|
Ahahaha, that article is all the bullshit. I love how he hand waves away the comparison of denying gay marriage to denying interracial marriage with the benefit of his placement in the world today, after decades of progressives having the idea of differences in races beaten out of society's consciousness with a hammer. "Well the reason this is silly is that there's very little difference between a black man and a white man" Uhh yeah, lets go see what people were saying about that in the 30's and 40's you tremendous rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
Is this article bullshit? Is this article from Town Hall Dot Com? Those two questions are equivalent.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
The exact same thing is done with gay rights. Conservatives try to make it sound like discrimination against gays doesn't exist (the local right-wing radio hack literally said that yesterday) and that arresting gays for existing hasn't been a thing since the 1950s. Please ignore that they spent 40 years trying to keep sodomy laws on the books and that prior to Lawrence v Texas criminalizing gays was a mainstream Republican position supported by the likes of GWB and Rick Perry along with the entire religious right.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 17:20 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
I would also point out to those people that Lawrence v. Texas was only argued in 2003.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea I really love when the point of these articles is "LOOK AT THESE TERRIBLE THINGS" and the things they list are all good things. I'm reminded of this billboard from the last election: 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
quote:--In 2010 eHarmony, for years the country's largest online dating service, was sued for only matching men and women. Its lack of same-sex matchmaking meant that it violated anti-discrimination laws in some states. As a result, eHarmony was forced to begin a same-sex online service. This is because the guy who runs eHarmony is a bigoted fuckface.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:So, eHarmony chose to start up a whole new site, rather than just adding a dropdown to their regular site to specify what gender(s) you're interested in. Also, their made-up science is strictly nohomo.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:So, eHarmony chose to start up a whole new site, rather than just adding a dropdown to their regular site to specify what gender(s) you're interested in. Separate but equal. Also I'm imagining their software being so lovely that it would match two heterosexual people of the same sex together because they shared a bunch of common interests. This other person is also a heterosexual marathon runner who loves pizza - you two have so much in common!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Also I'm imagining their software being so lovely that it would match two heterosexual people of the same sex together because they shared a bunch of common interests. This other person is also a heterosexual marathon runner who loves pizza - you two have so much in common! No, it's mostly for technical reasons. eHarmony uses bipartite graph matching as a major part of their algorithm. In order to do that, you need to be able to split the pool of people (the vertices of the graph) into two distinct chunks that don't overlap. Hetero relationships under a gender binary assumption fits the bill. That's not to say eHarmony's way is the only way. There are plenty of other ways to run a matching algorithm that don't use the bipartite method, like OKCupid. It's also entirely possible use a bipartite matching method for pairing up gay people, but it's less guaranteed, because you need to consider if people within each pool might be a better match. rypakal posted:Also, their made-up science is strictly nohomo. Again, not entirely. They've only really tested/planned it towards hetero people (which is its own can of worms as to why; that's where the bigotry came in), so there's no guarantee made that their matching algorithm will work for any case other than the one they planned for. I'm sure the fact that it's run by a bigot doesn't help the pool of potential users grow, which would actually improve the matching. SporkOfTruth fucked around with this message at 03:36 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
SporkOfTruth posted:Again, not entirely. They've only really tested/planned it towards hetero people (which is its own can of worms as to why; that's where the bigotry came in), so there's no guarantee made that their matching algorithm will work for any case other than the one they planned for. I'm sure the fact that it's run by a bigot doesn't help the pool of potential users grow, which would actually improve the matching. I think maybe I was being being too coy. The matching "science" is hokum. It has no proven scientific validity
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
rypakal posted:I think maybe I was being being too coy. The matching "science" is hokum. It has no proven scientific validity That's true; the "success" mostly comes from the fact that a questionnaire that takes 18 hours to fill out and ridiculously high membership fees weeds out anyone but the super-super-serious, who would succeed in a long-term relationship anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
Nevada's Assembly Committee approved the gay marriage ban repeal. Next up in the lengthy complicated process is a full vote from the lower house. Passage is expected. Also, with the recent announcements from Dukakis and Mondale, every living Democrat who has run for President now supports marriage equality.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:Nevada's Assembly Committee approved the gay marriage ban repeal. Next up in the lengthy complicated process is a full vote from the lower house. Passage is expected. What about the Nevada State Senate, how does the situation look there?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:What about the Nevada State Senate, how does the situation look there? It's not any faster, but a public petition can guard against the chance of a conservative legislature in 2015. The public would have to approve in in 2014 and 2016. Speediest options are the Prop 8 decision next month or the Nevada-specific Sevcik next year.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
The French Constitutional Council has ruled that the same-sex marriage law was fully consistent with the constitution. It'll probably be signed by the president later today. gently caress yes!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
The Portuguese Parliament just barely aproved coadoption (adoption of the child/s of their partner) by gay couples. The adoption bill also proposed sadly didn't pass but at least it is a step on the right direction.
Evil Creature fucked around with this message at 17:13 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Kassad posted:The French Constitutional Council has ruled that the same-sex marriage law was fully consistent with the constitution. It'll probably be signed by the president later today. loving finally, the whole circus is over. Gonna be some particularly bitter homophobe tears over this.  That's admirably quick of Hollande although I imagine he just wants the drat thing over and done with.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
It turns that Hollande will promulgate the law tomorrow after all.Crameltonian posted:loving finally, the whole circus is over. Gonna be some particularly bitter homophobe tears over this. The bitterness is incredible. Earlier I watched some right-wing woman say that this law may be the sign that the government is no longer legitimate.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Kassad posted:It turns that Hollande will promulgate the law tomorrow after all. Now comes the time for the french tea parties. I can see it now, teabags stapled to powdered wigs.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Kassad posted:The bitterness is incredible. Earlier I watched some right-wing woman say that this law may be the sign that the government is no longer legitimate. Time for the sixth republic?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Kassad posted:It turns that Hollande will promulgate the law tomorrow after all. You know what Orson Scott Card said, governments endorsing gay marriage is just cause to overthrow them!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Gays? Not in my country!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Time for the sixth republic? The leader of the movement, Frigide Barjot, said that the law amounted to a change in political regime (which is a bad thing, of course). hangedman1984 posted:Now comes the time for the french tea parties. I can see it now, teabags stapled to powdered wigs. They've already been demonstrating with old-ey costumes:
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
The South 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:The South Is the south terrible in France too? Also what are they holding, the bible?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Is the south terrible in France too? The Civil Code (also called Napoleonic Code, it's our code of civil laws). Basically they're playing the "Don't touch the Constitution!" card, except apparently you can't change laws ever.They do this because being a religious bigot is less accepted in France. Also hilarious news, Frigide Barjot wants to open talks for a civil union law instead of a marriage (so without adoption), ahahahaha in your dreams fucker. Kurtofan fucked around with this message at 19:59 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
I'm still really confused as to why so many young, normal looking people keep going out to protest gay marriage in France which typically regarded as a progressive, secular country. Even in the US which has way more organized anti-gay politics than pretty much anywhere else in the first world, almost all of the anti-gay marriage protesters are religious old people and the crowds are usually tiny. Can any French goons explain this to me?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
This is some poo poo.quote:MCKINNEY, [TX] — Page Price and Carolyn Compton have been together for almost three years, but a Collin County judge is forcing them apart.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:This is some poo poo. Ugh. Ever since I saw the poo poo that went down with ShoeOfAllCosmos's dad getting off the hook, I've had no faith whatsoever in the Texas judiciary being anything but irredeemable shitheels.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:This is some poo poo. The article isn't really from an objective source. I cannot find coverage of this case that isn't based off the story you linked though (right down to quoting the facebook post). If anyone has PACER access and would be willing to pull it, I would really like to see the ruling. Depending on how and why he wrote it was ruled will probably show how effective an appeal would be. For anyone who is interested the case number is 296-54663-2010. Apparently this has been ongoing for a while and there's a lot to sift through. Red_Mage fucked around with this message at 01:19 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Mother Jones: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage That's great. I am 100% okay with any church's official position on the matter being "no position" and refusing to endorse either side. Nobody has to like LGBT folks or their marriages; just mind your own business and don't legislate your religion. Cactus Ghost fucked around with this message at 06:54 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I'm still really confused as to why so many young, normal looking people keep going out to protest gay marriage in France which typically regarded as a progressive, secular country. Even in the US which has way more organized anti-gay politics than pretty much anywhere else in the first world, almost all of the anti-gay marriage protesters are religious old people and the crowds are usually tiny. Can any French goons explain this to me? I think that's because France is a centralized country, which means all of France is concerned by the law so that brings in a lot of people from the conservative parts of the country, that plus there's a lot of youth unemployment so I guess some people have nothing better to do. Young people in public opinion are overwhelmingly in favor of same sex marriage and adoption, though. Kurtofan fucked around with this message at 10:31 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I'm still really confused as to why so many young, normal looking people keep going out to protest gay marriage in France which typically regarded as a progressive, secular country. Even in the US which has way more organized anti-gay politics than pretty much anywhere else in the first world, almost all of the anti-gay marriage protesters are religious old people and the crowds are usually tiny. Can any French goons explain this to me? From what my friend who was in France for the entire last year where this was an issue says, it's basically like what Kurtofan said. The young people aren't so much anti-marriage equality as they are pro-not having this be debated right now. Unemployment's an issue for them, an issue they want to see solved. Instead, they see the time that could be spent solving it going towards making sure a group of people can marry who they want. It's the same thing as some of the people in this country who don't want marriage equality yet: the argument that there's so many issues they consider more important that why can't marriage equality be held off until those said issues are dealt with?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:From what my friend who was in France for the entire last year where this was an issue says, it's basically like what Kurtofan said. The young people aren't so much anti-marriage equality as they are pro-not having this be debated right now. Unemployment's an issue for them, an issue they want to see solved. Instead, they see the time that could be spent solving it going towards making sure a group of people can marry who they want. It's the same thing as some of the people in this country who don't want marriage equality yet: the argument that there's so many issues they consider more important that why can't marriage equality be held off until those said issues are dealt with? Oh well, now that it's over and done with let's get on with the economic prioriHUGE ANTI-MARRIAGE PROTEST SCHEDULED FOR 26 MAY
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Hollande signed the law today, and marriages start May 29.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Indiana should be fine. They overreached and included civil unions, which immediately handicaps them by 1-2%. With Oregon and others on the ballot in 2014, NOM will once again be spread too thin while the marriage supporters are loaded with cash and volunteers. I can't wait for Oregon to vote. I voted for Measure 36 back in 2004, and I'm looking forward for a chance to atone.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Haschel Cedricson posted:I can't wait for Oregon to vote. I voted for Measure 36 back in 2004, and I'm looking forward for a chance to atone. Out of curiosity, what sort of thinking brought you to vote in favor of it at the time?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
Most folks I've talked to in CA who voted for Prop 8 said it was more or less a matter of not distinguishing morality from law. All the publicity swirling around an issue they'd not considered much, plus THANKS OBAMA presidential year stuff with a historic candidate got a whole hell of a lot of people to knee-jerk vote on the issue.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 10:55
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:The young people aren't so much anti-marriage equality as they are pro-not having this be debated right now. Unemployment's an issue for them, an issue they want to see solved. Instead, they see the time that could be spent solving it going towards making sure a group of people can marry who they want. It's the same thing as some of the people in this country who don't want marriage equality yet: the argument that there's so many issues they consider more important that why can't marriage equality be held off until those said issues are dealt with? That would make sense if they didn't welcome the same representatives who have been trying to drag the debate as long as they could by filing thousands of pointless amendments. It's because of those people that this law was debated longer in parliament than the ones who abolished the death penalty and made abortion legal. By appealing to the Constitutional Council they pointlessly added another month to the process because there was never the slightest doubt that the law would be cleared. As far as I can see, the only real reason this vocal minority (because all the noise they make about being a silent majority is just that: noise) is that they are homophobes. What they're against is same-sex marriage itself, not the timing of this law or the way it was done.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 12:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
Tim Selaty Jr posted:Out of curiosity, what sort of thinking brought you to vote in favor of it at the time? Basically I was a dumbass 18-year-old who was obsessed with bullshit semantics and believed that words cannot change meaning ever. Here's a summary I made a few years ago in the Prop 8 thread: Haschel posted:The November after I graduated from high school, Oregon passed Measure 36, which defined marriage as a union of one man and one woman. I voted to pass this measure, not due to any homophobia, but on some bullshit principle about the "sanctity of language" that basically boiled down to civil unions = okay, calling it marriage = not okay. On another forum while discussing the election results, I mentioned my thoughts, and even included an analogy that in retrospect implied that the "separate but equal" doctrine was perfectly fine. Everybody else on the forum promptly called out my wonderful worldview as the most retarded thing anybody had mentioned.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 17:20
|
|