|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Republican Senator Portman of Ohio supports marriage equality after his son came out. This motherfucker should be shot into the sun. He was a vocal, ardent, fire-and-brimstone anti-homosexual crusader until he finds out his son is gay. He should be raked over the coals for being a spineless shitheel who's incapable of empathy until it effects him personally, in which case nepotism takes over.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:Also gay marriage support has reached a new nationwide high according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, with 58%. Surprise: The only age groups with a majority still saying no are old
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
rypakal posted:I almost don't care how the opinion comes out as much as I want Scalia to write a minority dissent because it will be *glorious*. Scalia really really really hates gay people. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if he wrote a concurrence if he was in the majority, just so he can explain how much he hates gay people. Remember that laws against homosexuality are equatable to laws against murder in the eyes of Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
I think Josh Barro made a very compelling argument as to why the right wing of the Supreme Court might be inclined to rule for gay marriage:Josh Barro posted:The Supreme Court Can Save Republicans From Gay-Marriage Mess Of course the right wing of the court could just be overcome with irrational prejudice from their seething black hearts (Scalia) but I could see Roberts in light of the ACA decision being inclined to take a longer term view that this is inevitable and it might be beneficial to his party to just put an end to this devisiveness that is clearly going to cause long term damage to the Republican party if it continues by the looks of the polling plus would be a huge part and well regarded part of the legacy of his court.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Scalia really really really hates gay people. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if he wrote a concurrence if he was in the majority, just so he can explain how much he hates gay people. Remember that laws against homosexuality are equatable to laws against murder in the eyes of Scalia. This is true but sadly enough if you go back in history there have been past justices that were even more horrifically anti-gay than Scalia. My favorite little tidbit is below, wherein Rehnquist puts forth the argument that granting freedom of assembly to a gay rights group is akin to promoting the spread of contagious disease. quote:Expert psychological testimony below established the fact that the meeting together of individuals who consider themselves homosexual in an officially recognized university organization can have a distinctly different effect from the mere advocacy of repeal of the State's sodomy statute. As the University has recognized, this danger may be particularly acute in the university setting where many students are still coping with the sexual problems which accompany late adolescence and early adulthood. The University's view of respondents' activities and respondents' own view of them are diametrically opposed. From the point of view of the latter, the question is little different from whether university recognition of a college Democratic club in fairness also requires recognition of a college Republican club. From the point of view of the University, however, the question is more akin to whether those suffering from measles have a constitutional right, in violation of quarantine regulations, to associate together and with others who do not presently have measles, in order to urge repeal of a state law providing that measle sufferers be quarantined. The very act of assemblage under these circumstances undercuts a significant interest of the State which a plea for the repeal of the law would nowise do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
rypakal posted:I almost don't care how the opinion comes out as much as I want Scalia to write a minority dissent because it will be *glorious*. Right? Pure frothing hate will spill from his mouth and future scholars will remember him for it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:This is true but sadly enough if you go back in history there have been past justices that were even more horrifically anti-gay than Scalia. My favorite little tidbit is below, wherein Rehnquist puts forth the argument that granting freedom of assembly to a gay rights group is akin to promoting the spread of contagious disease. Holy poo poo that's bad. My initial reaction was that it was in the early to mid 80's when AIDS was thought of as the homosexual plague and even though it's completely horrible it was to be expected based on the prejudices of the time, but that's from 1978 before AIDS was even a blip on the radar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Holy poo poo that's bad. My initial reaction was that it was in the early to mid 80's when AIDS was thought of as the homosexual plague and even though it's completely horrible it was to be expected based on the prejudices of the time, but that's from 1978 before AIDS was even a blip on the radar. Though that was also back when homosexuality was only recently (~5 years prior) removed from the DSM and replaced with "ego-dystonic homosexuality", which was more or less a diagnosis of "closet anxiety". Really, the prejudice bar just keeps shifting to some new "acceptable" target*: if it's no longer a capital offense to be gay, they're mentally ill; if they're not mentally ill, they're propagating a plague; if they're not plague rats, they're pedophiles...who knows what new frontier of demonization will be fought in the future! * Except, of course, for groups like the FRC and AFA, who I have to say again, have had high-ranking members literally state that gays caused the Holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Though that was also back when homosexuality was only recently (~5 years prior) removed from the DSM and replaced with "ego-dystonic homosexuality", which was more or less a diagnosis of "closet anxiety". Really, the prejudice bar just keeps shifting to some new "acceptable" target*: if it's no longer a capital offense to be gay, they're mentally ill; if they're not mentally ill, they're propagating a plague; if they're not plague rats, they're pedophiles...who knows what new frontier of demonization will be fought in the future! Nowadays this sort of rhetoric is aimed towards trans people a lot instead (for example, the Coy Mathis story - for gently caress's sake, she's six, not a rapist). While the move from GID to gender dysphoria was modelled in such a way to resemble the depathologisation of homosexuality, some fuckwads snuck in a diagnosis pathologising any trans person who strayed from the standards of their gender as perverted. Worst still, they either would've been directly affected by the DSM-II back in the early seventies (James Cantor, gay man), or have written at odds on how homosexuality in the DSM was always prejudicial (Ken Zucker, criticised Spitzer's infamous reparative therapy study while advocating the same for trans kids). 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Nowadays this sort of rhetoric is aimed towards trans people a lot instead Yeah, I've seen a lot of that too (more trans friends than I can count, and I'm openly GQ so I get a very minor amount of it by association). Doesn't help that there are still psychs that want to play Gatekeeper, and then there's the whole "autogynephilia" BS. And yes, the level of bigotry surrounding trans kids is enraging. No, an elementary school child who has identified as female since before entering school is not just "pretending to want to be a girl" so that she can get free access to girls-only spaces for sexual purposes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
TheLoser posted:Surprise: The only age groups with a majority still saying no are old I was going to post something to the effect that blacks in this country are surprisingly anti-gay, but it appears that this survey covered almost no black people at all: link (then choose "Race/Religion"). Just a bunch of "white christian denomination X" in the crosstabs. So yeah, old white Republicans. Edit: Crackbone posted:This motherfucker should be shot into the sun. He was a vocal, ardent, fire-and-brimstone anti-homosexual crusader until he finds out his son is gay. He should be raked over the coals for being a spineless shitheel who's incapable of empathy until it effects him personally, in which case nepotism takes over. Would you rather he maintained his views on homosexuality to the grave rather than experience an epiphany and lose the bigotry? Grundulum fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but recently a slight majority of blacks are now in favor of marriage equality, no?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but recently a slight majority of blacks are now in favor of marriage equality, no? Yeah after the last few year there's been a shift in that voting bloc as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:This motherfucker should be shot into the sun. He was a vocal, ardent, fire-and-brimstone anti-homosexual crusader until he finds out his son is gay. He should be raked over the coals for being a spineless shitheel who's incapable of empathy until it effects him personally, in which case nepotism takes over. Well I mean what do you want? That's actually really common and it's actually a great thing he didn't disown his son and instead realized that gays are people too. You can't change the past, he was and always will be anti-gay in his actions up till now, so what's an "Acceptable" reason to change? Family is the most legitimate one I can think of. Right wingers who come over to our side should be applauded because it's the only way they'll learn. If you're going to insist on hating them no matter what they do they will continue to be anti-gay out of spite until they die and that's not what we really want. You don't have to like the guy, or think it absolves him of his past actions, but changing sides because you realize it affects your family is startling common.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 11:50
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Well I mean what do you want? That's actually really common and it's actually a great thing he didn't disown his son and instead realized that gays are people too. Is it better that he's no longer a bigot? Yes. Should he be praised in any way for it? No (not that I think anybody here was doing that). Plenty of people that came to the conclusion that homosexuals deserve to be treated like human beings with empathy and logic, without having their kids come out to them. Politicians listen to votes, not applause. And it's telling that he's made this statement once it was obvious which way the wind is blowing. It's great there's one more voice for equal rights, I'm still allowed to be angry at people who couldn't see the right side of the issue until it was politically convenient and it personally benefited them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 13:32
|
|
|
This is pretty cool http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kent_county/Rob-Bell-supports-same-sex-marriage Rob Bell was a pastor at Mars Hill church and now is an author. Yesterday he became I think the biggest name supporter of same sex marriage in the Christian sphere quote:
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Right? Pure frothing hate will spill from his mouth and future scholars will remember him for it. I need something to top Lawrence v Texas. It will be hard, but if anyone can do it, Scally can. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Is it better that he's no longer a bigot? Yes. Should he be praised in any way for it? No (not that I think anybody here was doing that). Plenty of people that came to the conclusion that homosexuals deserve to be treated like human beings with empathy and logic, without having their kids come out to them. Politicians listen to votes, not applause. And it's telling that he's made this statement once it was obvious which way the wind is blowing. That doesn't mean this doesn't happen pretty much all the time, that a person doesn't realize how hurtful their opinion (or even apathy) toward homosexuality is until it affects their life personally. A son/daughter/close friend/etc. coming out to them isn't a 100% game changer, unfortunately (otherwise we wouldn't have those "I'd kill my son before he was born if I knew he'd turn out gay" tweets and poo poo), but it's still a common occurrence. And that will always partly drive this wind of change, as it were -- people realizing that this poo poo matters and does directly impact them because it involves someone they know and love. (This does not necessarily mean he's not being all politician-y about it, but I can't see why anyone would be angry at someone who changes his opinion on gay marriage just because he finally realized how close to home the issue hits.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
I'm personally queer as gently caress and yet there was a stage in my life when I hadn't yet had the experiences that led me to realize that, so I was a raging homophobe instead.  I'm sympathetic to people like this; I still think they should be punished for any practical evil they did (not that our society will do that either) but I'm willing to give them a gold star sticker when they turn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
If you can't forgive people (and organizations) when they see the light, you give them very little reason to do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I'm personally queer as gently caress and yet there was a stage in my life when I hadn't yet had the experiences that led me to realize that, so I was a raging homophobe instead. Raging? So is there any data backing up that a lot of the "raging" homophobes are actually gay and not realizing it or suppressing it? This just seems so hard for me to understand... I haven't been raging about anything in my life. Some personal insight would be great on this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yeah after the last few year there's been a shift in that voting bloc as well. Didn't the majority of that shift happen after Obama came out in favor of SSM right after the NC vote? Like I could swear that a 5% swing happened in the three months or so following him changing his official stance on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
XtraSmiley posted:Raging? So is there any data backing up that a lot of the "raging" homophobes are actually gay and not realizing it or suppressing it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality#Links_to_homophobia This cites a short paper (the only citation with a link on that page), here: http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf The long and short of it was that homophobia correlated with arousal to gay porn. I've heard of studies showing this before, but this was the one I got on a quick google search.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:There is a remarkably high chance that if he is not in the majority in the Prop 8 case, Scalia's dissent will exist, and it will be angry and bitter and downright spiteful. That said, the DOMA case is an entirely different animal, and near as I can tell all bets are off as to how that goes down. I had thought the court-watcher consensus was that Section 3 of DOMA was certain to fall but that the Prop 8 case could be decided in any number of ways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Didn't the majority of that shift happen after Obama came out in favor of SSM right after the NC vote? Like I could swear that a 5% swing happened in the three months or so following him changing his official stance on it. You're correct, but it was actually something like 20%.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:You're correct, but it was actually something like 20%. And it was Joe Biden that gave Obama the push. Joe Biden is loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Didn't the majority of that shift happen after Obama came out in favor of SSM right after the NC vote? Like I could swear that a 5% swing happened in the three months or so following him changing his official stance on it. Plus very soon after that the president of the NAACP endorsed gay marriage
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
XtraSmiley posted:Raging? So is there any data backing up that a lot of the "raging" homophobes are actually gay and not realizing it or suppressing it? When I was a teenager I was confused by what I was and hated the fact that I was different. I was also terrified of being "found out" so I deflected attention by picking on and singling out the "sissies" to keep people from noticing the fact I never showed an interest in women. I hated what I was. I suspect it's similar for a lot of people and I suspect that I hadn't gotten away from my hometown and its narrow-minded views I would have remained a closeted bully for a lot longer. That doesn't mean that every homophobe is a closeted individual but I can understand (but not condone) their motivations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Wax Dynasty posted:I had thought the court-watcher consensus was that Section 3 of DOMA was certain to fall but that the Prop 8 case could be decided in any number of ways. Oh yeah DOMA sec. 3 is almost certain to go down, I am just saying all bets are off as to what the end decision looks like. Even Scalia would have a hard time with the legal gymnastics needed to keep it around, but I wouldn't put it past him to dissent anyhow. The majority decision on DOMA could look like just about anything. Personally I still think that Clarence Thomas isn't going to risk (effectively) overturning Loving, and while he might be willing or even want to punt Prop 8, he isn't going to be OK with letting states write marriage restrictions into their constitution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Icon Of Sin posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality#Links_to_homophobia While it's true that raging homophobes do show a higher correlation of being secretly gay (overcompensating for shame they feel etc.) I do think it's important to remember it's not 100%. If you do so you're feeding the persecution complex of those that are just kinda lovely people by trying to "convert" them. I also think measuring arousal level is a poor metric because both sexes can get aroused at inopportune times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:While it's true that raging homophobes do show a higher correlation of being secretly gay (overcompensating for shame they feel etc.) I do think it's important to remember it's not 100%. If you do so you're feeding the persecution complex of those that are just kinda lovely people by trying to "convert" them. Also fear itself is arousing, our bodies don't necessarily understand the difference between getting ready to have sex and getting ready to fight or run like hell. I wish the study authors had chosen another phobia group as another control, such as a fear of spiders. If the archnophobes showed the same level of arousal as the homophobes we'd know that it was fear itself causing the results. If there was a difference between the groups we'd know that it wasn't due to fear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
platedlizard posted:Also fear itself is arousing, our bodies don't necessarily understand the difference between getting ready to have sex and getting ready to fight or run like hell. I wish the study authors had chosen another phobia group as another control, such as a fear of spiders. If the archnophobes showed the same level of arousal as the homophobes we'd know that it was fear itself causing the results. If there was a difference between the groups we'd know that it wasn't due to fear. I'm not sure that's necessarily something worth designing an experiment around - I think that, colloquially, the term "homophobe" is less than literal, and people labeled as such don't tend to be actually afraid of homosexuals, but really more just (allegedly) disgusted by them and/or disapproving of homosexuality in general. Disgust and disapproval have notably fewer physiological, and therefore observable, symptoms. I think that what you said about fear responses and sexual arousal has some truth to it, but I'm not so sure that it really applies here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
donges posted:I'm not sure that's necessarily something worth designing an experiment around - I think that, colloquially, the term "homophobe" is less than literal, and people labeled as such don't tend to be actually afraid of homosexuals, but really more just (allegedly) disgusted by them and/or disapproving of homosexuality in general. Disgust and disapproval have notably fewer physiological, and therefore observable, symptoms. I think that what you said about fear responses and sexual arousal has some truth to it, but I'm not so sure that it really applies here. Right. Sociologically speaking it's classed as bias against LGB (T is either there or in transphobia, it varies). It's kinda an inapt term, but there's not really been a better one. It's like how xenophobia is basically shorthand for anti-immigrant sentiment. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
According to the NY Times' Supreme Court reporter, the Supreme Court will release same-day audio in the Prop 8 and DOMA arguments next week. In other news, Santa Fe's mayor, councilor, and city attorney are asserting that gay marriage is already legal in New Mexico and encourage state county clerks to offer marriage licenses to gay couples.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Technically not marriage-related, but still pretty awesome: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/westboro-equality-house-aaron-jackson-rainbow_n_2906337.html?1363701352&utm_hp_ref=gay-voices
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:According to the NY Times' Supreme Court reporter, the Supreme Court will release same-day audio in the Prop 8 and DOMA arguments next week. Well... They're not wrong. New Mexico never defined marriage in the orgy of dickery that was the 2000s. If bills have been introduced in the NM legislature and they have failed, it might be viewed by judges as acquiescence to the idea that marriage is gender neutral. Still a long shot, I grant you, but it's probably gonna be a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
You New Mexico I could see letting it go. I lived there for a while and the whole state had this "if it feels good, do it just leave me alone" vibe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
The domestic partnership bill failed for years and marriage died in committee last month, but this looks like a pretty solid case for a lawsuit even if this Santa Fe resolution fails.quote:"County Clerks are mandated under New Mexico law to issue marriage licenses...Same-sex marriage is not among the categories of prohibited marriages in New Mexico."
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
I wonder how governor Martinez will act in response. She's pretty against same-sex marriage, but, she may also be more concerned with re-election in 2014 and not want to fight a battle she can't win in the court of public opinion(or literal courts)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Personally I still think that Clarence Thomas isn't going to risk (effectively) overturning Loving, and while he might be willing or even want to punt Prop 8, he isn't going to be OK with letting states write marriage restrictions into their constitution. The term "Uncle Tom" exists for a reason, you know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 01:27
|
|
