern of abuse.
The Catholic Church obviously has a problem. IN MY OPINION, it's about more than "passing the trash."
- Bill
"I have patiently delt with your posts, broke them down one by one and shown them to be innaccurate, self contridictory and/or flawed."
Your only point is that I shouldn't call for my marriage equality while permitting the government to treat unmarried people differently. You have this simplistic view of government, apparently, in which everyone and everything gets treated exactly the same. Fact is, you're wrong. And this isn't an opinion, its a fact. You didn't like (for whatever reason) my analogies about how you can follow your own beliefs but not force them on others. However, my examples about the differences in the tax code for different people, when the difference serves a legitimate purpose, aren't arguable. They... are. It's not a matter of discussion.
Now, you can dissent from the entire current system of American government and demand that the tax code be completely equalized (that'd be cool for me, I pay 10 times what my neighbor does in property tax because he's been here since the houses were built), but your fault is really with American law and not me. Want to call me "inconsistent" because I, like American law, would distinguish between the poor and the well off when allowing people to fund Roth IRAs, or between homeowners and renters when granting tax benefits (deductibility of interest), or between married and not when allowing joint return benefits to support the institution? That's fine, but you're alone. You've cited not a single reference to support your assertion that the nation's law is inconsistent and silly.
I on the other hand have cited legal precedent, listed a ton of analogous situations, explained what protected classes are and mean, and provided a bunch of links. If you want to declare victory and withdraw, that'd be just fine.
"Its a perfect "explaintion" of why the things are NOT better in most States."
"You have to look at the facts at some point IJ, and the facts are that your.......ahm....."arguments" just are not getting it done."
Yes, once again... it's your opinion that your dislike for my manner of debate is why we don't have gay marriage, but it's really hard to imagine how that could possibly be.
"At the end of the day, the ONLY problem you have with "protected classes" is that YOUR not currently one of them."
You STILL haven't read any of the relevant court cases, have you... sigh. I AM IN ONE. That was the finding of Romer v Evans. The SCOTUS made LGBs a protected class, meaning that the government has to have some other reason to discriminate besides our identity. So, US law inarguably states you have it backwards. How's that for spin?
"Since your so fond of paltitudes---doing the same old thing and expecting to get different results is crazy."
Man, now you're mangling quotes from my main man Einstein!
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 33991.html
Listen, it would be crazy for me to expect me to do the same thing (state facts, cite precedent) to you and expect a different result (you changing your mind). I don't expect that; I just enjoy debating the issue with people who won't do their reading on the subject. However, your claim that the efforts of equal marriage proponents are going nowhere is completely baseless.
Here's a little historical perspective. Before Christ, and for most of the ~2000 years since, homosexuality was thought of as a choice or behavior, and it was variously tolerated and punished, sometimes extremely (fun fact: a faggot is a bundle of sticks, used as kindling--refers to the way homosexuals were burned along with witches). Starting just in the last 100 years or so, medicine started to describe homosexuality as a disease or disorder, rather than a sin, and began destigmatizing it. Then, mostly since WW2, gay communities have developed, began speaking with a collective voice, opposed discrimination, and made their way into the press, meekly then confidently. The disorder became, according to medical and psychiatric authorities, merely a difference, like left handedness (ref: APA position paper). In a matter of 30 or so years, openly gay or lesbian people have held all sorts of public office, seen the repeal of many discriminatory laws and bans on intimacy, become regulars on television and in our suburbs, and seen the rise of civil unions, joint adoption, and now in Mass, equal marriage. Progress has happened all across the world including in orthodox israel, russia, and elsewhere, with, as I mentioned, equal marriage in Catholic spain and the integration of many military forces without any discernable trouble resulting.
Marriage equality in the US is an issue because it involves a change to a fundamental institution of the state and churches--and because this country, perhaps unknownst to many inhabitants, has a much stronger fundamentalist religious core than most other Western countries. There's a lot of pushback, which isn't surprising.
But just like that guy who ate the tomato and proved they weren't poisonous... just like when we created anesthesia and the Catholic church's prediction that the transforming experience of pain would be abolished... just like when rock music made it to primetime TV and the world didn't end... just liek when the service was integrated for WW2... familiarity with LGBs is accelerating, and its going to be more and more difficult to argue that gay marriage is going to cause the collapse of the nation. Things are changing rather quickly, actually.
So, argue till you're blue in the face that appealing for civil rights by citing legal precedent and making analogies is ineffective and that there isn't any progress. BUT, as was the issue with our legal system, it's demonstrably not true.
Your only point is that I shouldn't call for my marriage equality while permitting the government to treat unmarried people differently. You have this simplistic view of government, apparently, in which everyone and everything gets treated exactly the same. Fact is, you're wrong. And this isn't an opinion, its a fact. You didn't like (for whatever reason) my analogies about how you can follow your own beliefs but not force them on others. However, my examples about the differences in the tax code for different people, when the difference serves a legitimate purpose, aren't arguable. They... are. It's not a matter of discussion.
Now, you can dissent from the entire current system of American government and demand that the tax code be completely equalized (that'd be cool for me, I pay 10 times what my neighbor does in property tax because he's been here since the houses were built), but your fault is really with American law and not me. Want to call me "inconsistent" because I, like American law, would distinguish between the poor and the well off when allowing people to fund Roth IRAs, or between homeowners and renters when granting tax benefits (deductibility of interest), or between married and not when allowing joint return benefits to support the institution? That's fine, but you're alone. You've cited not a single reference to support your assertion that the nation's law is inconsistent and silly.
I on the other hand have cited legal precedent, listed a ton of analogous situations, explained what protected classes are and mean, and provided a bunch of links. If you want to declare victory and withdraw, that'd be just fine.
"Its a perfect "explaintion" of why the things are NOT better in most States."
"You have to look at the facts at some point IJ, and the facts are that your.......ahm....."arguments" just are not getting it done."
Yes, once again... it's your opinion that your dislike for my manner of debate is why we don't have gay marriage, but it's really hard to imagine how that could possibly be.
"At the end of the day, the ONLY problem you have with "protected classes" is that YOUR not currently one of them."
You STILL haven't read any of the relevant court cases, have you... sigh. I AM IN ONE. That was the finding of Romer v Evans. The SCOTUS made LGBs a protected class, meaning that the government has to have some other reason to discriminate besides our identity. So, US law inarguably states you have it backwards. How's that for spin?
"Since your so fond of paltitudes---doing the same old thing and expecting to get different results is crazy."
Man, now you're mangling quotes from my main man Einstein!
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 33991.html
Listen, it would be crazy for me to expect me to do the same thing (state facts, cite precedent) to you and expect a different result (you changing your mind). I don't expect that; I just enjoy debating the issue with people who won't do their reading on the subject. However, your claim that the efforts of equal marriage proponents are going nowhere is completely baseless.
Here's a little historical perspective. Before Christ, and for most of the ~2000 years since, homosexuality was thought of as a choice or behavior, and it was variously tolerated and punished, sometimes extremely (fun fact: a faggot is a bundle of sticks, used as kindling--refers to the way homosexuals were burned along with witches). Starting just in the last 100 years or so, medicine started to describe homosexuality as a disease or disorder, rather than a sin, and began destigmatizing it. Then, mostly since WW2, gay communities have developed, began speaking with a collective voice, opposed discrimination, and made their way into the press, meekly then confidently. The disorder became, according to medical and psychiatric authorities, merely a difference, like left handedness (ref: APA position paper). In a matter of 30 or so years, openly gay or lesbian people have held all sorts of public office, seen the repeal of many discriminatory laws and bans on intimacy, become regulars on television and in our suburbs, and seen the rise of civil unions, joint adoption, and now in Mass, equal marriage. Progress has happened all across the world including in orthodox israel, russia, and elsewhere, with, as I mentioned, equal marriage in Catholic spain and the integration of many military forces without any discernable trouble resulting.
Marriage equality in the US is an issue because it involves a change to a fundamental institution of the state and churches--and because this country, perhaps unknownst to many inhabitants, has a much stronger fundamentalist religious core than most other Western countries. There's a lot of pushback, which isn't surprising.
But just like that guy who ate the tomato and proved they weren't poisonous... just like when we created anesthesia and the Catholic church's prediction that the transforming experience of pain would be abolished... just like when rock music made it to primetime TV and the world didn't end... just liek when the service was integrated for WW2... familiarity with LGBs is accelerating, and its going to be more and more difficult to argue that gay marriage is going to cause the collapse of the nation. Things are changing rather quickly, actually.
So, argue till you're blue in the face that appealing for civil rights by citing legal precedent and making analogies is ineffective and that there isn't any progress. BUT, as was the issue with our legal system, it's demonstrably not true.
--Ian
IJ
No, what I'm saying is that you need to make better arguements and devlop new avenues of approach---your current methods are flawed--some of them seriously.
They clearly have failed to convoience the general public--and anyone that thinks things thu.
"How could it possible be?"
Well as mentioned, despite your OCD focus, your arguments are poorly reasoned, poorly supported, depend on forcing social change thu the courts insread of the legislatur where it belong, logically inconsistant, at times overly strident and hysterical--such as comapring it to "slavery", self contridictor, hypocritical and bascially unconviencing.
AGAIN---denying that your trying to force social change thu the courts while AT THE SAME TIME AGAIN, presenting YOUR spin-on the "relevent clase law" proves your fibbing.
The problem here IJ is that I DO "do my reading on the subject" and as such I serioulsy disagree with you---as does most of the United States.
Your spin on the facts simple don't hold up.
AGAIN, since you now wish to cast "marrige" as something with an ever changeing menaing---then please list for me where in the last 200 year of the USA was State Sanctioned "marriage" open for gays???????
See, you introduce arguements THINKING they mean one thing---when they ACTUALLY mean quite something else---in this case that the core/foundational meaning of marrige HAS NOT really changed much at all---its ALWAYS been defined in gender terms here in the States
Thus givening anyone that disagrees with gay marrige MORE traction not LESS.
And without such gobblegook it probably would have ALREADY changed--but the tatics and arguments historically applied have HURT rather than HELPED--slowed things down CONSIDERABLY.
And you and folks like you are at least partially to blame--tired arguments, sloppy logic and hysterical insistance of being correct have slowed things down to a snails pace.
Overuse of the courts have merely placed another weapon in the hands of whole "anti" crowd.
AGAIN---look at the last line of your post then tell me again how you NOT trying to force social change thu the courts there IJ.
Your a hollow man in an empty suit-----yes that strains the example--but I'm sure that you get it.
No, what I'm saying is that you need to make better arguements and devlop new avenues of approach---your current methods are flawed--some of them seriously.
They clearly have failed to convoience the general public--and anyone that thinks things thu.
"How could it possible be?"
Well as mentioned, despite your OCD focus, your arguments are poorly reasoned, poorly supported, depend on forcing social change thu the courts insread of the legislatur where it belong, logically inconsistant, at times overly strident and hysterical--such as comapring it to "slavery", self contridictor, hypocritical and bascially unconviencing.
AGAIN---denying that your trying to force social change thu the courts while AT THE SAME TIME AGAIN, presenting YOUR spin-on the "relevent clase law" proves your fibbing.
The problem here IJ is that I DO "do my reading on the subject" and as such I serioulsy disagree with you---as does most of the United States.
Your spin on the facts simple don't hold up.
AGAIN, since you now wish to cast "marrige" as something with an ever changeing menaing---then please list for me where in the last 200 year of the USA was State Sanctioned "marriage" open for gays???????
See, you introduce arguements THINKING they mean one thing---when they ACTUALLY mean quite something else---in this case that the core/foundational meaning of marrige HAS NOT really changed much at all---its ALWAYS been defined in gender terms here in the States
Thus givening anyone that disagrees with gay marrige MORE traction not LESS.
And without such gobblegook it probably would have ALREADY changed--but the tatics and arguments historically applied have HURT rather than HELPED--slowed things down CONSIDERABLY.
And you and folks like you are at least partially to blame--tired arguments, sloppy logic and hysterical insistance of being correct have slowed things down to a snails pace.
Overuse of the courts have merely placed another weapon in the hands of whole "anti" crowd.
AGAIN---look at the last line of your post then tell me again how you NOT trying to force social change thu the courts there IJ.
Your a hollow man in an empty suit-----yes that strains the example--but I'm sure that you get it.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Bill
I wasn't trying to be insulting--although that is probably how it comes across---sorry.
But from where I sit, its just a pretty accurate reflection of his ideas and logic.
"Sounds" good---great talking points for the whole "soundbite" methods of poltical discourse.
But at the end of the day, when you really examine it, there is nothing really there, nothing that holds up in the courts OR in public opinon.
And those are the facts---quibble as somebody might, if the reality WERE different there would be no need to have this discussion at all.
In a very strange way, I wish IJ WAS right, I wish it were otherwise, if it were some very dear friends of mine would be much more happy right now.
I wasn't trying to be insulting--although that is probably how it comes across---sorry.
But from where I sit, its just a pretty accurate reflection of his ideas and logic.
"Sounds" good---great talking points for the whole "soundbite" methods of poltical discourse.
But at the end of the day, when you really examine it, there is nothing really there, nothing that holds up in the courts OR in public opinon.
And those are the facts---quibble as somebody might, if the reality WERE different there would be no need to have this discussion at all.
In a very strange way, I wish IJ WAS right, I wish it were otherwise, if it were some very dear friends of mine would be much more happy right now.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
I don't know if I'm very lucky, or if I'm the norm and those victims are very unlucky. Probably a little of both.You are a very lucky person, Gene. Obviously others weren't so lucky.
Dicoeses everywhere had their opportunities to handle the problematic filth that infested their rnaks and blew it. They deserve to have to pay out to victims. No argument here.
But the continued anti-Catholic stance is, well, unwelcoming. But it is your forum, Bill, and you can steer the conversatiosn anyway you wish.
Cheers,
Gene
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
Let me see if I get this one right: A peson files a suit, citing a violation of a civil right and might loose at the trial court level yet ultiamtely wins at the appealss court or Supreme court level and this is an "Overuse of the courts"?Overuse of the courts have merely placed another weapon in the hands of whole "anti" crowd.
Sounds to me like exactly why we have courts in the first place.
The fact that the courts have to get involved at all is not their fault, but perhaps the fault of the legislatures who refuse to recognize the civil rihts of all citizens, or perhaps the fault of the people themselves who refuse to do the same.
Gene
gene
No, that is not even close to what I said or suggested.
Lets not forget here that I am strongly in FAVOR of gay marriage.
As far as I'm concerned the law REQUIRES such---since it apply to ALL citizens.
BUT---you knew there was a "but" coming right
That POV has proven less than effective--or only effective on a small scale.
(I have personally argued many of IJ points--with much more support BTW and been defeated)
Using the courts to force social change puts the ultimate result in the hands of judges whom can thus "interperate" things in any given way.
Its one of the reasons why there is such a bitter fight whenever postions open up on the Supreme Court.
Roe v Wade being only one issue at risk.
A slight shift either direction can have serious repecussuions for decades.
Depending on your POV great strides can be made and or great roadblocks can result.
If you want to join me in a really cynical POV, then in court--as any number of cases can more or less prove--the quality of ones legal help often means more than one being "right" on any given issue.
Or, more precisely, what is "right" is debatable when it comes to interpetation of the law.
At a fundamental level I don't like legislation from the bench--for MULTIPLE reasons---and one of the reasons is that its based upon "intepretation" so what can be viewed in one manner today could be viewed very differently by another person in a black robe next year.
There is too much use of the courts to settle things IMO anyway.
Suing people has become epidemic, and its bad for the country IMO.
In context, you live by the sword you die by it---and forcing things thu the courts has proven less then effective overall---for the reasons I mentioned above.
As such legal challenges are IMO, less than effective and as long as people are so OCD focused on the courts then they are missing the forest for the trees--IMO.
IMO there are better, more effective avenues to explore, and the overwhleming focus on a legal gamesmanship is getting in the way.
No, that is not even close to what I said or suggested.
Lets not forget here that I am strongly in FAVOR of gay marriage.
As far as I'm concerned the law REQUIRES such---since it apply to ALL citizens.
BUT---you knew there was a "but" coming right
That POV has proven less than effective--or only effective on a small scale.
(I have personally argued many of IJ points--with much more support BTW and been defeated)
Using the courts to force social change puts the ultimate result in the hands of judges whom can thus "interperate" things in any given way.
Its one of the reasons why there is such a bitter fight whenever postions open up on the Supreme Court.
Roe v Wade being only one issue at risk.
A slight shift either direction can have serious repecussuions for decades.
Depending on your POV great strides can be made and or great roadblocks can result.
If you want to join me in a really cynical POV, then in court--as any number of cases can more or less prove--the quality of ones legal help often means more than one being "right" on any given issue.
Or, more precisely, what is "right" is debatable when it comes to interpetation of the law.
At a fundamental level I don't like legislation from the bench--for MULTIPLE reasons---and one of the reasons is that its based upon "intepretation" so what can be viewed in one manner today could be viewed very differently by another person in a black robe next year.
There is too much use of the courts to settle things IMO anyway.
Suing people has become epidemic, and its bad for the country IMO.
In context, you live by the sword you die by it---and forcing things thu the courts has proven less then effective overall---for the reasons I mentioned above.
As such legal challenges are IMO, less than effective and as long as people are so OCD focused on the courts then they are missing the forest for the trees--IMO.
IMO there are better, more effective avenues to explore, and the overwhleming focus on a legal gamesmanship is getting in the way.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I sensed you might be feeling this way.Gene wrote:
But the continued anti-Catholic stance is, well, unwelcoming.
I'm very clear about what I like and what I don't like about the Catholic Church. It would be difficult to call either me or my father anti-Catholic. I'm baptized Catholic, as are my two boys. I was an altar boy for 7 years. My father has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars of original art (unique, life-size bronze statues) to a number of Christian churches in the past 5 years - including to several Catholic Churches in southeast Virginia.
I'm fairly agnostic. I'm a scientist and a libertarian. I'm just as comfortable in a UU church or a synagogue as I am in any Christian church. My personal beliefs are.... my personal beliefs. I don't live by dogma, but I understand Judeo-Christian teachings.
I do have deep memories both of how The Church handled these incidences (badly) as well as how some nuns handled my interest in science as a young boy who would come in with any number of science experiments w/o prompting. Experience and knowledge shape beliefs. What I learned - which works for me - is that "God" isn't about an institution. He lives in your heart and in the way you live your life. The Church is a man-made construct. It's been flawed in the past, it's flawed in the present, and it will be flawed in the future.
That's my opinion.
Ask Ian, Gene. I'm just as likely to call him and others on anti-Christian points of view as I am to express my personal beliefs. So it would be difficult to call me anti-Catholic.
And given your view of same-sex marriage, I would hardly call you a "by the book Catholic." My, my... What would the pontif say?
Maybe the sink calling the bathtub white?
There are probably a few nuns from my past who might like to have at my adult hands with their rulers.
Some in The Church think it's the only way to keep those wild young Irish boys in line.
- Bill
"They clearly have failed to convoience the general public--and anyone that thinks things thu..... And you and folks like you are at least partially to blame--tired arguments, sloppy logic and hysterical insistance of being correct have slowed things down to a snails pace."
I explained very clearly how the LGB civil rights movement is moving at a brisk clip. Social change isn't instant. I suggest you read Kuhn's "The structure of scientific revolutions" to see how change takes decades even when it is a question of fact, rather than opinion.
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
While I have referenced the progress of the LGB civil rights movement as evidence things are moving along, you have posted nothing more than your opinion that my approach is ineffective. Claim whatever you want; the facts, and the evidence quoted here, are against you.
"Well as mentioned, despite your OCD focus, your arguments are poorly reasoned, poorly supported, depend on forcing social change thu the courts insread of the legislatur where it belong, logically inconsistant, at times overly strident and hysterical--such as comapring it to "slavery", self contridictor, hypocritical and bascially unconviencing."
Well, that's your opinion. People who know more than you in the judiciary (the SCOTUS, in Romer and Lawrence; the Mass and Hawaii courts, in their order to equalize marriage) and various state legislatures (those that have created equal CU laws, or DP laws, or liberalized adoption rights) disagree, and frankly, their views are more important.
Do you think they're just not as smart as you, or what? I can guarantee they made these judgements after a bit more research than you.
"AGAIN---denying that your trying to force social change thu the courts while AT THE SAME TIME AGAIN, presenting YOUR spin-on the "relevent clase law" proves your fibbing."
Maybe we could have a lawyer settle this one. Is it improper to cite cases decided by our highest court when discussing matters of civil rights? Or is that branch of government off limits for some reason? Is it wrong to believe that legislatures should familiarize themselves with Constitutional law before creating new laws? And the big one: does supporting my arguments with SCOTUS precedent (instead of plain opinion, ahem) prove that I'm lying when I say I want Congress to pass a fair and equal piece of legsitlation that takes the gov't out of marriage, and religion out of civil unions? Why WOULDN'T I want that?
Gosh, that sure does seem like an easy series of questions to answer. Anyone?
"The problem here IJ is that I DO "do my reading on the subject""
I am humbled. However, I would ask that you apply and cite your sources, because I can't remember hearing of one. Also, you have to get the facts right--remember, your complaint was that I wanted to be in a "protected class," which ignores the finding in Romer--are you saying you didn't read THAT one (or my posts on it), or that you forgot?
"AGAIN, since you now wish to cast "marrige" as something with an ever changeing menaing---then please list for me where in the last 200 year of the USA was State Sanctioned "marriage" open for gays."
First, I've never said anything BUT that marriage was an evolving institution. Quote me saying otherwise and I'll buy you that beer again. Second, marriage became open for gays in 11/2003. Here's your reference:
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/gaymarriage.html
THE CASE Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 NE2d 941 (Nov. 18, 2003). Massachusetts' "gay marriage" decision. "Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."
Second, the fact this has only been Mass law for less than three years doesn't prove that marriage doesn't change, or that it shouldn't be the case everywhere. Every change to marriage was, at one time, a big deal, and a new thing, and now most of us are happy with each. Remember Loving v Virginia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
That case was decided in 1967! Only 40 years ago! 40 year olds are in the prime of their lives and they were born in a year when the SCOTUS had to strike down antimiscegenation laws!! In 1970 (or better, 1966), would your argument have been "show me when state sanctioned marriage has been open for interracial couples?" What point would that make? The racism was wrong.
Here's a request: at this point you've just been name-calling me and my points and saying my ineffective strategy is slowing down progress. You haven't posted a single thing to backup any of these statements. So, I'd like you to produce some kind of credible reference to support your major claims (eg, show that our progress has been slow, and show that the slowness was linked to the arguments used, and better yet, show what better argument we should use), and commit yourself to an answer to a question. This one gets to the central problem you have with my argument... there are some distractions, but your big point is that I'm inconsistent, right? So answer this:
Understanding that the US government promotes the retirement savings of the poor thru Roth IRAs, and home ownership thru mortgage interest deductibility, and the institution of marriage, by providing some tax breaks, should we eliminate ALL situtions in which the government treats us differently, at least in the benefit department, or is it that marriage is different from these other examples? Don't forget the WHY, and bonus points if you produce a credible reference.
Feel free to ask me a question about my views (or rather, the views that are being promoted in courts and legislatures across the nation) and I'll happily answer it.
I explained very clearly how the LGB civil rights movement is moving at a brisk clip. Social change isn't instant. I suggest you read Kuhn's "The structure of scientific revolutions" to see how change takes decades even when it is a question of fact, rather than opinion.
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html
While I have referenced the progress of the LGB civil rights movement as evidence things are moving along, you have posted nothing more than your opinion that my approach is ineffective. Claim whatever you want; the facts, and the evidence quoted here, are against you.
"Well as mentioned, despite your OCD focus, your arguments are poorly reasoned, poorly supported, depend on forcing social change thu the courts insread of the legislatur where it belong, logically inconsistant, at times overly strident and hysterical--such as comapring it to "slavery", self contridictor, hypocritical and bascially unconviencing."
Well, that's your opinion. People who know more than you in the judiciary (the SCOTUS, in Romer and Lawrence; the Mass and Hawaii courts, in their order to equalize marriage) and various state legislatures (those that have created equal CU laws, or DP laws, or liberalized adoption rights) disagree, and frankly, their views are more important.
Do you think they're just not as smart as you, or what? I can guarantee they made these judgements after a bit more research than you.
"AGAIN---denying that your trying to force social change thu the courts while AT THE SAME TIME AGAIN, presenting YOUR spin-on the "relevent clase law" proves your fibbing."
Maybe we could have a lawyer settle this one. Is it improper to cite cases decided by our highest court when discussing matters of civil rights? Or is that branch of government off limits for some reason? Is it wrong to believe that legislatures should familiarize themselves with Constitutional law before creating new laws? And the big one: does supporting my arguments with SCOTUS precedent (instead of plain opinion, ahem) prove that I'm lying when I say I want Congress to pass a fair and equal piece of legsitlation that takes the gov't out of marriage, and religion out of civil unions? Why WOULDN'T I want that?
Gosh, that sure does seem like an easy series of questions to answer. Anyone?
"The problem here IJ is that I DO "do my reading on the subject""
I am humbled. However, I would ask that you apply and cite your sources, because I can't remember hearing of one. Also, you have to get the facts right--remember, your complaint was that I wanted to be in a "protected class," which ignores the finding in Romer--are you saying you didn't read THAT one (or my posts on it), or that you forgot?
"AGAIN, since you now wish to cast "marrige" as something with an ever changeing menaing---then please list for me where in the last 200 year of the USA was State Sanctioned "marriage" open for gays."
First, I've never said anything BUT that marriage was an evolving institution. Quote me saying otherwise and I'll buy you that beer again. Second, marriage became open for gays in 11/2003. Here's your reference:
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/gaymarriage.html
THE CASE Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 NE2d 941 (Nov. 18, 2003). Massachusetts' "gay marriage" decision. "Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."
Second, the fact this has only been Mass law for less than three years doesn't prove that marriage doesn't change, or that it shouldn't be the case everywhere. Every change to marriage was, at one time, a big deal, and a new thing, and now most of us are happy with each. Remember Loving v Virginia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
That case was decided in 1967! Only 40 years ago! 40 year olds are in the prime of their lives and they were born in a year when the SCOTUS had to strike down antimiscegenation laws!! In 1970 (or better, 1966), would your argument have been "show me when state sanctioned marriage has been open for interracial couples?" What point would that make? The racism was wrong.
Here's a request: at this point you've just been name-calling me and my points and saying my ineffective strategy is slowing down progress. You haven't posted a single thing to backup any of these statements. So, I'd like you to produce some kind of credible reference to support your major claims (eg, show that our progress has been slow, and show that the slowness was linked to the arguments used, and better yet, show what better argument we should use), and commit yourself to an answer to a question. This one gets to the central problem you have with my argument... there are some distractions, but your big point is that I'm inconsistent, right? So answer this:
Understanding that the US government promotes the retirement savings of the poor thru Roth IRAs, and home ownership thru mortgage interest deductibility, and the institution of marriage, by providing some tax breaks, should we eliminate ALL situtions in which the government treats us differently, at least in the benefit department, or is it that marriage is different from these other examples? Don't forget the WHY, and bonus points if you produce a credible reference.
Feel free to ask me a question about my views (or rather, the views that are being promoted in courts and legislatures across the nation) and I'll happily answer it.
--Ian
IJ
But the problem with THAT IJ is that I never said it WAS NOT--what I said was that it should be much FURTHER than it is.
Besides were not talking about gay rights across the board--were talking about gay MARRIAGE.
Your re-defineing the scope of the discussion---because you know I've got you by the short hairs here.
So remind me again--IN CONTEXT with the actual dicussion of the rights of gays to have State sanctioned "marriages"--in just how many of the US States can gays legally "marry" in the same fashions as strights???????
Lets do a little math---how many States would count as a "brisk pace?"
How many States "ok" gay marriage? What is the percentage?
70%---60&---50%--20%???????
How many States IJ?
10 States??
5 States??
What is the number there IJ???
And you want to claim that I'm wrong about that approach being ineffective??
You keep danceing around the point IJ.
If you want to claim that YOUR NOT trying to force social change thu the courts then an ad nausum repeation of LEGAL arguement--(arguments which BTW have failed to win the day so far) does nothing but prove that you and reality have little substantive interaction.
And its also that kind of BS that makes it harder to get things done.
People running around saying one thing but DOING quite something else.
People can't trust folks that do that--comes across as manipulative and dishonest.
But AGAIN marrige--AS YOU YOURSELF TOOK THE TIME TO ESTABLISH---marriage has ALWAYS been been accpeted as a GENDER issue--least here in the States.
So thanks AGAIN for doing little more than firmly establishing that at its core,rather than being an ever changeing state-- "marriage" has always been about GENDER here in the US.
Good Lord IJ---PLEASE stopping helping.
What else do I need to post IJ???
Serioulsy----the arguments you have posted have all been made thu various legal channels--BY EXPERTS-- FOR YEARS now.
And how many States offer State Sanctioned "marriage" for gays??????
Refusal to either deal with or even acknowledge the reailty here is all that really needs be said.
Its been tried--for deacdes--repeatadly--with little effect.
You seriously consider that a model of "effectivness???"
Really.
You know I enjoy a good argument----but there is a very real difference between a "good" arguement and somebody that simply refuses to see reason.
And were pretty much there---you can spin all you like---but in this case you simply not on point.
And its a shame your not.
But the problem with THAT IJ is that I never said it WAS NOT--what I said was that it should be much FURTHER than it is.
Besides were not talking about gay rights across the board--were talking about gay MARRIAGE.
Your re-defineing the scope of the discussion---because you know I've got you by the short hairs here.
So remind me again--IN CONTEXT with the actual dicussion of the rights of gays to have State sanctioned "marriages"--in just how many of the US States can gays legally "marry" in the same fashions as strights???????
Lets do a little math---how many States would count as a "brisk pace?"
How many States "ok" gay marriage? What is the percentage?
70%---60&---50%--20%???????
How many States IJ?
10 States??
5 States??
What is the number there IJ???
And you want to claim that I'm wrong about that approach being ineffective??
You keep danceing around the point IJ.
If you want to claim that YOUR NOT trying to force social change thu the courts then an ad nausum repeation of LEGAL arguement--(arguments which BTW have failed to win the day so far) does nothing but prove that you and reality have little substantive interaction.
And its also that kind of BS that makes it harder to get things done.
People running around saying one thing but DOING quite something else.
People can't trust folks that do that--comes across as manipulative and dishonest.
But AGAIN marrige--AS YOU YOURSELF TOOK THE TIME TO ESTABLISH---marriage has ALWAYS been been accpeted as a GENDER issue--least here in the States.
So thanks AGAIN for doing little more than firmly establishing that at its core,rather than being an ever changeing state-- "marriage" has always been about GENDER here in the US.
Good Lord IJ---PLEASE stopping helping.
What else do I need to post IJ???
Serioulsy----the arguments you have posted have all been made thu various legal channels--BY EXPERTS-- FOR YEARS now.
And how many States offer State Sanctioned "marriage" for gays??????
Refusal to either deal with or even acknowledge the reailty here is all that really needs be said.
Its been tried--for deacdes--repeatadly--with little effect.
You seriously consider that a model of "effectivness???"
Really.
You know I enjoy a good argument----but there is a very real difference between a "good" arguement and somebody that simply refuses to see reason.
And were pretty much there---you can spin all you like---but in this case you simply not on point.
And its a shame your not.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
If legislatures would do their job..and what's right...there would not be "legislation from the bench". And what the irrationally ranting sore losers call "legislation from the bench", I call a legal system protecting the rights of all citizens.At a fundamental level I don't like legislation from the bench
Gene
