2016 Election
Quote: GandlerI have never seen a gay bathhouse in my life? I don't think such places actually exist outside movies. But yes, plenty of straight people have irresponsible sex and sex parties, go to any college campus, even in conservative areas...
Educate yourself. A raid on a bath house started the gay rights movement in the early 1970s. Clearly they still exist and clearly they are a part of gay male life, often a large part.
Quote:Most gay people don't think about their sex life as much as you make it sound, most don't feel a need to dissocaite from crazies who take advantage of politcal movements. You probably work with many who you don't even realize because they are busy working hard and living their life, gay people don't just sit around the office and talk about bathhouses or whatever.
No idea if I work with any. I lead a life of much solitude and am the last to pick up on social queues. Had a gay instructor at a bank and you can believe it or not a gay roommate. I was the last to notice. I had proof on the roommate, moral of the story there lets say is clear your browsing history.
Here is the thing. I just showed the bath houses exist. If you watch how gays are shown on TV or in movies, the whole thing is very in your face, done intentionally to sway public opinion. Denying this happens is to deny reality and just shows that a gay will never call out bad behavior of another gay, even when pressed on it. If you do that you will be treated as a group.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe effort to combat AIDS in the early 80's had not only the moral component, but also the fears about it being untreatable (at that time), its costs and the theorized threat to public health. At that time, many who were devoted to combating AIDS actually said heterosexuals faced a greater threat from the disease.
AIDS was and is mostly spread by gay male behavior. The idea in the 1980s was to scare the crap out of heterosexuals with a "you can get it too!" campaign. The great heterosexual AIDS epidemic never happened. Next to impossible for a straight male to catch AIDS unless he shares needles.
Quote: AZDuffmanAIDS was and is mostly spread by gay male behavior. The idea in the 1980s was to scare the crap out of heterosexuals with a "you can get it too!" campaign. The great heterosexual AIDS epidemic never happened. Next to impossible for a straight male to catch AIDS unless he shares needles.
And to think I've been thinking Africa had a massive AIDS epidemic this entire time. You've perhaps saved millions of lives by proving that it doesn't exist. Or you're horribly wrong and straight males catch AIDS all the time, but whatever.
It does happen to be far easier to spread AIDS between men in the US then for men to transmit it or receive it from woman. This is an undenaible fact, but to claim that it is almost impossible for straight men to catch it is just utterly ridiculous.
Also the least likely way to transmit AIDS is lesbian sex so clearly all straight woman should stop having sex because they are at increased risk of getting AIDS. I have no idea what argument you are trying to make.
Quote: AZDuffmanEducate yourself. A raid on a bath house started the gay rights movement in the early 1970s. Clearly they still exist and clearly they are a part of gay male life, often a large part.
No idea if I work with any. I lead a life of much solitude and am the last to pick up on social queues. Had a gay instructor at a bank and you can believe it or not a gay roommate. I was the last to notice. I had proof on the roommate, moral of the story there lets say is clear your browsing history.
Here is the thing. I just showed the bath houses exist. If you watch how gays are shown on TV or in movies, the whole thing is very in your face, done intentionally to sway public opinion. Denying this happens is to deny reality and just shows that a gay will never call out bad behavior of another gay, even when pressed on it. If you do that you will be treated as a group.
OK I will concede some still exist as per that list of 5 in San Francisco, I have never seen one, and I will bet most people I know have never seen one. I bet you can find far more sex clubs for straight people, but I have no care or desire to research that. There are plenty of straight and gay people who are sexually irresponsible, many people in general are sexual irresponsible, I don't think I hold any responsibility for that. Forget bath clubs though, Like I said, go to any college campus almost any night of the week, you will find endless amounts of sexual parties with straights, promiscous frat guy type parties, I have never seen a gay sex party (I'm sure it has and does happen, but the idea that it is common place is absurd). Should all straight guys be responsible for disgusting frat parties?
Sure, some companies no doubt have an agenda, and produce slanted politcal pieces in entertainment, I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Quote: TwirdmanAnd to think I've been thinking Africa had a massive AIDS epidemic this entire time. You've perhaps saved millions of lives by proving that it doesn't exist. Or you're horribly wrong and straight males catch AIDS all the time, but whatever.
What makes you think that Africa does not have a large population of gay males? Some evidence shows blacks are more prone to homosexuality. And much shows blacks are more prone to AIDS in general.
Quote:Also the least likely way to transmit AIDS is lesbian sex so clearly all straight woman should stop having sex because they are at increased risk of getting AIDS. I have no idea what argument you are trying to make.
Not sure why this silly statement, but the argument I am trying to make is that in the 1980s the "threat" of a heterosexual AIDS outbreak was used to push for funding.
Quote: GandlerShould all straight guys be responsible for disgusting frat parties?
All "straight guys?" No, but all frats have some responsibility. Good frats will make it a point that they do not have this kind of party, some frats are non-party no booze groups. Members of such frats usually hate the "bad frats" because of the bad image they all get when a frat has out of control parties.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat makes you think that Africa does not have a large population of gay males? Some evidence shows blacks are more prone to homosexuality. And much shows blacks are more prone to AIDS in general.
Not sure why this silly statement, but the argument I am trying to make is that in the 1980s the "threat" of a heterosexual AIDS outbreak was used to push for funding.
Because actual research in Africa has shown straight sex to be the predominate spreader of AIDS in the region. Unlike you I don't base things on folksy wisdom or gut feelings I go to research that has been done. Female sex workers are spreading it to male clients who then spread it to their wives and other sex workers. There are obviously gay people in Africa and they do contribute to the spread of AIDs undoubtedly and some research has been done on this but most of the spread is due to heterosexual intercourse.
This is due to multiple factors one of the most common being malnutrtion in Africa causing lesions including vaginal lesions which increase the risk of contracting and spreading AIDs http://www.scidev.net/global/policy/news/schistosomiasis-control-a-route-to-cutting-hiv-in-africa.html along with a low condom usage rate especially among sex workers. These are less of a problem in the US so we are unlikely to see the rate of AIDs in the straight population as are seen in Africa, but heterosexual sex is a major cause of the spread of AIDS all over Africa.
Quote: TwirdmanThese are less of a problem in the US so we are unlikely to see the rate of AIDs in the straight population as are seen in Africa, but heterosexual sex is a major cause of the spread of AIDS all over Africa.
Now, that is a thought out answer and not a wiseguy one. However, it does not change that AIDS is mainly a gay disease here. I will always hold to the hetero threat being about funding. AIDS is among the most over funded disease, along with breast cancer, in relation to how many people it affects.
I know he has no chance to win the nominee, but as he appears to be rising in the polls, are you at all worried that he might really create Kaos in this already 'complicated' republican field? I mean if he gets on the stage in the first debate in August, which is now only a month away and from his current poll numbers it looks like he will get on stage, he will really go after Jeb Bush. He basically attacks him every chance he gets as is. Be honest, any concerns?
Quote: kewljSerious question for my Repub friends. Are you guys at all concerned about Donald Trump??
I know he has no chance to win the nominee, but as he appears to be rising in the polls, are you at all worried that he might really create Kaos in this already 'complicated' republican field? I mean if he gets on the stage in the first debate in August, which is now only a month away and from his current poll numbers it looks like he will get on stage, he will really go after Jeb Bush. He basically attacks him every chance he gets as is. Be honest, any concerns?
As a Democrat I cannot wait for these debates. I mean look how big a fool Trump was able to make with prepared speeches and answers to questions he knew he was going to be asked. I cannot wait to see how stupid he sounds when he doesn't know what's coming.
This primary season is going to be even more ridiculous and bloodthirsty then 2012 was and is going to basically assure a Democratic candidates victory in the general.
Quote: Twirdmanbasically assure a Democratic candidates victory in the general.
That is a strong statement. I wouldn't want to 'jinx' anything with that kind of statement as in politics anything can and often does happen.
But, I do think Trumps entry into the race and apparent gain in polling numbers is a nightmare for Jeb Bush. He will get beat up and will have to spend considerable time and funds defending himself from a candidate that is no threat to win. If he doesn't defend himself, it might even be worse. I am wondering if there may be some 'serogate' lower tier candidate, who's job it becomes to sort of defend Bush and go on the attack, so Bush can appear to remain above the fray. Someone like a Rob Portman.
Quote: kewlj
But, I do think Trumps entry into the race and apparent gain in polling numbers is a nightmare for Jeb Bush.
Bush is a nightmare for Bush, as is
Trump. Especially Trump. He has
no intention of being president, and
it's hilarious so many Libs take him
seriously. A year from now there will
be none of these people in the arena,
including old Hill..
Quote: kewljSerious question for my Repub friends. Are you guys at all concerned about Donald Trump??
I know he has no chance to win the nominee, but as he appears to be rising in the polls, are you at all worried that he might really create Kaos in this already 'complicated' republican field? I mean if he gets on the stage in the first debate in August, which is now only a month away and from his current poll numbers it looks like he will get on stage, he will really go after Jeb Bush. He basically attacks him every chance he gets as is. Be honest, any concerns?
Not worried much, Dems have Sharpton and Lee, GOP gets Trump. He may be in the debates but I predict he will not put a ground team together. The GOP this time will hopefully not be stupid and let openly hostile organizations moderate. Then in 2017 POTUS Walker will take the stage and start to fix the mess Obama is leaving behind.
I hope he is your nominee. He inspires no fear in the left. He is a giant Koch whore.
Jeb could win. He is the one who I'd be most worried to go up against. There is some cross-over appeal there (the fact that the far right hates him proves this out).
"Considered a moderate-to-conservative Democrat who supports gun rights and is strong on defense, Webb contends his candidacy would appeal to a wide swath of voters who feel disenfranchised by Washington politics."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/02/democrat-jim-webb-joins-2016-white-house-race/
I have read a book that he wrote (Fields of Fire) and I served during the time he was Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration. I'd like to hear more from him...
Quote: RonCCould this shake up the Dem side a little bit?
"Considered a moderate-to-conservative Democrat who supports gun rights and is strong on defense, Webb contends his candidacy would appeal to a wide swath of voters who feel disenfranchised by Washington politics."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/02/democrat-jim-webb-joins-2016-white-house-race/
I have read a book that he wrote (Fields of Fire) and I served during the time he was Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration. I'd like to hear more from him...
Voters of any party, can decide they see a good candidate. But then the question becomes does the person have the ability to move to the front.
If they can become a frontrunner it's easy to believe they are electable.
Meantime, I don't worry about it.
Quote: RonCCould this shake up the Dem side a little bit?
"Considered a moderate-to-conservative Democrat who supports gun rights and is strong on defense, Webb contends his candidacy would appeal to a wide swath of voters who feel disenfranchised by Washington politics."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/02/democrat-jim-webb-joins-2016-white-house-race/
I have read a book that he wrote (Fields of Fire) and I served during the time he was Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration. I'd like to hear more from him...
It would be interesting to see Hillary flanked on both right and left. Right now she is tacking very far left because that is both who she is and to snuff out a challenge from there. However, Sanders looks to be locking that down. I know little about Jim Webb which means he cannot be near as toxic as Hillary is.
I can just imagine Hillary complaining to Bill:
Quote: RonCCould this shake up the Dem side a little bit?
"Considered a moderate-to-conservative Democrat who supports gun rights and is strong on defense, Webb contends his candidacy would appeal to a wide swath of voters who feel disenfranchised by Washington politics."
I think Jim Webb is a very respected and honorable man, from what I know of him. Although I would have to examine his positions more thoroughly, I could and would likely support him should he become the democratic nominee.
But lets be realistic, he has little real chance. He is running a shoe-string campaign at a time when Hillary has most big donors locked up. She raised 45 million in the period just closed. Like it or not and personally I think her time has passed, she is going to be near impossible to topple on the democratic side because of her financial advantage.
And to be honest, Jim Webb's personality is a little dry. He doesn't seem to have that quality that excites people and in this day and age, unfortunately it is more about how you say something than even what you say.
I always go back to 2000. In the debates and on the campaign trail, over and over George W Bush would say "we are going to build a bridge to the 21st century and leave no one behind". What did that mean? Did he do it? It means nothing. But it sounded good and people loved it.
George W had a great personality. It wasn't about what he said, so much as how he said things. You can say almost the same for Obama. Both connected with people. People like them. I don't see that in Jim Webb. Frankly I don't see it in Jeb either. Jeb is no George W in that regard.
Quote: RonCCould this shake up the Dem side a little bit?
"Considered a moderate-to-conservative Democrat who supports gun rights and is strong on defense, Webb contends his candidacy would appeal to a wide swath of voters who feel disenfranchised by Washington politics."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/02/democrat-jim-webb-joins-2016-white-house-race/
I have read a book that he wrote (Fields of Fire) and I served during the time he was Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration. I'd like to hear more from him...
Jim Webb , no way he will get the nomination.
He's in the same boat as Martin OMalley. To the general public, they are unknowns.
They are running in 2016 to get there name out there so they have a shot 2020 or 2024.
Its kind of like Rommney, pretty much unknown by the general public 2008, known 2012 and gets the nomination.
Quote: terapinedJim Webb , no way he will get the nomination.
He's in the same boat as Martin OMalley. To the general public, they are unknowns.
They are running in 2016 to get there name out there so they have a shot 2020 or 2024.
No WAY! Jim Webb is currently 69 years old. He would be 74 in 2020 and 78 in 2024. Believe it or not he is running for President in 2016. Also not one of those that runs for president but is really running for vice president. He is actually running for president. :/
Quote: terapinedJim Webb , no way he will get the nomination.
He's in the same boat as Martin OMalley. To the general public, they are unknowns.
They are running in 2016 to get there name out there so they have a shot 2020 or 2024.
Its kind of like Rommney, pretty much unknown by the general public 2008, known 2012 and gets the nomination.
Barrack Obama was a relatively unknown candidate a while back. Seems like he is President right now. Not that I am happy about it!
Quote: RonCBarrack Obama was a relatively unknown candidate a while back. Seems like he is President right now. Not that I am happy about it!
People forget how fast some people can go from 0-100mph (metaphorically in recognition)
Happened to Palin. Didn't work out as well. That doesn't happen to every vice presidential candidate, nor most any candidate.
You certainly can't count on it.
Quote: rxwinePeople forget how fast some people can go from 0-100mph (metaphorically in recognition)
Happened to Palin. Didn't work out as well. That doesn't happen to every vice presidential candidate, nor most any candidate.
You certainly can't count on it.
The chances of any candidate overtaking Hillary are slim, but if any of her "negatives" start to resonate with the public and someone is in the race who a few people think "hey, that might just be better"...they could get a push. Also, if the Dems think every single Republican will vote for anyone but Hillary but some may vote for Webb, he may garner a little more support. It only takes some momentum at the right time...
Again, low chances...but more the race today is more interesting than the one yesterday.
Quote: kewljSerious question for my Repub friends. Are you guys at all concerned about Donald Trump??
I know he has no chance to win the nominee, but as he appears to be rising in the polls, are you at all worried that he might really create Kaos in this already 'complicated' republican field? I mean if he gets on the stage in the first debate in August, which is now only a month away and from his current poll numbers it looks like he will get on stage, he will really go after Jeb Bush. He basically attacks him every chance he gets as is. Be honest, any concerns?
No, I won't pay attention to the Presidential process until we actually start nearing on the Primary season. This is merely the loony season and IMO this will all sort itself out after the first 2-3 primaries, if not before then. Not to say we will know the nominee but the viable candidates will have whittled themselves down to 2-3 people by then and Donald Trump won't be one of those 2-3
Quote: RonCThe chances of any candidate overtaking Hillary are slim, but if any of her "negatives" start to resonate with the public and someone is in the race who a few people think "hey, that might just be better"...they could get a push. Also, if the Dems think every single Republican will vote for anyone but Hillary but some may vote for Webb, he may garner a little more support. It only takes some momentum at the right time...
Again, low chances...but more the race today is more interesting than the one yesterday.
I think there is only one candidate that would excite the Left and maybe give Hillary a run for her money
Elizabeth Warren.
Its questionable if she would run.
Quote: terapinedI think there is only one candidate that would excite the Left and maybe give Hillary a run for her money
Elizabeth Warren.
Its questionable if she would run.
I like Elizabeth Warren also. Some how she just doesn't seem that 'presidential' to me. She just seems more like someone grandmother. Yes, I know Hillary is someone's grandmother as well. That's just my perception.
Elizabeth Warren is clearly not running. I think she realizes that Hillary has all the donors and best campaign operatives locked up. The only way Elizabeth runs is if something major happened that really changed things. Like a Hillary health issue or some new big scandal. Not the email thing or Benghazi or even the Clinton foundation issues. Those are just issue that the republicans want to be a big deal, but most Americans don't care about. I know that sounds a little harsh talking about the Benghazi thing where American hero's lost there lives like that. I am not trivializing that. I am just saying the whole 'scandel' thing isn't an issue for the American voters.
Quote: terapinedI think there is only one candidate that would excite the Left and maybe give Hillary a run for her money
Elizabeth Warren.
Its questionable if she would run.
I'm thinking that Democrats who are not all the way to the left may like a more moderate candidate. Democrats are always telling Republicans they should be more moderate; time to say the same thing to them. No Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren--too far left.
Benghazi isn't as forgotten as some would like to think and it isn't as big an issues as others would like to think...but all it would take is a little bit of smelly stuff to come out of it and that would change in one direction; if nothing comes out, it changes the other way. No one knows where Clinton's emails are but this stuff has a way of coming out at just the wrong moment.
I get it...Hillary is the favorite. She was in 2008, too. She is far from invincible even with all that money.
Quote: Gandler
An implied association for sexual orientation is very narrow minded, gays and bisexuals are just as politcally and philosophically diverse as straight people.
I am guessing, and perhaps someone will know the answer.... but wouldn't you say gays are NOT politically diverse.... that the vast majority are Democrats? I would surmise that non-gays split 50 -50 between Republican and democrat.
Quote: SOOPOOI am guessing, and perhaps someone will know the answer.... but wouldn't you say gays are NOT politically diverse.... that the vast majority are Democrats? I would surmise that non-gays split 50 -50 between Republican and democrat.
If they were we would not be hearing what a valuable group they are for Democrats.
So the in the first quarter of 2007, the year before the election, or the same point we are in now. Hillary and Barack Obama both raised 20 million dollars which was a record for that period at that time. So at this point 8 years ago, he was going full throttle. He had organization and was raising a ton of money. He did trail in the polls to Hillary the summer before the primary season. Most polls has Hillary in the low 40's and Obama 25 or 26% with Edwards in third place in the teens.
So it's not like at this point 8 years ago, he was not on the radar. He was plain as day on the radar, and gaining strength. Obama was a fast rising star. A rock star among politician. There just is no one like that on the radar right now. In addition Barack Obama had a number of things going for him. He was black which energized the black folks. He was young and good looking which energized the young folks. He was very charismatic and a great speaker which energized everyone when he talked. Again....nobody even remotely on the radar.
Quote: kewljJohn Edwards had declared in December 2006.
I forget he exists until someone mentions his name. There's someone who potentially could've fooled enough people enough of the time to be a contender.
Quote: rxwineI forget he exists until someone mentions his name. There's someone who potentially could've fooled enough people enough of the time to be a contender.
And even THAT worked to Obama's advantage. When Edwards began to fizzle, which was long before the primaries and caucuses, as he had several campaign shakeups, so when Edwards began to fizzle, Obama was a more natural landing spot for those supporters as well.
So Bernie is drawing some crowds among the far, far left in some far left locations like the state of Washington, but there really is no one capable of bringing Hillary down, without almost a plurality of miraculous events occurring. It is her nomination to lose which she won't and her presidential election to lose, which......who knows.
Quote: RonCThe chances of any candidate overtaking Hillary are slim, but if any of her "negatives" start to resonate with the public and someone is in the race who a few people think "hey, that might just be better"...they could get a push. Also, if the Dems think every single Republican will vote for anyone but Hillary but some may vote for Webb, he may garner a little more support. It only takes some momentum at the right time...
Again, low chances...but more the race today is more interesting than the one yesterday.
I am not sure that either party would push for someone that appealed to some members of the other party. Personally, I think it would be a smart move. But over and over again we seem to get people far on the left vs people far on the right.
Quote: Dalex64I am not sure that either party would push for someone that appealed to some members of the other party. Personally, I think it would be a smart move. But over and over again we seem to get people far on the left vs people far on the right.
That really should open up the middle, with voters from each party, for a third party candidate. Problem is it would just take far too much money and organization to really pull that off.
Quote: SOOPOOI am guessing, and perhaps someone will know the answer.... but wouldn't you say gays are NOT politically diverse.... that the vast majority are Democrats? I would surmise that non-gays split 50 -50 between Republican and democrat.
"Of course, most conservatives are now on the wrong side of history when it comes to marriage equality. And, for this reason alone, large numbers of gay Americans (between 75 and 80 percent) are reliable Democratic voters."
"But, as equal marriage becomes far more widespread and public opinion changes (80 percent of those under 30 support same-sex marriage now) the issue will diminish in significance. And once that happens, it'll be easy to predict that about half of gay Americans will vote for conservative candidates."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eli-lehrer/the-coming-gay-republican_b_3512857.html
This piece was written a couple of years ago. Now that gay marriage is "settled law", there is no reason for gays to stay on one side for that single issue. In reality, there were Democrats against gay marriage, too, but no one bothered to point that out. Perhaps they will become more and more politically diverse moving forward.
Quote: RonC"Of course, most conservatives are now on the wrong side of history when it comes to marriage equality. And, for this reason alone, large numbers of gay Americans (between 75 and 80 percent) are reliable Democratic voters."
"But, as equal marriage becomes far more widespread and public opinion changes (80 percent of those under 30 support same-sex marriage now) the issue will diminish in significance. And once that happens, it'll be easy to predict that about half of gay Americans will vote for conservative candidates."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eli-lehrer/the-coming-gay-republican_b_3512857.html
This piece was written a couple of years ago. Now that gay marriage is "settled law", there is no reason for gays to stay on one side for that single issue. In reality, their were Democrats against gay marriage, too, but no one bothered to point that out. Perhaps they will become more and more politically diverse moving forward.
Each and every day I grow more and more concerned that you are making sense to me more and more often. lol.
I have to question the term "settled". Seems like many on the right aren't giving up the fight, including some running for president.
Quote: kewljEach and every day I grow more and more concerned that you are making sense to me more and more often. lol.
I am enjoying this, you know...
Quote: kewljI have to question the term "settled". Seems like many on the right aren't giving up the fight, including some running for president.
I understand some will try to keep it an issue but the only real way to change it is via a Constitutional Amendment or to have Diana and the Supremes find a way to backtrack on the decision. Both things do happen but they are rare (I actually see now that a good many earlier decisions were overturned by later ones; I don't think this is a candidate for that possibility).
I still think it would be completely settled eventually if we had let it work its way through the States and not had it decided like this, but this way may be a blessing for the Republicans because they really can simply decide to say they will try to overturn it or that it is settled...they don't even have to say whether they are opposed to it if they just say it is "settled" and leave it at that.
Quote: RonC"In reality, there were Democrats against gay marriage, too, but no one bothered to point that out.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to name two. Yet gays still voted for them.
Quote: kewlj
I have to question the term "settled". Seems like many on the right aren't giving up the fight, including some running for president.
I laugh at this being a problem. Obama and other libs want to change the Citizens United decision, which is settled law, and there is no problem with that, despite that overturning it takes away free speech rights. I guess some law is more settled than other law.
Quote: AZDuffmanI laugh at this being a problem. Obama and other libs want to change the Citizens United decision, which is settled law, and there is no problem with that, despite that overturning it takes away free speech rights. I guess some law is more settled than other law.
Both sides want to overturn various decisions, and it has been done in the past.
Libs want to overturn "Citizens United"
Cons want to overturn "Roe"
Both feel that the court overstepped in those cases just as many feel they have in the two recent big cases. The court does overstep more often than it should; depending on what side you are on, it is either great or horrible. I don't know how you actually "fix" it. Changing the terms by adding approval votes could mean organized efforts to get rid of certain justices. That would mean that one President may get to appointment a majority of the court in a short period if others leave by death or resignation.
We don't want that. We'll just have to keep what we have and hope that they get it right--the "right decision", not the "right" side--more often than not.
James Peron: Polygamy Is Not the Next 'Gay Marriage'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/polygamy-is-not-the-next-gay-marriage_b_7767018.html
Quote: ams288Great article about why the anti-gay people's polygamy argument is nonsense.
James Peron: Polygamy Is Not the Next 'Gay Marriage'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/polygamy-is-not-the-next-gay-marriage_b_7767018.html
Quote:We have a massive number of laws -- federal and state -- that take marital status into account for various reasons. ALL those laws are written on the assumption of two members to a marriage.
This is what the author said. What they miss is that all the laws were written based on marriage being one man and one woman. We threw that out the window now. Legally there is no limit now, because it is not about law but "people loving each other" and such. Personally I feel the sooner these polygamy laws fall the better.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is what the author said. What they miss is that all the laws were written based on marriage being one man and one woman. We threw that out the window now. Legally there is no limit now, because it is not about law but "people loving each other" and such. Personally I feel the sooner these polygamy laws fall the better.
No it is very important it be two people and laws are written assuming two people. For instance our file jointly tax code is designed for 2 people because of the income levels put in. Estate laws are written assuming a single spousal beneficiary. End of life laws assume there will be a single person making the decision for their spouse. The list goes on. These can all be fixed and personally I'd have no problem allowing polygamy, but you are foolish if you think that laws aren't written with 2 spouses in mind and it would take a major overhaul of the laws to make polygamous marriage possible.
Quote: TwirdmanNo it is very important it be two people and laws are written assuming two people. For instance our file jointly tax code is designed for 2 people because of the income levels put in. Estate laws are written assuming a single spousal beneficiary. End of life laws assume there will be a single person making the decision for their spouse. The list goes on. These can all be fixed and personally I'd have no problem allowing polygamy, but you are foolish if you think that laws aren't written with 2 spouses in mind and it would take a major overhaul of the laws to make polygamous marriage possible.
The laws were written with a male/female marriage in mind. It was not "2 people." It will may take years to see the effect of the change we have just made, but they were made for male/female situations.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe laws were written with a male/female marriage in mind. .
That's not true,
Many states did not recognize my parents marriage.
In 1958, the year I was born, Judge Bazile in Virginia ruled in 1958, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
This just proves the fight against gay marriage has nothing to do with a male/female having children. If my parents appeared before this Christian judge, well, not good. Having children does not matter.
If we moved to Virginia, my parents could have been arrested and do a year in jail and they were arresting people for this in Virginia back then.
Names and addresses are part of the public record of legal cases except, in many instances, rapes, and in most instances juveniles. But even that is trending to release the names of accusers, a fundamental right of defendants. Notwithstanding the lunacy of prestigious institutions of higher learning like Duke, Amherst, Columbia and the University of Virginia.Quote: TwirdmanOh the Oregon cake company that was supposedly fined 135k for refusing to serve a gay wedding cake, total hogwash. They were fined because they released personally identifying information on the people who complained after they refused to serve gay people.
Quote: terapinedThat's not true,
Many states did not recognize my parents marriage.
In 1958, the year I was born, Judge Bazile in Virginia ruled in 1958, "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
This just proves the fight against gay marriage has nothing to do with a male/female having children.
If we moved to Virginia, my parents could have been arrested and do a year in jail and they were arresting people for this in Virginia back then.
This has nothing to do with things. Different races can still biologically reproduce and even if they cannot or chose not to male/female is still physically, biologically, and spiritually/mentally a different relationship than a same-sex one.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat they miss is that all the laws were written based on marriage being one man and one woman. We threw that out the window now. Legally there is no limit now, because it is not about law but "people loving each other" and such. Personally I feel the sooner these polygamy laws fall the better.
It is not about "people loving each other" as you say. It is about what the Supreme Court ruled. The liberal justices do what they want, regardless of what the law says and they won't allow it. Do you really think Scalia and Thomas will be the ones who force the government to accept polygamy?
