Message 199 of 350 (638895) 10-26-2011 7:19 PM

Reply to: Message 198 by PaulK 10-26-2011 5:59 PM

But upon reading the article, it appears to me that the family has done their homework, and I'm not sure what else they could have done to make sure that they are not meddling in something that the couple should be advised to leave alone. I've concluded that this is none of my business.

Message 201 of 350 (638914) 10-26-2011 9:38 PM

Reply to: Message 200 by hooah212002 10-26-2011 7:42 PM

I would have exactly the same concern with a single mother raising a son if I were told that the child had gender identity issues and that the parent wanted to treat the child with pharmaceuticals because of them.

My concern with the lesbian couple is not the couple's sexual orientation, but that the couples orientation may have led to a situation where there probably aren't any male role models in the house.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Message 203 of 350 (638942) 10-27-2011 5:38 AM

Reply to: Message 202 by Rrhain 10-27-2011 4:44 AM

Okay, I can buy that. I was already convinced that I was wrong about the parents being at fault.

Still, I've personally encountered a few instances of young boys in homes without dads insisting that they were are wanted to be girls. Perhaps that my impression was just anecdotal.

Really? Where is this revealed?

Message 278 of 350 (653100) 02-18-2012 12:38 AM

Reply to: Message 277 by Taz 02-17-2012 10:35 PM

Isn't this the way things have always worked? The law changes, and we can address situations like Tyra Hunter's using the law. But societal attitudes don't change until the dinosaurs having those attitudes finally die off. We still have politicians in power who believe that the civil rights act of 1964 should never have been enacted.

Who are you talking about?

Message 281 of 350 (653110) 02-18-2012 7:45 AM

Reply to: Message 271 by Taz 02-16-2012 9:06 PM

Apparently the word politically correct is so malleable as to no longer have any meaning at all.

In most circles, people who say gays begone are considered to be scum. We know fully well that those people who say that kind of crap, have gay family members just like everyone else does, and are thus condemning their own kin. I completely deny that such a thing is politically correct among the people I know.

Using your definition of politically correct, it is apparently still politically correct to racially profile Hispanics as long as illegal immigration is being fought, to circulate pictures of Obama on fake food stamps that include pictures of watermelon and fried chicken, to protest Muslim churches even if they are built a thousand miles away from "ground zero", simply because some prominent @#%$&*! still do those things.

Buzsaw says stuff like that all the time.

Message 283 of 350 (653146) 02-18-2012 3:48 PM

Reply to: Message 282 by Taz 02-18-2012 1:04 PM

Do you think this is some kind of rebuttal? Those candidates are scum, and I don't think all that much of the audience either. Audiences have similarly applauded the idea that poor sick people should just die off rather than having access to health care.

What I really don't understand is how any of that is the fault of liberal commies who oppose those Republican candidates on nearly every issue. That idea just does not make sense to me at all. With the exception of the usual suspects, I cannot think of anyone on this board who has expressed anything but condemnation for DADT.

Edited by NoNukes, : Add more snark.

Message 306 of 350 (653885) 02-25-2012 9:00 AM

Reply to: Message 305 by Dr Adequate 02-24-2012 5:15 PM

I don't think Maryland meets Taz requirement, which as I understand it means confirmation of gay marriage allowing laws by popular vote. There have been several states where the legislature has enacted laws like the one in Maryland. I'm not aware of any cases where such laws have passed a public referendum.

Message 308 of 350 (654043) 02-26-2012 12:46 PM

Reply to: Message 307 by Theodoric 02-25-2012 10:20 AM

On the other hand, if gay marriage legislation is often followed by referendums to overturn the new laws, then Taz's point isn't really moot is it?

ABE:
As for state constitutions, here in NC, voters have amended the state constitution so that gay marriage legislation can never be enacted, and are considering extending the prohibition to civil unions.

ABE: off

I agree that parts of Taz's arguments are ridiculous. But in any event, I think a rebuttal should be on target, and I don't think Dr. A's response was on target.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Message 320 of 350 (654594) 03-02-2012 9:39 AM

Reply to: Message 319 by onifre 03-02-2012 8:21 AM

As a matter of fact, most latins do not vote with Republicans regardless of how many values they share with them. In national elections, Republicans feel that getting 35% of voting Hispanics to vote for their party is doing extremely well.

Message 328 of 350 (661745) 05-09-2012 6:12 PM

Reply to: Message 325 by hooah212002 05-08-2012 11:51 PM

I don't feel any particular need to defend them, but Southern states have no monopoly on being backwards. According to wikipedia, 31 states ban same sex marriage by amendment to their constitution.

Here is the complete list of states whose constitutions do not either allow gay marriage or civil unions. I note in passing that Wisconsin is every bit as backwards as North Carolina in this regard.

Nebraska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas, Texas, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina.

States with constitutions that ban gay marriage, civil unions, and any arrangement vaguely resembling marriage.

Michigan, Virginia.

States with constitutions that ban same sex marriages, but possibly leave openings for other unions.

Alaska, Nevada, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Colorado, Tennessee, Arizona, California.

And of course even in states with no such amendment, there may be state legislation that bans gay marriage just as effectively as do the constitutional amendments.

Message 329 of 350 (661747) 05-09-2012 6:17 PM

Reply to: Message 327 by Rahvin 05-09-2012 5:44 PM

Do you think Obama sees a political advantage in being on the record as supporting gay marriage?

Message 332 of 350 (661773) 05-09-2012 9:04 PM

Reply to: Message 331 by hooah212002 05-09-2012 8:05 PM

Wrong. NC did not have an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment until this week. NC did have statutory provisions against gay marriage and civil unions. There is really nothing unique about NC's enactment. NC is well behind the path taken in Wisconsin in this matter. The NC constitutional amendment is pretty much the same as WI's backward nonsense.

Further, you did not merely say that NC was backwards, a statement that I wouldn't disagree with, but you characterized NC backwardness as being some kind of Southern thing. Well as you yourself are demonstrating, ignorance is not strictly a southern thing.

A few of the most backwards southern states have done so, yes, but we might also note that Michigan introduced such legislation in 2001 and similar legislation was introduced in New Hampshire this year. We might also note that Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District involved a Pennsylvania school district.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../01/02/gIQAbmOudP_blog.html.

ABE:

Do any states do this? I'm aware that such legislation was introduced in Wisconsin, but I don't believe it was enacted.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Message 334 of 350 (661776) 05-09-2012 11:01 PM

Reply to: Message 333 by hooah212002 05-09-2012 9:43 PM

It's not personal. Your statement is simply wrong. There is nothing distinctly southern about homophobic backwardness. I live in the South, but I'm a transplant. I was born in Mass, and my parents are from Pennsylvania.

I did not deny that. Your statement was that NC enacted a anti-marriage amendment when they already had one. That would have been unique, but it did not happen. Perhaps you did not say exactly what you meant.

Red states means that the state is reliably Republican. Period.

And I'm pointing out that such is not the case. Wisconsin's amendment did not come from the south. It was enacted by a 60 percent vote of Wisconsin residents, which is about the same as the percentage of North Carolina residents who voted for a very similar amendment.

I never said anything like that. The United States contains a huge number of regressive, backwards, homophobic, xenophobic, racists. There seems to be a relative sparseness of them in the New England states and on the West Coast. But if you swing a dead cat anywhere else, you are liable to hit one of them.

Message 336 of 350 (661796) 05-10-2012 9:12 AM

Reply to: Message 335 by hooah212002 05-10-2012 8:11 AM

Here is what you said:

So yes, you did suggest that the southern states were uniquely backwards ("a decade behind the remainder of the world"). And you offered that suggestion as an explanation for NC's brand new anti-gay marriage amendment. Your suggestion is nonsense, and I called you on it.

Your response:

quote:

---

North Carolina voted Tuesday to outlaw same-sex marriage, which was already prohibited in the state.

---

You cannot correct your own statements by quoting someone else. What you said was that NC enacted an anti-gay marriage amendment when they already had one. Here is your exact, and incorrect wording with my emphasis added:

If you meant to add some antecedent other than constitutional amendment, you did not do so. At least not before I called you on it. I'll also note that I acknowledged that NC statutes already banned gay when I called you on your own statement.

Yes. The state is not in the south, and it happens to be where you live. WI and a number of other mid western states aren't all that different from NC in a number of ways. I believe that using WI points out the errors in your statement that NC is a decade behind non-southern states and makes the point that bigotry is far more widespread than you choose to acknowledge. As I also pointed out, 30 other states have constitutional amendments at least as oppressive as NC recently passed amendment, with a handful being even more repressive.

Exactly so:

In fact, the quote also suggests that NC law, prior to passing the amendment, wasn't quite as oppressive as the law in WI.

ABE:

Quite frankly, I thinkTaz is right to be worried. While younger people seem to typically, have a more enlighted attitude about same-sex marriage, it appears that we are going to have to wait until the old foggies die off to see substantial changes in gay marriage laws. It is the case that in every state where the issue has been put to a popular vote, referendums to ban gay marriage have passed, and there are organizations that continue to back adding amendments to state constitutions all over the country.

Just how many southern states do you think there are anyway?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Message 340 of 350 (661914) 05-10-2012 9:33 PM

Reply to: Message 338 by hooah212002 05-10-2012 2:08 PM

Incredible. You've actually quote mined yourself.

Let's add some context by citing the rest of that sentence from Message 331:

You do talk about some other things in the same paragraph, like abstinence only education (which you later had to back off of), and shoehorning religion into education. But let's not pretend that the point of the sentence you quote mined was not directed at NC anti-gay marriage stance.

Wisconsin and 30 other states, most of which are not southern states.