NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Lucrece » Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:13 am UTC

thc wrote:Just because he isn't actively saying everything you want him to say, doesn't mean he isn't fighting for civil rights. Like the opinion piece says, he may simply be guarding what he says in order to get re-elected, where he can do even more good. I think saying that he is only a fair weather ally is disingenuous. This doesn't quite fit the definition of "fair weather ally." Are there not some times where you need to lie and deceive someone in order to help them?


It's not what I want him to say. It's what he actually says.

I doubt you'll find anyone beaming when their president goes to fundraise off them in New York, and basically tells them to their face that he believes they should drink water, but that it's alright for states to decide whether one drinks from Evian bottles and the other has to drink off the toilet. You know, the same shit constantly said by oppressors on basically any civil rights movement, and he's parroting it.

So, tell me, what good is he doing for LGBT civil rights? Last time I checked, he does not get laws passed or repealed. In fact, DADT repeal and the Hate Crimes Act may have passed under his term, but he was roundly criticized for not even lifting a finger or spending political capital on them. It was the hardworking LGBT advocacy groups, the few LGBT house representatives, and the straight allies in the house and senates who actually put some blood and sweat to get that bill passed. Obama was just there for the photo shoot to take credit for his re-election cycle, as predicted.

What's more, if he isn't taking risks for personal gain (reelection), how can you actually hope to rely on him on any socially controversial legislation? He'll just play coy and let the actual democrats do the grunt work in the house and senate.

That sort of *wink* *wink* assumed support when he's already on record with "God's in the mix" and the disastrous consequences his flip flop had on the Prop 8 campaign in California (and just look at the magical retort he gave to every anti-gay Republican-- "Messiah Obama is not on board with same-sex marriage, so why should I?") is exactly what's been fucking minorities over until each time the courts came in and slapped some sense into said politicians.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:21 am UTC

Steroid wrote:In other words, if the inevitable consequence of Lawrence was homosexual marriage, and if that was known at the time, A) would the ruling have been the same, and B) would the response in terms of constitutional amendment have been the same?

Hard to say, given that there's little reason to actually believe the slippery slope theory.

Steroid wrote:
Why the fuck would we want to do that? You're clearly not an idiot, based on your defense of your economic ideology, so why do you stop thinking through the things you write when you start talking about LGBT rights?

Because no one seems to give a damn about the rights of the powerful, the majority …

I take it this incredible hyperbolic "no one" does not include the majority itself, then?

Steroid wrote:… and the advocates of the status quo.

I care about advocates of the status quo. However, I don't much care for the status quo itself, as it is an unjust one. I don't see the need to advocate the status quo just to see that the status quo is advocated. Are you proposing affirmative action for bad ideas?

Steroid wrote:And because I see equal idiocy and equal non-thinking on the side that seems to decide every issue against those groups and for the powerless, the minority, and the advocates of change.

The more typical and laudable response to perceived idiocy is to refute it, rather than to imitate it.

Steroid wrote:Let me put it this way: If the social, political, and economic positions of LBGT groups and socially conservative mostly-religious groups were reversed, would you be arguing as hard for the latter? If the first amendment didn't include freedom to worship, but did include freedom to love the partner of your choice, and NY state passed a law legalizing religious ceremonies that might alter the status quo away from the prior morality, would you be cheering as loudly and talking about what wonderful progress it was?

The extent to which I invest time and emotions in a given issue is a personal matter. However, I am quite certain that I would not advocate a permanent liberty ceiling in such a situation, as you have just done.

Steroid wrote:
Steroid wrote:2. While it's understood that there are other reasons for seeking the legal expansion of marriage rights, part of it is to redefine marriage and make people more comfortable and tolerant, but it will likely backfire into people losing respect for all state-sanctioned marriage instead of gaining it for homosexual marriage.

To which I say: I'm not as confident as the blogger, I think it might well influence people to change their beliefs. I just think that's wrong, so wrong, much more wrong than denying someone marriage rights.

Because you're such a fan of state authority, now?

Not at all. I think it's very powerful, which is why I'm NOT a fan of it and don't want to see it used here.

Ah, I misunderstood. But what's your basis for thinking that? On the one hand, there's the right to equality before the law. On the other hand… what, am I supposed to be immune from influences on my opinion now? Is there a "neutral" stance on the definition of marriage that the government is supposed to let stand? Would you also think it would be wrong for the government to abolish progressive taxation, thus influencing people's opinions on property and equality of outcome?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
folkhero
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:34 am UTC

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby folkhero » Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:16 am UTC

Steroid wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote: Let me put it this way: If the social, political, and economic positions of LBGT groups and socially conservative mostly-religious groups were reversed, would you be arguing as hard for the latter? If the first amendment didn't include freedom to worship, but did include freedom to love the partner of your choice, and NY state passed a law legalizing religious ceremonies that might alter the status quo away from the prior morality, would you be cheering as loudly and talking about what wonderful progress it was?

Yes, I have no intention of being a part of a gay marriage (except as a spectator) and I have no intention of going to a religious ceremony (except as a spectator) but I do value freedom. I value freedom over the status quo, and I think governmental restrictions are a greater danger than change.
Steroid wrote:In other words, if the inevitable consequence of Lawrence was homosexual marriage, and if that was known at the time, A) would the ruling have been the same, and B) would the response in terms of constitutional amendment have been the same?

Is there actually any evidence that the Lawrence ruling inevitably lead to gay marriage? In the New York case it seems that it almost certainly didn't, since gay marriage was legalized by representatives of the people, not by a court ruling based on precedent. Even if, for the sake of argument, I accept that gay marriage is the inevitable result of the ruling: A) The Supreme Court is supposed to rule based on the facts and the law, not speculation of what the rulings might lead to B) If the religious conservatives were too stupid to think that gay people would keep trying to get equal rights, then boo fucking hoo for them. Now that people do know how things are progressing with the whole gay marriage thing, they are still free to try to get an amendment passed. If they can't get the support, am I really supposed to believe that the gays were master trickster that kept the religious conservatives from believing that they would push for equal rights as they were biding their time for the public to come around enough to make it impossible to get bigotry written into the constitution? And if I am supposed to believe that they are that good of tricksters, then good on 'em.
To all law enforcement entities, this is not an admission of guilt...

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby podbaydoor » Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:26 am UTC

Steroid, right now religious institutions are under no obligation whatsoever to marry interracial couples, couples of other faiths, or anyone they darn well don't want to marry - and this happens routinely. You'll find interfaith couples all over the place who had to search for places that would consent to marry them, or go to the justice of the peace. Why do you think gay marriage is any different? The hysterical insistence on "protecting" the rights of organizations to practice bigotry merely glosses over the fact that they are, in fact, free to privately practice bigotry however they please.

If you don't want your tax money "subsidizing" marriages for gays, then why aren't you all up in arms about subsidizing any union at all besides your own? Equality for some is equality for none.

The argument for speaking up for the poor oppressed majority and powerful sounds familiar:

"We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."

+

"I am proud to have been a member of that small group of determined senators that since the 9th of March has given ... the last iota of physical strength in the effort to hold back the overwhelming combination of forces supporting this bill until its manifold evils could be laid bare before the people of the country.

The depth of our conviction is evidenced by the intensity of our opposition. There is little room for honorable men to compromise where the inalienable rights of future generations are at stake. . . .

Mr. President, the people of the South are citizens of this Republic. They are entitled to some consideration. It seems to me that fair men should recognize that the people of the South, too, have some rights which should be respected. Our ranks were too thin, our resources too scanty, but we did our best. I say to my comrades in arms in this long fight that there will never come a time when it will be necessary for any one of us to apologize for his conduct or his courage."

--- Richard Russell (D-GA), before and after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (bolded emphasis mine)
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Steroid » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:47 pm UTC

folkhero wrote:Is there actually any evidence that the Lawrence ruling inevitably lead to gay marriage? In the New York case it seems that it almost certainly didn't, since gay marriage was legalized by representatives of the people, not by a court ruling based on precedent. Even if, for the sake of argument, I accept that gay marriage is the inevitable result of the ruling: A) The Supreme Court is supposed to rule based on the facts and the law, not speculation of what the rulings might lead to B) If the religious conservatives were too stupid to think that gay people would keep trying to get equal rights, then boo fucking hoo for them. Now that people do know how things are progressing with the whole gay marriage thing, they are still free to try to get an amendment passed. If they can't get the support, am I really supposed to believe that the gays were master trickster that kept the religious conservatives from believing that they would push for equal rights as they were biding their time for the public to come around enough to make it impossible to get bigotry written into the constitution? And if I am supposed to believe that they are that good of tricksters, then good on 'em.

Again, it's not a question of did the ruling lead to gay marriage, it's why were there assurances at the time that it wouldn't when it had the possibility of doing so. But maybe we're confused on semantics. When someone says, "This court ruling will not lead to this social change," it's quite possible to interpret that as "This social change will not come about, because of this court ruling," as opposed to, "This court ruling has no effect on whether or not the social change will come."

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Steroid wrote:Because no one seems to give a damn about the rights of the powerful, the majority …

I take it this incredible hyperbolic "no one" does not include the majority itself, then?

The other side includes the opposition groups. The groups themselves are of course on their own side. But what this, and what my "If the positions were reversed. . . " question, and your and Hawknc's answers show, is that no one here, and for the most part no one in the debate at large, is actually on the side of either group because of the specific nature of the issue involved. Homosexuals are a minority; homophobes are a minority; in the middle there's a great mass of people. Here in this thread, I haven't seen anyone say that they're happy because they're gay and gays won, or that they're upset because they're religiously homophobic and they lost. Certainly I know I'm neither gay nor religious. And the difference among us disinterested parties is not which dog we have in the fight, but the rules of the game. One side says, "Smaller dog should win, and keep winning, until and unless it becomes the bigger dog, at which point we switch our support to the other." I on the other hand say, "Bigger dog should win, and keep winning, until the smaller dog goes away and refuses to fight anymore."

If the advocates of change were saying that they wanted homosexuals to be oppressing the religious-minded, I could understand, and if they achieved that, support not having it undone. If they said that they wanted homosexuality to be as normal in San Francisco as it is abnormal in Mississippi, I could understand that, and probably support it as the best compromise possible. But instead they take a different tack of compromise, wherein everywhere there has to be both homosexuality and heterosexuality, but nowhere is there heteronormativity or homonormativity. No norms, no mores, no underlying assumptions for a society that the people can count on and work with. That's what this is really about as far as I can see--not gay versus homophobic, but perpetual change versus norms.

I care about advocates of the status quo. However, I don't much care for the status quo itself, as it is an unjust one. I don't see the need to advocate the status quo just to see that the status quo is advocated. Are you proposing affirmative action for bad ideas?

We don't need affirmative action. They've already had their innings and gone as far as they can. I'm just saying we need to not proactively destroy them on the sole grounds that they're bad. Those of you who know me know my reasoning, but I'll repeat it in brief: any idea, even a bad one, is an idea from some human being, and human ideas and preferences are all I consider sacred.

Steroid wrote:And because I see equal idiocy and equal non-thinking on the side that seems to decide every issue against those groups and for the powerless, the minority, and the advocates of change.

The more typical and laudable response to perceived idiocy is to refute it, rather than to imitate it.

What do you think I'm doing?

Steroid wrote:To which I say: I'm not as confident as the blogger, I think it might well influence people to change their beliefs. I just think that's wrong, so wrong, much more wrong than denying someone marriage rights.

Ah, I misunderstood. But what's your basis for thinking that? On the one hand, there's the right to equality before the law. On the other hand… what, am I supposed to be immune from influences on my opinion now? Is there a "neutral" stance on the definition of marriage that the government is supposed to let stand? Would you also think it would be wrong for the government to abolish progressive taxation, thus influencing people's opinions on property and equality of outcome?

To the last, no, because the beneficiaries of progressive taxation are the government, and government aren't people. But that's off-topic. When a government finds the need to change a law to make it equal, fair, and just, perhaps instead of the sensitivity training we have now we should have insensitivity training classes to teach people how to maintain their opinions and not be influenced by the law. That's slightly silly, but what we do need as a movement is more disrespect for the laws that we disagree with.

podbaydoor wrote:Steroid, right now religious institutions are under no obligation whatsoever to marry interracial couples, couples of other faiths, or anyone they darn well don't want to marry - and this happens routinely. You'll find interfaith couples all over the place who had to search for places that would consent to marry them, or go to the justice of the peace. Why do you think gay marriage is any different? The hysterical insistence on "protecting" the rights of organizations to practice bigotry merely glosses over the fact that they are, in fact, free to privately practice bigotry however they please.

Sure. And once upon a time those institutions held sway over much of the societies they lived in, while today they're routinely lambasted in the press, argued against by the intelligentsia, and defied by those over whom they would have once influenced. That change, that loss, means nothing to you, and yet you claim to be the empathetic and non-bigoted ones.

Actually, I may have a solution here: gay robots. Just let loose a bunch of homosexual androids with the legal provisions that anyone who wants can separate one from its partner, brainwash it into becoming a heterosexual, or simply deactivate it. And if anyone starts advocating for their "rights" not to have those things done, we'll all be in agreement that those people are wrong. And we'll pass stronger laws every year to stop the gay robots from marrying. Then the gay humans can have their marriages and the homophobic humans can have their oppressions and everyone wins.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Hawknc » Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:08 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:If the advocates of change were saying that they wanted homosexuals to be oppressing the religious-minded, I could understand, and if they achieved that, support not having it undone. If they said that they wanted homosexuality to be as normal in San Francisco as it is abnormal in Mississippi, I could understand that, and probably support it as the best compromise possible. But instead they take a different tack of compromise, wherein everywhere there has to be both homosexuality and heterosexuality, but nowhere is there heteronormativity or homonormativity. No norms, no mores, no underlying assumptions for a society that the people can count on and work with. That's what this is really about as far as I can see--not gay versus homophobic, but perpetual change versus norms.

You seem to be at extreme odds with the rest of society, and that's about all I can say without either recommending a psychiatrist or banning you for trolling. As for the last sentence there - change is inevitable, and those species that can't adapt tend to die off in the face of it. Excuse us if we don't feel empathy for those who seek to oppress us if they're included in that.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Diadem » Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:04 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
I care about advocates of the status quo. However, I don't much care for the status quo itself, as it is an unjust one. I don't see the need to advocate the status quo just to see that the status quo is advocated. Are you proposing affirmative action for bad ideas?

We don't need affirmative action. They've already had their innings and gone as far as they can. I'm just saying we need to not proactively destroy them on the sole grounds that they're bad. Those of you who know me know my reasoning, but I'll repeat it in brief: any idea, even a bad one, is an idea from some human being, and human ideas and preferences are all I consider sacred.

Wait, what?

You're saying we shouldn't fight bad ideas because they are people too?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:40 pm UTC

Human life ought to be the most important thing to you, since any individual idea is almost worthless compared to the sheer number of ideas just one person can come up with. There are a few steps in between here and the end, but I have a migraine, so I'll skip to it: communism.
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
Dason
Posts: 1311
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:06 am UTC
Location: ~/

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Dason » Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:40 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:One side says, "Smaller dog should win, and keep winning, until and unless it becomes the bigger dog, at which point we switch our support to the other." I on the other hand say, "Bigger dog should win, and keep winning, until the smaller dog goes away and refuses to fight anymore."

Perfect! In this case the bigger dog is saying Steroid really has bad ideas and should probably think things through for a while...

This isn't necessarily a personal attack but it does seem that you're at odds with everybody and according to your own philosophy you should "go away and refuse to fight anymore".
Last edited by Dason on Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
double epsilon = -.0000001;

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Tirian » Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:42 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:any idea, even a bad one, is an idea from some human being, and human ideas and preferences are all I consider sacred.


If someone has the idea that six plus five is twelve, we could worship that idea and keep it in a golden cage safe from meanie elitists who reject anything that isn't in their worldview. Or we could challenge that idea and thereby allow it to develop into the even more beautiful idea that six plus five is eleven. Do you think that it's cruel to the original idea that it was forced to develop into something that is beneficial to the person who holds the ideas?

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby podbaydoor » Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:58 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:No norms, no mores, no underlying assumptions for a society that the people can count on and work with. That's what this is really about as far as I can see--not gay versus homophobic, but perpetual change versus norms.

That's because norms and underlying assumptions suck. A lot. I see that you have yet to argue for the prevailing norm that was institutionalized slavery. But for some reason some people didn't have the stomach for codifying human beings in law as animals.

As for mores? Equality is a more. :P

Sure. And once upon a time those institutions held sway over much of the societies they lived in, while today they're routinely lambasted in the press, argued against by the intelligentsia, and defied by those over whom they would have once influenced. That change, that loss, means nothing to you, and yet you claim to be the empathetic and non-bigoted ones.

If I'd had the misfortune of being born sixty years ago, those powerful institutions would have prevented me from going to college, getting a white collar job, or having an interracial romance, and also they would have blacklisted me as a Red spy. If I'd had the misfortune of being born a hundred years ago, I would have been banned from America altogether. For some reason I'm not terribly mournful of powerful and bigoted institutions losing their sway.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby netcrusher88 » Sun Jun 26, 2011 6:22 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:I on the other hand say, "Whites should win, and keep winning, until the minorities go away and lose the will to fight anymore."

Steroid wrote:I on the other hand say, "Men should win, and keep winning, until the women go away and lose the will to fight anymore."

Steroid wrote:I on the other hand say, "Homophobes should win, and keep winning, until the queers go away and lose the will to fight anymore."

for the right to vote (15th and 19th amendments), for equal pay (CRA, Ledbetter), for equal treatment under the law (14th Amendment), for the right to equal access to the economy (CRA, ADA, ADEA, Rehabilitation Act, hopefully ENDA someday), for the right to marriage (Loving v. Virginia, Perry v. Governator), for the right to serve their country (DADT repeal, c. 1800s blacks joining the military), hell, for legal recognition as persons (13th Amendment) and for the right to have sex behind closed doors (Lawrence v. Texas)

And the inescapable comparison to what that phrase reminded me of first, remember Godwin's Law does not on its own invalidate a point:
Steroid wrote:I on the other hand say, "Aryan race should win, and keep winning, until the Jews die out and can't fight anymore."

'course, the Nazis also imprisoned and murdered other racial minorities and queers by the millions, and certainly didn't treat women as equals.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Isaac Hill » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:13 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Because no one seems to give a damn about the rights of the powerful, the majority, and the advocates of the status quo.
Steroid also wrote:That's slightly silly, but what we do need as a movement is more disrespect for the laws that we disagree with.
But disrespecting existing law means disrespecting the status quo and the majority and/or powerful who put that law in place. When gay marriage equality becomes the status quo, will you then defend that, or will you side with those who want to change that?

Steroid wrote:I on the other hand say, "Bigger dog should win, and keep winning, until the smaller dog goes away and refuses to fight anymore."
Steroid also wrote:Those of you who know me know my reasoning, but I'll repeat it in brief: any idea, even a bad one, is an idea from some human being, and human ideas and preferences are all I consider sacred.
But the dogs in the metaphor represent either individual people or groups of people. If the smaller dog gives up fighting, the ideas held by those people will be ignored and likely forgotten. If your only consideration is human ideas, then you should be an egalitarian multiculturalist to ensure that as many ideas as possible continue to exist.

Steroid wrote:Actually, I may have a solution here: gay robots. Just let loose a bunch of homosexual androids with the legal provisions that anyone who wants can separate one from its partner, brainwash it into becoming a heterosexual, or simply deactivate it. And if anyone starts advocating for their "rights" not to have those things done, we'll all be in agreement that those people are wrong. And we'll pass stronger laws every year to stop the gay robots from marrying. Then the gay humans can have their marriages and the homophobic humans can have their oppressions and everyone wins.
I fully support this idea. Robots are often used to replace humans in undesirable positions, and being an oppressed minority certainly qualifies. Plus, this can be implemented with existing technology. There are wind-up action figures of the Humping Robot from Robot Chicken. Series co-creator Seth Green demonstrated this figure on one of Conan O'Brien's talk shows by having it hump a Conan doll. In the RC Grease parody, the Humping Robot identifies as male, making that a gay relationship.

So, gay humans should be given full and immediate marriage rights. Anyone upset by this can purchase a Humping Robot figure and force it into a monogomous relationship with Arcee.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Malice » Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:57 am UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:
Steroid wrote:Because no one seems to give a damn about the rights of the powerful, the majority, and the advocates of the status quo.
Steroid also wrote:That's slightly silly, but what we do need as a movement is more disrespect for the laws that we disagree with.
But disrespecting existing law means disrespecting the status quo and the majority and/or powerful who put that law in place. When gay marriage equality becomes the status quo, will you then defend that, or will you side with those who want to change that?


I assume Steriod will, at that point, defend to the ends of the earth the notion that marriage is between two people of any gender against the new encroachment of polygamists upon the "status quo". His views (though vastly different) put him in exactly the same position as conservatives, defending the present against the future no matter how many times the latter becomes the former. Steriod is literally for the status quo, no matter what that status quo happens to be, and as such is only verbalizing the subtext behind all social conservative rhetoric.
Image

achan1058
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 9:50 pm UTC

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby achan1058 » Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:02 am UTC

Malice wrote:I assume Steriod will, at that point, defend to the ends of the earth the notion that marriage is between two people of any gender against the new encroachment of polygamists upon the "status quo". His views (though vastly different) put him in exactly the same position as conservatives, defending the present against the future no matter how many times the latter becomes the former. Steriod is literally for the status quo, no matter what that status quo happens to be, and as such is only verbalizing the subtext behind all social conservative rhetoric.
This point of view is called "Non-acceptance of the unfamiliar", coined by Nicolas Slonimsky, and is actually the real source of most people's resistance to change, despite what they say otherwise. At least he admits it out right instead of dressing it up with words such as morality.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby IcedT » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:07 am UTC

You know what? I like Steroid's stance so much, I'm gonna advocate that our schools need to be teaching our children the alternative viewpoints that the earth is flat, that trepanation is an effective and safe treatment for headaches, and that the earth is the center of the universe. I mean, the only reason those ideas have gone away is because stupid "facts" and "understanding" have replaced speculation, superstition and ignorance, and seriously, who the fuck do those facts think they are? Somebody needs to have the courage to stand up and defend useless, outdated beliefs and practices, because DAMMIT, progress is scary!

User avatar
Decker
Posts: 2071
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:22 pm UTC
Location: Western N.Y.

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Decker » Mon Jun 27, 2011 1:21 pm UTC

IcedT wrote:and that the earth is the center of the universe.


Technically, this could still be true, within a certain margin of error.
I was angry with my friend. I told my wrath. My wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe. I told it not. My wrath did grow.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby IcedT » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:17 pm UTC

Decker wrote:
IcedT wrote:and that the earth is the center of the universe.


Technically, this could still be true, within a certain margin of error.

You're right, meant to say solar system. Going back to that whole "Copernicus is a heretic and maybe we should light him on fire" thing.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Azrael » Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:21 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Can we once have some oppressed group be given protection with the codicil that it's all the protection you get, and if we even hear one of you whine about it not being enough, we're going to take that away and make it worse than it was before?

Quite simply, no.

Because if we did do that, then things like Separate but Equal would still stand, as that was originally considered a "protection". And it (and it's brethren*) would stand not for any good reasons, but simply for tradition -- because once upon a time someone thought those were good enough, or because that was the first step taken.

*Similarly; Women would not have suffrage, because 'not being considered property' was "all the protection" previously given.

If your best defense of a practice is tradition (or being the status quo, or having something constant that people can rely on) then where (and for what logical reason) to you draw the line? Where should progress have been stopped, because "now" isn't a legitimate answer for it can be countered just as equally with "then" or "50 years from now". Should we return to slavery?

Furthermore, why only this adherence to continuity in social matters? How about science? Should we stop investigating because what's really true might be different than what people learned -- and the status quo itself has some inherent value or truth?

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Steroid » Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:16 am UTC

First, just because I advocate for the status quo simply because it is the status quo, doesn't mean that I advocate for the status quo ante. I don't, for example, agree with any of Netcrusher's caricatures of my position because those aren't the status quo.

What I am saying is that progress is smoother and more desirable when it grandfathers in the traditional, and even keeps it around perpetually as a subculture if feasible, as opposed to radically trying to alter the consciousness and values of the believers in whatever the tradition is through law or through social opprobrium.

Azrael mentioned science as opposed to sociology. In science, for the most part, we don't throw out the old because we discover the new. When Einstein showed that Newton's equations don't hold at the subatomic level or the astronomic level, we didn't stop using them at the levels in between. There are probably reputable people who still think that the brontosaurus was a big lizard, and we don't pass laws aimed at stopping them, or ostracize them from polite society, or say that they're bad people; we just operate on the conclusion that it's an apatosaurus and is avian instead of reptilian and proceed from there.

Isaac Hill wrote:But disrespecting existing law means disrespecting the status quo and the majority and/or powerful who put that law in place. When gay marriage equality becomes the status quo, will you then defend that, or will you side with those who want to change that?

I'll defend it of course, both from people who want to go back and from people who want to proceed along Rick Santorum's slippery slope to polygamous and incestuous marriages (Both of which I think should be perfectly legal as contracts, and socially distinct from traditional marriage.)

In each case, the law should be configured to adhere to simple justice without influencing the sociology, and the sociology should be configured to allow the status quo-ers to keep the old way for themselves, and those who want a new norm to have it among themselves.

But the dogs in the metaphor represent either individual people or groups of people. If the smaller dog gives up fighting, the ideas held by those people will be ignored and likely forgotten. If your only consideration is human ideas, then you should be an egalitarian multiculturalist to ensure that as many ideas as possible continue to exist.

Another case of not stating what to me are assumptions. My bad. Just because one doesn't fight for an idea doesn't mean that one can't advance that idea. If I have a new religion, a new sexuality, or a new economics, I don't have to advance it by proselytizing other religions, tearing down old sexualities, or appropriating the old economics. There are aspects of culture where we properly live and let live. New music doesn't crowd out the old; people just cut more albums, and if some folks want to say that only orchestral compositions are really music, or that true music ended with the Jazz Age, no one stops them. Modern cuisine doesn't prevent people from eating what they did throughout their lives; people just make more restaurants, with no one getting snarky at those who are dedicated steak-and-potatoes people. That's true multiculturalism, and if it's good enough for the scare-quote-unquote unimportant aspects of life like fashion and food, why shouldn't it be applied to the important?

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:50 am UTC

Wooo!

Steroid wrote:Here in this thread, I haven't seen anyone say that they're happy because they're gay and gays won, or that they're upset because they're religiously homophobic and they lost.
Um. I'm happy because I'm gay and there is now another state where I could get married.

Steroid wrote:That's true multiculturalism, and if it's good enough for the scare-quote-unquote unimportant aspects of life like fashion and food, why shouldn't it be applied to the important?
Because, especially with policies, options conflict. We can't have marriage only include one man + one woman and only include two consenting adults at the same time. That sort of multiculturalism only works with things like fashion and food because they're unimportant.

And when you can only choose one option, it's simply villainous to argue that we shouldn't dislodge bad options to replace them with better options.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Aetius » Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:55 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:Um. I'm happy because I'm gay and there is now another state where I could get married.


Yeah but you'd have to marry a New Yorker. So have you really gained anything?

...Yankees suck
Last edited by Aetius on Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:00 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby podbaydoor » Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 am UTC

Steroid, when it comes to injustices, human rights, and making distinctions between public treatment of citizens based on invisible fairies or bigotry, "live and let live" doesn't work. Somehow I doubt, say, lynching people for attempting an interracial relationship, would really feasibly work as a subculture.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Steroid » Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:15 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Steroid wrote:Here in this thread, I haven't seen anyone say that they're happy because they're gay and gays won, or that they're upset because they're religiously homophobic and they lost.
Um. I'm happy because I'm gay and there is now another state where I could get married.

Yes, but you haven't posted in the thread before.

Also something I think unmentioned here is that NY is the first state to allow homosexual marriage without a residency requirement, so it can be done Vegas-style. Though I don't approve of the practice, if 'twere done, 'twere well it were done quickly.

Aetius wrote:Yeah but you'd have to marry a New Yorker. So have you really gained anything?

...Yankees suck

Sir, you offend me and I demand satisfaction! Dirty-water hot dogs at 10 paces!

podbaydoor wrote:Steroid, when it comes to injustices, human rights, and making distinctions between public treatment of citizens based on invisible fairies or bigotry, "live and let live" doesn't work. Somehow I doubt, say, lynching people for attempting an interracial relationship, would really feasibly work as a subculture.

No, lynching doesn't. But calling traditional Ozzie-and-Harriet, husband-wife-and-two-point-three-children marriage the ideal, and everything else an alternative lifestyle, does, and that's what I think is trying to be killed here.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby Vaniver » Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:21 am UTC

Steroid wrote:No, lynching doesn't. But calling traditional Ozzie-and-Harriet, husband-wife-and-two-point-three-children marriage the ideal, and everything else an alternative lifestyle, does, and that's what I think is trying to be killed here.
What? The law in question doesn't make it a crime to say same-sex marriages are immoral. Is that what you think you're arguing against?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby podbaydoor » Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:29 am UTC

Ninja'd. The previous situation was that the 1m+1w people were forcibly banning any other interpretation. Now they are still perfectly free to believe in 1m+1w but they can no longer bully other people into the same legal mold.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:49 am UTC

Steroid wrote:
Vaniver wrote:
Steroid wrote:Here in this thread, I haven't seen anyone say that they're happy because they're gay and gays won, or that they're upset because they're religiously homophobic and they lost.
Um. I'm happy because I'm gay and there is now another state where I could get married.

Yes, but you haven't posted in the thread before.

Also something I think unmentioned here is that NY is the first state to allow homosexual marriage without a residency requirement, so it can be done Vegas-style. Though I don't approve of the practice, if 'twere done, 'twere well it were done quickly.

Aetius wrote:Yeah but you'd have to marry a New Yorker. So have you really gained anything?

...Yankees suck

Sir, you offend me and I demand satisfaction! Dirty-water hot dogs at 10 paces!

1. Queer. Happy about the law. Didn't think I needed to specify that to defend my positions but there you go.

2. How the hell does a lack of residency requirement somehow correlate to Vegas-style? What's Vegas-Style anyway, mandatory Elvis Impersonator as a witness? I thought it just meant you could marry in NY even if you weren't living there. If I were to get married in NY and come home to Massachusetts, it would stand. Makes sense to me, especially since three of the states bordering NY as well as Canada have gay marriage.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: NY Governor expects approval of Gay Marriage Bill

Postby mmmcannibalism » Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:33 am UTC

Meaux_Pas wrote:
Steroid wrote:
Vaniver wrote:
Steroid wrote:Here in this thread, I haven't seen anyone say that they're happy because they're gay and gays won, or that they're upset because they're religiously homophobic and they lost.
Um. I'm happy because I'm gay and there is now another state where I could get married.

Yes, but you haven't posted in the thread before.

Also something I think unmentioned here is that NY is the first state to allow homosexual marriage without a residency requirement, so it can be done Vegas-style. Though I don't approve of the practice, if 'twere done, 'twere well it were done quickly.

Aetius wrote:Yeah but you'd have to marry a New Yorker. So have you really gained anything?

...Yankees suck

Sir, you offend me and I demand satisfaction! Dirty-water hot dogs at 10 paces!

1. Queer. Happy about the law. Didn't think I needed to specify that to defend my positions but there you go.

2. How the hell does a lack of residency requirement somehow correlate to Vegas-style? What's Vegas-Style anyway, mandatory Elvis Impersonator as a witness? I thought it just meant you could marry in NY even if you weren't living there. If I were to get married in NY and come home to Massachusetts, it would stand. Makes sense to me, especially since three of the states bordering NY as well as Canada have gay marriage.


I think the point is that a lack of residency would allow what is essentially skirting of one's own state law; and would tend towards trips to New York to get married. Which is something I imagine there will be much more support for because of the sort of law we are talking about.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dauric, Raidri and 19 guests