|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 23, 2014 13:45:57 GMT -6
Anti-gay "religious freedom" bills are proliferating all over the country, not just in predictable venues such as Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kansas and Idaho, but also in more purple or even blue states such as Oregon and Hawaii. In every single case, the bills are being advanced by Republicans. Most will probably not pass, but some have and others will. Of those that pass, I would be willing to bet all of them will be quickly deemed unconstitutional even in conservative courts. Why? These laws are the new Jim Crow, allowing a broad range of openly discriminatory behavior so long as the perpetrator asserts that they did so for religious reasons. Until the GOP reigns in this bullshit, they will continue to alienate that significant contingent of the American populace that holds that until you fully support equal protection under the law, you are morally ineligible to lead the nation.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Feb 23, 2014 13:51:16 GMT -6
I'm acquainted with two gay couples who married for the legal benefits. One couple in their mid-60's have lived together for 40 years and married as soon as Iowa legalized it. The other, in Colorado, married in another state shortly after the federal decision. They married solely for the federal tax break, they said, despite having been together for over 25 years. Well, ok Dot, but those couples have been together for 40 and 25 years respectively. It's not like they really needed to make much more of a public commitment to each other any more--the point was already well proved. They were, in all but the legal sense, married, and perhaps went for the legal because that's all they were still lacking. Maybe, and perhaps I'm projecting. I honestly didn't feel any need to "go public" in formal terms. Just wasn't important. We love/loved each other; that was a commitment to each other. How anyone else regarded our relationship simply wasn't important to us except for my in-laws. I know they were happier we'd finally gotten legal although they'd treated me as though we were. Sure there is now that they finally can but also to a large extent right now to contradict that old anti-gay accusation that they're innately too promiscuous to seek or keep a commitment. I think making a statement that gays want acknowledgment of their personal commitments as sincere and legitimate could be a stronger motive for marrying currently than proclaiming their commitment for social acknowledgment. After all, it's long been assumed for hets that marriage will and should follow love. That's been an expectation for so long that we all expect marriage for them even though shacking is much more acceptable anymore than it used to be. Gays have a whole lot more baggage riding on the institution of marriage, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 24, 2014 21:16:00 GMT -6
Sure there is now that they finally can but also to a large extent right now to contradict that old anti-gay accusation that they're innately too promiscuous to seek or keep a commitment.. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that even Ken will join us in calling this particular argument insulting and belittling bullshit.* Promiscuity and fidelity any not inherently gay or straight characteristics. Only a Mama Cass type could think so. I hope. * = I'll say the word so you don't have to Kenny
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 25, 2014 7:00:53 GMT -6
Sure there is now that they finally can but also to a large extent right now to contradict thatIold anti-gay accusation that they're innately too promiscuous to seek or keep a commitment.. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that even Ken will join us in calling this particular argument insulting and belittling bullshit.* Promiscuity and fidelity any not inherently gay or straight characteristics. Only a Mama Cass type could think so. I hope. * = I'll say the word so you don't have to KennyI'm not sure Ken would agree with your statement. Ken was conspicuously absent during Mama's tenure. That usually means he's happy to let others speak his mind. He's made similar statements in the past about gays and STD's, so I wouldn' t put it past him to link promiscuity.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 25, 2014 9:22:53 GMT -6
No need for conspiracy theories this time around. Ken really has been absent, as in "not here". The stats on the bottom of the main forum page indicates who has been around within the last 24 hours. You can also go to the member page and get a listing of all the registrants and when they were last online. Using those tools, I can see that Howie popped in for a look over the last few days. CCC hasn't been here in quite a bit. I was hoping Gorm would check in the for the Viking apocalypse but he's more of a Celtic pagan than a Norseman IIRC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 9:54:15 GMT -6
No need for conspiracy theories this time around. Ken really has been absent, as in "not here". The stats on the bottom of the main forum page indicates who has been around within the last 24 hours. You can also go to the member page and get a listing of all the registrants and when they were last online. Using those tools, I can see that Howie popped in for a look over the last few days. CCC hasn't been here in quite a bit. I was hoping Gorm would check in the for the Viking apocalypse but he's more of a Celtic pagan than a Norseman IIRC. This is only sorta the way it works. For example, more often than not, I'll pop in, peruse the new stuff, see if there is anything I feel like replying to. If not I'll get back to work without ever logging in. In other words, I only take the time to log in if I feel like saying something. Therefore, a few guest hits on some days are me and probably other members just doing a quick drive by...assuming others operate the way I do. I'm not saying that Ken would approve of anything Cass said of course. I'm just saying that you can't prove that a member has not lurked through by the stats at the bottom of the home page. J
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 25, 2014 9:57:38 GMT -6
Hmmm....I've been able to see when you've moved through without posting. You did this weekend. I suppose that this is only the case for people who stay permanently logged in. If they browse as guests while logged off, we can only count them, not identify.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 10:01:29 GMT -6
Hmmm....I've been able to see when you've moved through without posting. You did this weekend. I suppose that this is only the case for people who stay permanently logged in. If they browse as guests while logged off, we can only count them, not identify. This weekend I was logged in for a while though, messing around at home before we headed up to the mountains. I'll log off right now (9:01) MST and lurk around. See if you can spot me. J
|
|
|
Post by Trout incognito on Feb 25, 2014 10:04:36 GMT -6
Hmmm....I've been able to see when you've moved through without posting. You did this weekend. I suppose that this is only the case for people who stay permanently logged in. If they browse as guests while logged off, we can only count them, not identify. This weekend I was logged in for a while though, messing around at home before we headed up to the mountains. I'll log off right now (9:01) MST and lurk around. See if you can spot me. J I'm invisible!
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 25, 2014 10:16:44 GMT -6
Yes...stealthy as a phantom jet...you only show up if you are logged on. Most people seem to stay logged on, but if you wish to fly under the radar, you can. My original point is that I don't feel the need to assert that someone is ducking a question or a topic when the idea that they might be taking a break is as least as likely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 10:20:00 GMT -6
Yes...stealthy as a phantom jet...you only show up if you are logged on. Most people seem to stay logged on, but if you wish to fly under the radar, you can. My original point is that I don't feel the need to assert that someone is ducking a question or a topic when the idea that they might be taking a break is as least as likely. I agree with your original point. I don't actually actively "log off". When I close my browser I believe I get logged off automatically. If I don't close my browser, then I don't get work done, since I work at a computer when I am writing. Speaking of which, I'll see you later! J
|
|
|
Post by ken on Feb 25, 2014 16:16:24 GMT -6
computer was in the shop and when it wasn't... been kinda busy.
At this point, only have time to just catch up and say hello.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Feb 25, 2014 18:43:26 GMT -6
computer was in the shop and when it wasn't... been kinda busy. At this point, only have time to just catch up and say hello. Well, "yo" then.
|
|
|
Post by woodrowli on Feb 25, 2014 19:44:30 GMT -6
If there is a time you don't see me logged in it usually means one of a few things:
We are having one of our frequent power outages.
I forgot to pay my internet bill.
I fell asleep and the cats are playing with the PC
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Feb 25, 2014 22:46:36 GMT -6
If there is a time you don't see me logged in it usually means one of a few things: We are having one of our frequent power outages. I forgot to pay my internet bill. I fell asleep and the cats are playing with the PC Damn............................now I have to wonder who authored your better Islamic posts.
|
|