Discussion in 'Community' started by zombie, Jan 24, 2006.
some people do this already
Any statistics on that anyone knows of? I've not heard of anyone doing that, although I know quite a few people who point to their own marriages as examples that marriage is not about religion.
On a larger point, at least from how boycotts work, I don't see how it would push for change. It doesn't increase awareness, everyone's heard about same-sex marriage. And it doesn't create a demand for change because it's not as though government requires marriages to be happening in the same way that businesses can be successfully boycotted because they need the business.
There's something I don't understand about gay marriage and religion. Supposedly God (be it the Jewish, Christian or Muslim version thereof) is this all powerful being but instead of alleviating suffering he'd rather, according to his followers, get mad about men bumming other men and calling each other "husband".
If you read any of the scriptures, it's apparent God is hugely insecure, massively egomanical, jealous, and very petty. But this is a new low and makes no sense. It's like, if Superman was real but he only used his powers to prevent able bodied people parking in handicapped spaces.
at least there remains no viable, intelligent argument against gay marriage. That's some consolation. Yet another chink in the armour of religion and faith's as strong as ever.
Study reveals DADT repeal has done no damage to military.
Well knock me over with a feather!
Interesting that the only resignations linked to the policy change were from military chaplains. Typical.
The new normal... http://news.yahoo.com/majority-lati...ay-marriage-010146448--abc-news-politics.html
59% of Hispanics support Gay Marriage
52% of African-Americans support Gay Marriage
Maryland, Washington, Maine have legalized Gay Marriage.
Minnesota has defeated a constitutional amendment to ban Gay Marriage.
Tammy Baldwin has been elected as the first openly-gay U.S. Senator.
lowbacca i cant find stats but i know one such couple and there have been several high profile celebrity examples, most vocally sarah silverman and jimmy kimmel, but they wound up breaking up anyways
all this to say "owned, bigots... owned"
I feel its worth noting that in Minnesota, same-sex marriage is banned. That didn't change. it's just that as it's only a statute, the bar to clear to get around that is far less. But that one seems to be getting ridiculously overhyped, comparatively. I'm very pleased to see Maryland and Washington approve the same-sex marriage laws that were passed, and I'm even more pleased to see that Maine has reversed their last decision and passed a law to allow same-sex marriage. I find myself jealous that California hasn't had that same motivation to put it on the ballot.
I can't find myself caring less about the election of a gay Senator, though. It just strikes me as utterly insignificant. In the same way that I don't think we're now doomed to theocracy because the one open atheist in Congress, Pete Stark, was defeated. There's this weird obsession with checking off boxes for what people have been elected once, rather than how fair our policies are.
As a Minnesotan, I can assure that the issue was most definitely about acceptance of gay marriage. No one was voting "no" because it was already illegal - the vote yes people made sure of that with their campaign. And while Minnesota is a consistently blue state, they are blue because of labor. We are not in one of the socially liberal areas like the others. The significance is that not only did popular support for gay marriage win on the coasts, but also in the "socially conservative" midwest. It signifies a shift in public opinion across much of the country.
It also marked a signifcant shift in strategy. It was the first time we weren't focused on beating people over the head with talk about discrimination and civil rights - which lost every time before yesterday - instead we focused on personal stories and building understanding.
It seems more like it just didn't lose harder, to me. I'm glad it didn't pass, but it didn't do anything to open doors yet. When the statute goes, that'll be a great point of victory. And I'm very glad to hear that tactic taken, that's what I've been hoping for for some time. With people voting emotionally, it needs to be given that sort of personal connection.
I'd still disagree with that - with the popular vote secured the legislative branches can now comfortably take action to legalize same sex marriage - especially now that the dems control it all. By "comfortably" I mean that they can do so without the looming fear of losing their seats with another gay amendment on future ballots. The ballot measure was put on there to bring out the republican base in this election and it totally flopped.
I was on the bus this past Saturday with a guy who wouldn't shut up. He finally got around to talking about school and how the schools are 'teaching our kids to be gay. Teaching them that 2 moms at the soccer game is okay.' I bit my tongue rather than challenge him on his ignorance. No one can 'teach' a child to be gay. It isn't a learned behavior.
The guy is a Jehovah's Witness.
This is just a wild guess, but maybe it seems insignificant for you because as a straight white male you've had no shortage in your life of seeing people just like you accomplish all sorts of things? And therefore don't see their accomplishments against or in spite of odds as a reinforcement that some avenue that has never been open to anyone like you before has now been opened?
"Good. I'd rather cheer on my kids while standing next to the two moms than while standing next to the person who preaches bigotry on public transportation."
Question then, would you put the election of a gay senator in the same category as the election of the first Buddhist in the Senate (Mazie Hirono of Hawaii) or the first Hindu in Congress (Kawika Crowley)? Both of whom were elected this year. Or Keith Ellison as the first Muslim in 2006? Or are those meaningless distinctions?
Yes, and I've seen headlines about all of those and read articles about Gabbard*'s plan to be sworn in on the Bhagavad Gita. (And I remember articles about Ellison being sworn in on the Koran in 2006 as well).
*Edited Gabbard's name in. I had to google because the name Crowley didn't sound right. The person you're thinking of is Tulsi Gabbard. Kawika Crowley was the losing candidate in that race, I guess?
Yeah, Ellison's election was a pretty big deal. There were several stories about it. What were you, under a rock?
i met keith ellison btw. i never get tired of namedropping that guy. he owns
Yeah, I pulled the wrong name from that when I looked up the candidate's name. So, there's minus points to me on reading thoroughly. I did mean Tulsi Gabbard, just used the wrong name there when I looked it up.
So, the reason I ask then, is, if we're going to treat those as meaningful qualifiers, then I don't see the basis of telling me that I have no shortage of 'people like me' when it comes to elections, given how rare atheist elected officials are. I wasn't aware there were any til a few years ago, and he was elected after being targeted, in part, for being an atheist. I'm used to the idea that atheists will not get elected (and I now live in a state where the unenforceable law on the books says they can't hold office, anyway), but I still contend that the proper measure isn't how many atheists are being elected to Congress, but how Congressional actions treat atheists. Which is why A. I didn't get angry at Pete Stark losing (although I have issues with him being attacked for being an atheist, just as I do have issues with the attacks on Ellison for being Muslim, for example) because my concern isn't if Congress shares my religious stance, but if they govern properly, as that's the far more problematic thing. I don't understand atheists that simply get upset that there aren't more atheists in Congress, either, because that misses where the priorities should be, imo.
when you walk around people dont judge you for being an atheist. they dont legislate against you for being an atheist. moreover american atheists are disproportionately affluent and white. so you'll have to excuse me for finding it laughable that you think you're (cherry-picked) identifier of atheist is comparable to any of the others named
Absolutely!! And I posted in the Senate about Hirono and Gabbards' elections too. And Keith Ellison's election was probably the biggest deal, it was everywere in the media. And a lot of people conflated Ellison getting sworn in on the Quran with Obama, back in the era of 2007 forwarded emails. I've seen many articles on Tulsi Gabbad, and she's been appearing on quite a few television networks too.
Also, these elections are all big deals because it shows a growing acceptance of diversity in society. In a "perfect" society/government, the make-up of Congress would be nearly identical to the make-up of the country.Of course that will never happen, and it shouldn't be forced, but it's nice when Congress becomes more representative of the country, it's good when more people feel like they're being represented and heard.
Okay it took an extra post, but what do I win.
Edit: Ending this discussion on my part before it veers further off topic
EDIT: Well there goes that.