Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
"I fully support gay marriage- I don't support forcing pastors to officiate such weddings in the name of "tolerance" when it goes directly against their belief."
If churches don't want to officiate gay marriages, that's fine — the license is granted by the state, anyway. They should, however, give up their tax exemptions if they're going to discriminate in a way contrary to the standard of the law. The government cannot and must not subsidize their bigotry.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."I'm not known to have a rosy view of religion but it is possible to object to homosexuality on doctrinal grounds without behaving like a biggot. I believe this is the current official position of the Catholic Church (and even they have their own set of liberal/conservative factions). Pope Francis IIRC made a statement about respecting the essential human dignity of homosexuals which is about as far as he's likely able to go without upsetting the conservative faction too much. It is still problematic but at least not ignoring all the love and tolerance directives of the faith.
edited 2nd Feb '17 10:36:06 PM by Elle
Right, just as it's possible to object to consuming meat or alcohol, or owning pets. Or the wearing of certain kinds of clothing. Or using adult diapers to piss yourself in because it's some kind of fetish. Or whatever, I don't know. I may not agree with it personally, but I believe in the concept of individual rights so I won't harass them about it as long as they keep it to themselves and vice versa.
But once they start attempting to impose that upon people outside their individual sphere then they're committing wrongdoing by infringing on another private citizen's rights. And things like same-sex marriage by necessity have scope outside that of a single individual.
edited 2nd Feb '17 10:45:36 PM by AlleyOop
I'm going to take a moment to play devil's advocate on this issue. I grew up in a fairly religious Catholic family, so while I don't necessarily agree with their views on the subject (nor will I pretend the genuine bigots have anything resembling a point), I believe I can understand their thought process.
See, gay marriage is sort of bundled up with things like high divorce rates and premarital intercourse as "things that threaten the holy union between man and woman". Though perhaps "threaten" isn't the right word, as it's more of a long-game kind of outlook. "Moral decay", really. See, they're worried that these things eventually lead people to not taking marriage or sex seriously, because there are very real consequences to these things, and when marriages fail/someone gets a kid they didn't plan for, it results in broken families. (As for why an unplanned pregnancy can't be solved with an abortion or through contraception, that is related to the sanctity of life itself, which is in most ways a fundamentally religious issue. So I'm not touching that.)
Granted, the connection gay marriage actually has to this sort of issue is tenuous at best (the best logical explanation I can think of is that it's physically impossible for two men or two women to have a child without outside help, but I could be talking out my butt here), compared to the other related things. But I figure it ends up being convenient because it gives them someone other than "normal" people to blame. After all, any person's daughter might fall victim to a convincing charlatan and end up with a kid, and sometimes a marriage simply doesn't work because the two are just wrong for each other or something. But for these people, gay people are still an "other" population in many ways, an so it's easier to blame them for, in their mind, changing what the definition of marriage is.
All of that said, though, this is just my impression of what these people think. I do consider the right for the LGBT population to have the same rights to happiness as everyone else as more important than all of that, and like I said, some people are just vile bigots who feel good when they're better off than someone else.
I mean, that's a mindset I broadly find to be puritanical and unrealistic- but basically internally consistent- when applied to heterosexual couples, but complete nonsense when applied to homosexual couples.
And I find that the greatest sin is the way it seems to implicitly say that anything to explicitly accounted for in their worldview is automatically Evil. Which includes Gay Marriage, but is in no way limited to that.
The New Yorker's February cover.
There is something called the Bowling Green Massacre, but it's not a terrorist attack.
note
edited 3rd Feb '17 1:38:19 AM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."The only argument against gay couples that I will tolerate is that it isn't naturally conducive to propagating the species, and that's only because it's technically correct. Problem with that is, Humanity already has WAY more population that it should logically have, and so growing the population isn't really an issue. Any other arguments are based on flawed reasoning and emotional manipulation to disproportionately allot more importance to things and concepts than they deserve.
edited 3rd Feb '17 2:52:42 AM by PushoverMediaCritic
Geez ._. I'm still reading posts from 31th to update my knowledge of situation. I have to say that while I've for quite long(quietly since its impolite and I'm shamed of that) held an opinion that America is racist borderline fascist country that justs needs few pushes to go back to nationalistic imperialism(...hopefully Trump isn't insane enough to start wars) and that I don't think Trump's election wasn't that big surprise (when I visited America, my trip took me from south to north so I had really chance to see how radically different Americans are even in nearby states), I didn't realize he would be this fast to screw things over. I mean, it makes sense, he isn't politician and now he is put into making decisions, so he is doing things in manner politicians wouldn't be doing them... Which is really horrific
I'm pretty sure this could have been avoided if general populace practiced more introspection, but that is rare trait in people :/ Most I'm worried is that since America's nature as super power means its culture will spread is that similar far right ideals will spread and gain majority in other countries... Even before Trump rise of far right was being a thing. I hope Nordic Countries will stay safe for now at least :'D Would be nice if everywhere were safe
edited 3rd Feb '17 3:28:04 AM by SpookyMask
Well, I guess there wouldn't be harm in trying :P Though I'd recomend learning Swedish first, its apparently easier to learn for English speaking people than Finnish and legally you are supposed to be able to get by with it over here.(though in practice, most of people I know don't know how to speak Swedish despite being taught it and are much better in English)
Well, Scalia never outright admitted his views, but in Lawrence v. Texas (invalidating sodomy laws) his dissent said:
I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct.
One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” ...It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.
Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive...So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”...and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right...
Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means...
...One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts–and may legislate accordingly.
... If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct...what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples...
edited 3rd Feb '17 4:27:54 AM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Is it usual for ConLaw students to laugh at such judgements? I know a bunch of guys who would be really offended by that.
Any GA tropers here? Tom Price's seat will have to be filled should he be confirmed
, and given the sizeable decrease in Trump's margin over Hillary there, there seems to be an opening.
Something nice on my side locally I hadn't seen the other day:
Boise mayor, council show distaste for Trump orders with ‘welcoming city’ proclamation
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/article129963079.html#storylink=cpy
My understanding is it's mostly symbolic, as Welcoming City isn't the same as Sanctuary City, but the thought is there.
Also:
Crowds greet Boise’s newest refugee, one of the last to arrive for the near future
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/community/boise/article130506089.html
The sheer bull**** involved in saying, after everything, that he had nothing against homosexuals is what forced the laughs. Also, I'm on it.
Atlanta is also a "welcoming city," not a sanctuary for a good reason.
Hundreds marched earlier this month in downtown Atlanta in hopes the metro would become a “sanctuary city.” Such a designation, however, would violate Georgia law, which requires full compliance with federal immigration authorities.
Its in a dual with the state.
State lawmakers last year went a step further, in response to the killing of a California woman by a man who was in the country illegally.
The new Georgia law requires local governments to certify they’re cooperating with federal immigration officials in order to get state funding.
edited 3rd Feb '17 5:20:48 AM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives"Judges across U.S. to weigh challenges to Trump travel ban" - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15I1CM
Okay finished now reading the thread
And okay, gotta mention it since it got brought up twice, but yeah, you Americans don't have left and right, you have right and stupidly far right from our perspective.
Also, I'm really worried about whether things over there will get to the point where someone tries shooting government officials since that would just lead to chaos :/ Like, dunno, maybe I'm worried for nothing, I think part of the reason why I'm worried something like that might happen is because this guy's
murder was brought up a lot in history class.
edited 3rd Feb '17 5:40:22 AM by SpookyMask
Wait, if all the sane left-wing and right-wing political groups are now under the umbrella of the Democrat Party, then in the hypothetical scenario of completely dismantling the Republican Party and instituting a ban on their fascistic ideologies in the same vein as Germany... who would form a sane opposition party? Would the Democrat Party have to willingly split itself into left-wing and right-wing factions if they don't want to go the path of one-party rule?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.OK, so... Which one would keep the "Democratic Party" name, and what do you think the other party would name themselves?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

![[up] [up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png)
Hence why the clerks who issue the license can't be allowed to discriminate.
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."