The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
[Gay Rights] Gays Ran The Holocaust. No, really.
Posts
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
"You're a silly goose"
Not really much content, just...*bleep bleep bleep*
Do we have a verb for this yet? Unionized?
No wonder Republicans are against it.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Do civil Unions give all the same benefits as marriage yet?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
and at least I didn't say "blacks gets locked up 'cause theys poors", like you did (yes that was a paraphrase not a quote). I have ceased posting evidence for lazy geese who say dumb things and then attack the rest of us when they can't back up their questionable statements.
Also, it is obvious from the two posts of yours that I've read in this thread that you already have a fixed point of view on incarceration rates and what that has to do with race, so why should I bother trying to get through to your reasoning centers, particularly when you actively choose not to use them?
If your evidence is really so good and convincing for your viewpoint, then the best way to defeat me is to cite it instead of weakly attempting to convince me to do you a favor.
Edit: seriously ... weak ...
I think "partnered" is the word of choice for those that want to express the difference, though.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Actually, many will. Lament the idea that whites and negroes marry and someone's party nowadays. Then hop in to your time machine and do so at a party in the fifties. Afterward, compare results.
Zero federal rights and with states it's up to them.
Seriously?
Dude, all he did was ask for a cite. That isn't a rare or unheard of thing in D&D.
Sometimes some of us want to learn something so we ask for the "proof" you have.
Don't go all pants-on-goose-head just because he asked you a normal common everyday question.
So... They still don't have most of the rights they'd need for marriage equality, right?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Basically "You're really going to protest a 9 year old girls death and tell me that I'm going to hell? Well I know I'm going to hell, but I can't wait to see you there so I can punch you right in the fucking cunt you bitch!" *click*
Anyone know, offhand? Dioceses that aren't telling kids to fuck off because the gubmint won't let them be huge fucking bigots anymore?
Yep
That'll teach me to be an optimist.
Son I am dis....
It's not like this position is an unknown, it's not like there aren't other organizations capable of taking care of adoptions, and it's not like the Catholic Charities are keeping those other organizations from operating.
If anything the adoption services will no longer be beholden to two masters, which I'm fairly certain is a good thing.
Again, the perils of leaving basic civil services in the hands of outside organizations with views that might be contrary to the views of the state.
Of course that's the same of marriage right now. Baby steps.
no one has actually ever claimed that
Yeah, in the short-run this is bad for adoptions, but in the long run it will lead to more tolerant, secular groups being in control of the process. I do find it amusing that Catholic Charities wanted a special exemption to keep discriminating against gay couples while on the government dime, and had the gaul to be offended when this was denied them. Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile, I guess.
Except they discriminated against all non-married couples, regardless of orientation. Of course, those in a heterosexual relationship could get married, but you see the point.
And in a two-party contract, if one party finds the new terms unacceptable, well, they don't renew the contract. It's hardly having the gall to be offended it's "We find these new terms to be unacceptable, so we are ceasing our services."
From what I read of the story, the CC asked for a specific amendment to the non-discrimination policy so that they could continue discriminating against gay couples, and then their spokeperson treated it as an attack on their religious beliefs when said amendment was denied. Here is the relevant quote from the ariticle that I am refering to:
"When the law was passed, Catholic Charities and other religious and conservative groups pushed for an amendment that would allow faith-based organizations to "decline an adoption or foster family home application" to a couple in a civil union if "if acceptance of that application would constitute a violation of the organization's sincerely held religious beliefs." A Senate committee voted down the amendment in April, and a House committee did the same this week.
"The law of our land has always guaranteed its people freedom of religion," Penny Wiegert, the Rockford Diocese's director of communication said in a statement. "Denying this exemption to faith-based agencies leads one to believe that our lawmakers prefer laws that guarantee freedom from religion. We simply can not compromise the spirit that motivates us to deliver quality, professional services to families by letting our state define our religious teachings."
Gay marriages are legal in MA, which was the problem the church had.
As for the second part, there are lots of things that are legal that are morally reprehensible. We'd be pissed if someone terminated a contract after finding out that the contract mandated providing the same services to blacks as to whites. It's not like this was the Wuchale Treaty or something.
They felt their beliefs were being compromised if X law passed in Y way without Z amendment. The law did, so they nulled the contract legally.
I'm more annoyed at the state for relying on a religious institution to do basic shit rather than the Catholic Charity nulling the contract in a completely legal way.
Tangentially: There is going to be a shitstorm over the word "marriage", and how the US is gonna force the Church to recognize gay marriages and whatnot when a simple addition of "sacramental" to the Church definition would solve that problem.
Of course I doubt the Church would ever do that but hey.
but really, when you've got an organization working for you that's beholden to two masters, you and the very thing that created it, well...
you can't be particularly surprised when the organization severs ties when you do something the second master doesn't like.
Regarding the right way to bring about civil rights changes, I think it takes both the hardcore "in your face method" and the softer, gentler method. I was reading Gay Seattle and it had this quote from a Gay Liberation Front member in the 1970s:
"Ours was the group that would walk on Broadway holding hands. It just wasn't done. What was fun was to have two of us holding hands and someone else twenty feet behind just to listen to some of the comments, or occasionally to react to some of the comments. That's where you're being open making it possible for others to be open." Sometimes he dressed to outrage, not as a performing drag queen, but as what came to be known as "gender-fucking." "What was the thing about me being in a dress?" he said. "If I was that outrageous, it let other people be not quite as outrageous but to be much more expressive of who they were without crossing the line."
Not even close. And those that have marriage and not civil unions don't have federal rights or any rights outside of those states that grant them.
Has everyone read this yet?
It's Robert P. George and a few others alleged magnum opus on the topic of why gay marriage is wrong. George is a devout Catholic, a law professor and prominent natural law theorist. He's known to have close ties to a number of Republican committees and so forth.
It is alleged, that natural law provides a secular basis upon which to object to the "homosexual agenda" which doesn't rely upon theology.
It's a hugely bizarre argument, but not as simple as one might assume. Certainly they try to address the common objections to the "but it's not natural" argument.
It's seriously crazy. It proceeds from "male and female genitals are made to interact with each other" to "the procreative aspect of male and female sex is what is important" to "marriage is at its purest during the act of sex". It's very Aquinas in that it proceeds... well, sort of deductively from utterly bizarre premises. There's a lot of criticism that their attempts to stave off objections based on things like infertile couples are lame and extremely ad hoc.
But I think that it is crazy for all of its strange further consequences - like the not even close to subtle implication that it is a women's duty to provide sex and it's extremely male centric...everything.
The amendment was voted down because THEY ALREADY HAD THE EXEMPTION because they're a religious institution. They didn't need two on the books; same situation as that crush video blow up about a year ago.
The problem with Catholic Charities is that they are (apparently) much more interested in being Catholic than giving charity.
That's fine, but that does mean that they should in no way be relied upon as a major source of charitable work. There are other people, who don't mind providing services to everyone, who can be encouraged whether by government grants or private donation.
I grew up in Rockford. I can guarantee you that they are shutting down because of gays. The whole "We can't refer people" thing is bullshit.
I mean, this is a city that was dealing with a school desegregation lawsuit until well after 2001. It's all very small-town mindset.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.