mersenneforum.org - Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)

- Soap Box (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10163)

[QUOTE=chappy;395359]A counter to my[URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=394278&postcount=1295"] previous post[/URL], didn't we fight a war over this? Didn't Cruz' side lose?

[URL]http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/ted_cruz_introduces_bill_to_strip_federal_benefits_from_married_same_sex_couples[/URL][/QUOTE]

Pandering AHole![SPOILER] It is fun to imagine a tryst between Teddy boy* and McCain's [I]pegboy**, [/I]Sen. Graham. Heck! Maybe John could top both of them! [eeeyoooo! What a disagreeable image! :yucky:]
[/SPOILER]
*teddy boy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Boy
[QUOTE][B]Teddy Boy[/B] (also known as [B]Ted[/B]) is a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom"]British[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subculture"]subculture[/URL] typified by young men wearing clothes that were partly inspired by the styles worn by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandies"]dandies[/URL] in the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwardian_period"]Edwardian period[/URL], styles which [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savile_Row"]Savile Row[/URL] tailors had attempted to re-introduce in Britain after [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II"]World War II[/URL].[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Boy#cite_note-1"][1][/URL] The subculture started in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London"]London[/URL] in the 1950s, and rapidly spread across the UK, soon becoming strongly associated with [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_roll"]rock and roll[/URL]. Originally known as [B]Cosh Boys[/B], the name [I]Teddy Boy[/I] was coined when a 1953 [I]Daily Express[/I] newspaper headline shortened [I]Edwardian[/I] to [I]Teddy[/I].
Wealthy young men, especially Guards officers, adopted the style of the Edwardian era.[[I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I]] At that point in history, the Edwardian era was then just over 40 years previous, and their grandparents, if not their parents, wore the style the first time around. The original Edwardian revival was far more historically accurate in terms of replicating the original Edwardian era style than the later Teddy Boy style. It featured tapered trousers, long jackets that bear a similarity to post-war American [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoot_suits"]zoot suits[/URL] and fancy waist coats.
Although there had been youth groups with their own dress codes called [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttlers"]scuttlers[/URL] in 19th century [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester"]Manchester[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool"]Liverpool[/URL],[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Boy#cite_note-mail-2"][2][/URL] Teddy Boys were the first youth group in England to differentiate themselves as [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenager"]teenagers[/URL], helping create a youth market. The US film [I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard_Jungle"]Blackboard Jungle[/URL][/I] marked a watershed in the United Kingdom. When shown in Elephant and Castle, south London in 1956, the teenage Teddy boy audience began to riot, tearing up seats and dancing in the cinema's aisles.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Boy#cite_note-3"][3][/URL] After that, riots took place around the country wherever the film was shown.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Boy#cite_note-4"][4][/URL]

Some Teds formed gangs and gained notoriety following violent clashes with rival gangs which were often exaggerated by the popular press. The most notable were the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Notting_Hill_race_riots"]1958 Notting Hill race riots[/URL], in which Teddy Boys were present in large numbers and were implicated in attacks on the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean"]West Indian[/URL] community.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_Boy#cite_note-5"][5][/URL] The violent lifestyle was sensationalised in the pulp novel [I]Teddy Boy[/I] by Ernest Ryman, first published in England in 1958.
[/QUOTE]**from the [URL="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pegboy"]Urban Dictionary[/URL]:
pegboy (Some of the other definitions are also amusing.)
[QUOTE]1. In seafaring, a young male sailor in Her Majesty's Navy, usually of slender disposition who was designated to sit on a peg to keep his anus loose for penetration by the other sailors.
2. In more modern times, a derogatory term denoting a sissy, a fag, or a feminine sailor. [/QUOTE]

I guess I might have added a couple of other [SPOILER] sections to this post, considering the "delicate nature" of the subject matter. :gah:

[QUOTE=kladner;395377]I guess I might have added a couple of other [SPOILER] sections to this post, considering the "delicate nature" of the subject matter. :gah:[/QUOTE]
It is hard to find a balance. I haven't reached my stride yet in these matters but am thankful when posters are mindful of potential difficulties. Each person has reasons for occasionally sailing into the wind.

[QUOTE=only_human;395379]Each person has reasons for occasionally sailing into the wind.[/QUOTE]

A good friend of mine once said to me: "When you see a man fishing at a dry pond either he's insane, or he is on to something...".

[QUOTE=davar55;395423]Do we all agree that same-sex-marriage should be legalized (in the US) either
everywhere or nowhere? I.e. it should either be accepted in all 50.5 states
uniformly or else should be disallowed uniformly?[/QUOTE]No, I do not agree
Not being a citizen or the US I don't see that I have any right to tell the states what to do or not to do.

Neither do I disagree.

[QUOTE=davar55;395423][B]Do we all agree[/B] that same-sex-marriage [B]should be legalized (in the US) either
everywhere or nowhere?[/B] I.e. it should either be accepted in all 50.5 states
uniformly or else should be disallowed uniformly?[/QUOTE]

"All agree" is never going to happen, even within this limited group, much less in the population at large.

I have my own reasons for my position in this matter. The Constitution is explicit concerning Equal Protection under Law, which settles the question to my perception. Why do [U]you[/U] think that this is an "all or nothing" proposition? What justifies the "nothing" option?

[QUOTE=kladner;395436]What justifies the "nothing" option?[/QUOTE]

Nothing.

We haven't really discussed all the societal costs of granting everyone the same rights...

[QUOTE=xilman;395435]No, I do not agree
Not being a citizen or the US I don't see that I have any right to tell the states what to do or not to do.
Neither do I disagree.[/QUOTE]

I see. Issue-universal agnosticism. :smile: