Thanks for the reply, Zeta-Flux. My impression now is that we really need to understand what we all mean by discrimination if this discussion is to be meaningful from now on.

Discrimination, to me, is arbitrarily treating a particular group of people differently from the rest of the population on the basis of an identifying characteristic of those people. That is the definition which I was using.

Being anti-abortion is not discrimination under this definition. No group of people is being arbitrarily discriminated and treated differently than the rest of the population. The attitude you describe at length above seems to refer to the idea of someone disapproving of abortion [U]because[/U] that person discriminates against women generally. Thinking that no woman should be allowed an abortion is then the result of an idea that women are men's property and men therefore get to say what women may and may not do with their own lives. Being anti-abortion can sometimes, therefore, be a [U]manifestation[/U] of a person's sex-discrimination, but it is not discrimination in itself, and very often it does not have anything to do with sex-discrimination anyway. It is quite possible to be a feminist and to believe that all abortions should be illegal.

[QUOTE]If a photographer boycotts arranged weddings between 40-year-olds and 10-year-olds because he/she finds them morally disturbing, you would agree, would you not, that this is discrimination and should be outlawed.
[/QUOTE]Now you're pushing it into areas of conscience in an undemocratic society which exploits certain individuals (in this case young children) for the benefit of others. Such a marriage would be illegal in democratic societies, because 10-year-olds are not able to make decisions about who to spend the rest of their lives with, nor are they mature enough to agree to the marriage on equal terms with the adult partner. If the photographer lives in an undemocratic society which does this, then all bets are off as to what constitutes discrimination.

[QUOTE]And as I've said before I think businesses should be able to define their services. If the service is "I paint people's portraits" and they don't inquire into lifestyle's of their subjects, then they should paint the picture. If the artist's service has been "I only paint those whom I want to paint" then they should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason whatsoever.[/QUOTE]You and I have common ground here (though I'd like to note that loving someone of your own gender, or simply being LGBTI, is not a "lifestyle" just in case anyone reading the discussion thinks it is; it is part of who you are, your identity). And if a business offers the service "We cater for weddings" then it should cater for all weddings. If the service is a hotel, it should not discriminate on any irrelevant attribute such as race or sexual orientation about to which people it will offer a bed for the night. I'd like to point out that a painter-artist is a somewhat unusual example of someone offering a service in that he or she must apply highly subjective criteria to the question of which work they take on, art being such a personally creative occupation.

:goodposting: Bravo!

More Bad News
 

[QUOTE=kladner;368206]:goodposting: Bravo![/QUOTE]

And in yet another display by intolerant and hateful religious scumbags, we have:

[url]http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/24870063/2014/03/03/catholic-school-refuses-to-participate-in-saint-patricks-day-parade[/url]

Yes, they have the right to withdraw. Noone questions it. But they
find it necessary to make a hateful and intolerant social/political statement
in doing so.

Just another display of hate by religious hypocrites.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;368232]And in yet another display by intolerant and hateful religious scumbags, we have:

[url]http://www.myfoxboston.com/story/24870063/2014/03/03/catholic-school-refuses-to-participate-in-saint-patricks-day-parade[/url]

Yes, they have the right to withdraw. Noone questions it. But they
find it necessary to make a hateful and intolerant social/political statement
in doing so.

Just another display of hate by religious hypocrites.[/QUOTE]

And of course the sub-human piece of shit clergyman who is principal of the school found it necessary to show off his Catholic stupidity and ignorance
by prattling about the gay "lifestyle".

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;368234][...]prattling about the gay "lifestyle".[/QUOTE]
Yes, I'd be interested to know the origins of the phrase "gay lifestyle". Language can be incredibly effective in distorting concepts and putting inaccurate ideas into the public psyche. That particular phrase has probably set gay emancipation back a number of years in the English speaking world.

Here's someone's summary of the "gay lifestyle" (contains other useful information too for those ignorant enough to need it):
[URL]http://www.gaylifestyle.info/[/URL]
[QUOTE][B]The Homosexual Lifestyle / Gay Lifestyle is:[/B]

[LIST][*]Get up in the morning, moaning at the alarm clock.[*]Shower, dress, eat breakfast.[*]Go to work. Complain about traffic.[*]Work. Worry about the job getting outsourced to India.[*]Go home. Worry about gas prices.[*]Stop for groceries on the way once or twice a week.[*]Cook dinner. Realize there's no butter.[*]Eat dinner. Worry about blood pressure and cholesterol.[*]Do laundry. Try to figure out how to get that tomato stain out of that t-shirt.[*]Clean the house. Realize that a sock didn't make it into the laundry.[*]Pay bills. Worry about saving for retirement.[*]Watch a little TV, spend time with any family members in the house, talk with friends on the Internet.[*]Go to sleep.[*]Repeat.[/LIST] [B][I]Decadent[/I], isn't it?[/B]

Gay and lesbian people live our lives like everyone else. We have jobs, bills, housework, and families like everyone else.
[/QUOTE]

you missed after "go to sleep": "dreaming about getting rich by finding a billion digit mersenne prime". Otherwise how can you say that you "have a normal life, like everyone else" ?!?!?

:smile:

It has been a while since we talked about this angle, and certain claims were made by one side, then other claims were made by the other side--it was this whole thing.

[url]http://iacknowledge.net/largest-study-of-children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-is-bad-news-for-bigots/[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;368807]It has been a while since we talked about this angle, and certain claims were made by one side, then other claims were made by the other side--it was this whole thing.

[URL]http://iacknowledge.net/largest-study-of-children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-is-bad-news-for-bigots/[/URL][/QUOTE]

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan (likely a slip of the tongue, not a misquote of Adams. However, I would call it a Freudian slip.)

Those who think they know are unwilling to be told otherwise.

[QUOTE=kladner;368810]"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan (likely a slip of the tongue, not a misquote of Adams. However, I would call it a Freudian slip.)

Those who think they know are unwilling to be told otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Those who think they know are willing to channel funds to young up-and-coming scientists to do research on the subject provided that the study reaches the "correct" conclusions by whatever means necessary.

(That's a reference to the flawed and disgraced Regnerus study to which the article linked by chappy also refers.)

Aside from the studies concerning same sex parenting, and attempting to understand those with opposing views to my own, I was very interested to read the following article linked to by the iacknowledge.net article from chappy's post. It is written by a man who was raised by a female couple but opposes same sex marriage and parenting based on problems he says he suffers due to not having had a father in his childhood. He does not really dwell on the precise nature of the problems he experiences, but he does say that he knows other people raised by same sex parents with similar problems who are frightened to come out and say so in case they are branded homophobic.

Does the writer have a point?

[URL]http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/not-all-children-raised-by-gay-parents-support-gay-marriage-i-should-know-i/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;368822](snip) He does not really dwell on the precise nature of the problems he experiences, but he does say that he knows other people raised by same sex parents with similar problems who are frightened to come out and say so in case they are branded homophobic.

Does the writer have a point?

[URL]http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/not-all-children-raised-by-gay-parents-support-gay-marriage-i-should-know-i/[/URL][/QUOTE]

While I sympathize with the author's angst, I suggest that there are all sorts of ways to feel dissatisfaction with the parenting one received. Just having a parent of particular gender physically present does not mean that person is emotionally available in the way that the author seems to long for.

I am also uneasy about articles which include plugs like,
[QUOTE][I][B]Click "like" if you want to [U]defend true marriage.[/U] [/B][/I][/QUOTE] (link removed). It reminds me of the testimonies of "former gays" who have been "cured".

The author's feeling may well be authentic, but I think he may be overlooking other contributing factors besides his parents' gender. These factors could include the lack of available surrogates for the missing father. Kids who lack a parent for whatever reason frequently find someone to play the role.

Then, too, many people have dissatisfactions with their parenting, but may believe quite a variety of explanations for their unhappiness, some more accurate than others. It is easy to latch onto one factor as a cause, and overlook others.

I had a father and a mother. They had a relationship which lasted as long as they did. However, I personally feel a dire lack of mothering. This is at odds with the perceptions of at least some of my siblings. I am happy if they had satisfying relationships with our mother. But for me, the entire concept of "mother" as many or most people seem to experience it, is a dark spot in my psyche. I imagine that I grasp it in the same way that a person blind from birth might understand color.

I have to wrap this up and confront our current snow storm. I hope that it suffices to say that I respect the author's personal experience, but I believe that he is over-generalizing to apply it to any and all situations.

My reaction on reading that article was similar to Kieren's above, granting the author the benefit of any possible doubt about the authenticity of his negative experience having been brought up by two mothers, but judging that he was misattributing his stated problems to his same sex parents when they in fact have other likely causes.

However, I've just come across the following article by the same author, written just a couple of days ago. This one is an attack on surrogacy and its use by gay men as prospective parents. This time the article has taken me aback with its vitriol and its inappropriate comparisons with slavery.

[URL]http://americanthinker.com/2014/03/breeders_how_gay_men_destroyed_the_left.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;368875]
However, I've just come across the following article by the same author, written just a couple of days ago. This one is an attack on surrogacy and its use by gay men as prospective parents. This time the article has taken me aback with its vitriol and its inappropriate comparisons with slavery.

[URL]http://americanthinker.com/2014/03/breeders_how_gay_men_destroyed_the_left.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

That is quite disturbing. I note that he derides the idea that gays should be included under Equal Protection. "Oh sure, they were teased. Poor things, they had to hide their sexuality and live a lie."

Of course, he does not have to think about people like a gay friend of my parents, back in the bad old days. This talented man, a highly respected piano teacher, had a liaison which ended with him being robbed, viciously beaten in his home and left for dead. Of course, the legal authorities had no interest in pursuing the case.

It was not oppression for Oscar Wilde to have his health destroyed a Victorian prison, sentenced to deliberately meaningless hard labor.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Wilde[/url]

I suppose that this character might even think that Alan Turing had nothing to complain of, either.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing[/url]

The latter two are famous examples. Who can say how many unknown people suffered on account of bigotry?

I have to admit that his main topic raises some thorny questions. However, once again, he alleges anonymous examples which fit his goals. This tactic is of a piece with the unknown "victims" of same-sex parenting for whom he claims to speak in the previous article.

I don't have time for detailed comment right now, but at first glance there seems to be sound logic here:

"In Defense of Religious Liberty

Anti-gay bills and the Hobby Lobby case have given religious rights a bad name. But they’re still important to fight for."

[URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/religious_liberty_the_owners_of_hobby_lobby_have_it_wrong_but_religious.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;369110]I don't have time for detailed comment right now, but at first glance there seems to be sound logic here:

"In Defense of Religious Liberty

Anti-gay bills and the Hobby Lobby case have given religious rights a bad name. But they’re still important to fight for."

[URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/religious_liberty_the_owners_of_hobby_lobby_have_it_wrong_but_religious.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

Indeed. Religious rights have great value.

But the right to practice one's religion does NOT include the right to
cause harm to others simply because one's beliefs disagree with others.

Unfortunately, the religious right thinks that their religious rights are
absolute and take precedence over all others. They are wrong. As a
society we must always make judgments as to which rights take precedence
when the rights of different groups come into conflict. As a society, we have
made the decision that the right to be treated equally under the law takes
precedence over the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs.

And the religious right are either too stupid, too ignorant, or too much of
assholes to accept this.

Discrimination against other people because one's beliefs say that those
people are "immoral" in some way does cause harm.

[QUOTE]Yes, I'd be interested to know the origins of the phrase "gay lifestyle".[/QUOTE][COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]As always, there is a lighter side to the controversy here in Arizona…[/QUOTE][COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

Is believing that marriage should be only between one man and one woman, which has turned from a near-universal view to a minority one in barely 15 years in much of the democratic world, still a rational view to hold? Is that view now any more rational than the view that marriage should only be between two people of the same race?

Two commentators, both supporters of same sex marriage, argue from opposite sides of that question.

[URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/17/gay_marriage_and_racism_there_s_nothing_rational_about_opposing_gay_marriage.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/18/gay_marriage_bigotry_and_religious_freedom_don_t_shut_down_the_debate_win.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;369411]IIs that view now any more rational than the view that marriage should only be between two people of the same race?

[/QUOTE]

It is probably universally agreed that marriage should only be between
two people of the human race.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;369414]It is probably universally agreed that marriage should only be between
two people of the human race.[/QUOTE]
Right. I guess I may have used the word "race" incorrectly.:smile:
Of course, some opponents of equality in the debate have seriously suggested that the agreement to which you refer is not universal. (Slippery slope...)

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/lawyer-who-defended-california-gay-marriage-ban-says-views-evolving-after-daughter-comes-out-211351193.html[/url]


This kind of thing always reminds me of the [URL="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/guests/marco-rubio/kfahww/marco-rubio"]John Stewart interview with Rubio [/URL]where he talks about something many Republicans seem to have problems with and that is nuance and empathy (which is not to say that Democrats don't also have issues, but it doesn't seem as pervasive).

Either that or there is a deity and She has an incredible sense of humor.

[QUOTE=chappy;371]
...
Either that or there is a deity and She has an incredible sense of humor.[/QUOTE]

And after gays get their marriage and other civil rights,
maybe She'll get back to US atheists and help us get ours.

We know She is funny that way.

I'm very taken by Neal Gottlieb's method of protesting against Uganda's new anti-gay laws. The highest point in Uganda is now apparently graced by a rainbow flag, placed there by Mr. Gottlieb himself after a six-day climb to the summit. And he has written a fitting open letter to Uganda's president about it too.

[URL="http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/man-conquers-ugandas-highest-mountain-and-claims-it-gays250414"]http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/man-conquers-ugandas-highest-mountain-and-claims-it-gays250414
[/URL][QUOTE]‘Your country’s highest point is no longer its soil, its snow or a summit marker, but rather a gay pride flag waving brilliantly, shining down from above as a sign of protest and hope behalf of the many thousands of Ugandans that you seek to repress and the many more that understand the hideous nature of your repressive legislation,’ Gottlieb said in a letter to Uganda president Yoweri Museveni.
‘Despite this, you recently signed legislation into law that allows those born homosexual to be imprisoned for life.
‘This is a disgusting, despicable act that threatens to ruin countless lives. If you had a son, daughter, niece or nephew that was homosexual, would you want her or him to be imprisoned for life?
‘What if you have friends that are closeted homosexuals? Should they be locked up for the rest of their lives? If you were born gay, would you deserve to be imprisoned?’
Gottlieb climbed the mountain with the help of Ugandan guides, who apparently had no idea what the flag stands for and they didn’t ask.
Concluding his letter, he said: ‘If you don’t like said flag on your highest peak, I urge you to climb up and take it down.

[/QUOTE]

[Quote]Concluding his letter, he said: ‘If you don’t like said flag on your highest peak, I urge you to climb up and take it down.[/quote]

Applause!

In your face, Mr. President!

Many thanks for posting this, Brian. What a wonderful gesture Gottlieb conceived and carried out! It gave me more to smile about!

[YOUTUBE]AOOSo8P3hgI[/YOUTUBE]

This should properly go in the funny links category.

[QUOTE=chappy;372071]
This should properly go in the funny links category.[/QUOTE]

Then I'd better not respond here - eventual separation anxiety.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/christian-group-fast-gay-marriage_n_5206498.html[/url]

I don't mind the challenge of eating a little more in support of Gay Marriage.

Just when I thought my country of origin, which I left 21 years ago to live somewhere more gay-friendly, had changed out of all recognition to become one of the most LGBTI-friendly countries on the planet, I read this.

What's going on??

[URL]http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1407112.ece[/URL]

[QUOTE]THE Conservatives have scuppered plans for the Liberal Democrats to sign an EU declaration against homophobia.
In a further signal of the worsening relations between the coalition partners, the Tories blocked a plan for Jenny Willott, the Lib Dem equalities minister, to attend a summit in Malta to mark the International Day against Homophobia and Trans-phobia. The declaration would have been signed during the summit.
[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/gay-marriage-wisconsin-history_n_5462356.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592"]"Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?"[/URL]

[quote]. . .

"As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument. Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and [I]multiple[/I] women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue," Crabb [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/wisconsin-gay-marriage_n_5462121.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000017"]wrote[/URL] in her opinion.

History alone wasn't enough to justify a ban on same-sex marriage, Crabb said.

"Like moral disapproval, tradition alone proves nothing more than a state's desire to prohibit particular conduct," she wrote, citing Justice [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/13/scalia-gay-marriage-idaho_n_5319857.html"]Antonin Scalia's dissent in a 2003 sodomy case[/URL], which stated that "'preserving the traditional institution of marriage' is just a kinder way of describing the State's moral disapproval of same-sex couples."

Crabb pointed out that tradition was used as an argument to keep women from voting.

[B]. . .[/B][/quote]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;375270][URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/gay-marriage-wisconsin-history_n_5462356.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592"]"Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?"[/URL][/QUOTE]

Bravisimo!

The author Orville Lloyd Douglas has just published an article highlighting a possible problem, which I had not considered before, that black gay people may be distancing themselves from other black people when they come out and form loving relationships with others of their own gender.

Does anyone know if this is a real problem?

[URL]http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/06/06/black-gay-celebs-white-partners/[/URL]
[QUOTE]Michael Sam, Robin Roberts, Jason Collins, Tracy Chapman, Wanda Sykes, Don Lemon, Derrick Gordon are all high-profile gay African-American public figures and they all have white partners.
[...]
I believe these out black gay public figures are sending mixed messages to the black community. Does a black gay person have to be with a white person in order to obtain social acceptance?
[...][/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/oklahoma-gop-candidate-let-cities-decide-whether-to-execute-gays/article/386322[/url]

I'm afraid to voice opinion here, even in the Soapbox, for fear of ban hammer.

More on the above.

[url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/11/oklahoma_tea_party_candidate_scott_esk_supports_stoning_gay_people_to_death.html[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;375653]I'm afraid to voice opinion here, even in the Soapbox, for fear of ban hammer.[/QUOTE]
So am I.
One thing I'll say, though, is that I trust this man will be refused a visa if he ever tries to travel outside the USA.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;375674]So am I.
One thing I'll say, though, is that I trust this man will be refused a visa if he ever tries to travel outside the USA.[/QUOTE]

Why? He'll probably get an engraved invitation from Putin.

[QUOTE=jyb;375675]Why? He'll probably get an engraved invitation from Putin.[/QUOTE]
<shudder> Doesn't bear thinking about. He's worse than Scott Lively.

[QUOTE=chappy;375653][URL]http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/oklahoma-gop-candidate-let-cities-decide-whether-to-execute-gays/article/386322[/URL]

I'm afraid to voice opinion here, even in the Soapbox, for fear of ban hammer.[/QUOTE]

I think the moderators would allow expression of more extreme opinions about non-mersenneforum public persons than they would allow about mersenneforum members.

Moderators?

[QUOTE=chappy;375663]More on the above.

[URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/11/oklahoma_tea_party_candidate_scott_esk_supports_stoning_gay_people_to_death.html[/URL][/QUOTE](* sigh *)

Yeah, it would be in Oklahoma. Far-right fundamentalists have been prominent there for decades.

Oklahoma was the last part of what is now the United States to have a territorial government. Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii, though admitted to statehood after Oklahoma, each had a territorial government long before Oklahoma did. Its eastern half was used for decades in the 1800s as a place to forcibly "resettle" Native Americans, and the western half was popularly called "No Man's Land".)

This relative lack of governmental supervision (compared to any other U.S. state or territory) in the late 1800s and early 1900s was attractive to people who, for various reasons (e.g., 1. "different" believers who had been persecuted elsewhere, 2. blacks, 3. outlaws), were antipathetic to typical U.S./state/local government. They were established residents at 1907 statehood, and Oklahoma has harbored such groups for over a century. There was a KKK building in downtown Tulsa into the 1920s with its large, high "K K K" sign facing the direction of the "black" part of town.

When I was growing up there in the 1950s and '60s, there were always religious fundamentalists around -- only a minority of all religious people, but more powerful, numerous and influential than fundamentalists in many other parts of the U.S. I read of incidents where cars sporting bumper stickers that could be termed "anti-Christian", or perhaps merely supportive of non-Christian religion, had their tires slashed.

Nothing has happened to discourage fundamentalists from continuing to thrive in Oklahoma. Quite the opposite. They've always been quite vocal in advocating their beliefs and active in trying to impose those beliefs on others, and well-funded. Oklahoma is, of course, one of the three states that have rejected the new Common Core standards for education.

None of this is to say that there are no progressive people in Oklahoma, but they aren't the ones making headlines or usually prevailing at the polls.

[QUOTE]Here is the actual text of the Arizona law: [URL]http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE][QUOTE=cheesehead;368029]Though there's no reference to "gay" in the text, there's also no reference to either "skin" or "color". So, someone who has a sincerely-held religious belief that he must not serve customers who have dark skin is given protection by this bill. Do you consider that a desirable effect of this supposed "religious freedom" law?

[I]How, exactly, would anyone be kept from using this law to claim protection from being punished for, or restrained from, any sort of discrimination whatsoever, so long as that person has a sincerely-held religious belief that such sort of discrimination is a requirement of his religion?

Should it be valid for any Arizona businessperson to claim this bill's protection of his refusal to serve black (or red or yellow or brown ...) people on the grounds that his sincerely-held religious beliefs (perhaps based on certain Old Testament passages) prohibit that? If not, why is the bill written in such a way as to allow that claim?

[/I]< snip >[/QUOTE]I'm not the only one inspired to ask this sort of question:

[URL="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/right-wing-activists-yep-religious-freedom-protects-discrimination-against-jews.html"]"Right-Wing Activists: Yep, ‘Religious Freedom’ Protects Discrimination Against Jews"[/URL]

Read how folks representing organizations that want to carve out religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws squirm and wriggle when asked questions along the same lines I asked, when they employ "willful ignorance":

(with my boldface emphasis in three paragraphs)

[quote=Jay Michaelson]In two separate incidents, conservative activists have been unable to explain why their desired ability to discriminate against gays wouldn’t also apply to Jews. Then they finally admit it: there’s fundamentally no difference.

“I don’t think about—things I don’t think about.” So said William Jennings Bryan, the lawyer arguing against evolution, at the infamous Scopes “monkey trial.” The question was about Cain’s wife; the answer was about willful ignorance.

The same philosophy was on display [URL="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mat-staver-unable-explain-how-anti-gay-discrimination-different-other-forms-discrimination"]this week in Congress[/URL], when Mat Staver of the U.S. Liberty Counsel—which, like its better-known cousin the Alliance Defending Freedom, works in courts and legislatures to carve out religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws—struggled to distinguish between a wedding photographer turning away gay customers and one turning away black or Jewish ones.

“I think that’s fundamentally different,” Staver said, when asked by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who is Jewish. Why? Because “she’s not saying ‘I don’t want to go to a wedding where there are people who are gay or lesbian.’ She’s saying she doesn’t want to photograph a celebration of same-sex unions.”

Ah, so as long as gay people marry people of the opposite sex, they’re perfectly welcome. Just not when they get gay-married.

Congressman Nadler didn’t buy it. He changed his hypothetical. “Well, what about a celebration of black unions? Suppose I don’t think black people should get married—that’s my religion. Is it an imposition on my religious freedom for the government to say I can’t discriminate?” In other words: not just black people getting married, but people getting black-married.

“I think it’s fundamentally different, and I don’t think that’s the issue in that case,” Staver said without explaining why.

Nadler, knowing he had him, said, “So suppose a photographer had a religious belief that she shouldn’t photograph a Jewish wedding?”

“I think it would be something she wouldn’t object to.”

But what if she did, Nadler pressed.

“She would have an issue there—a violation potential in that case.”

Bingo. [B]What LGBT activists have been saying for years—that discrimination is discrimination—has finally been admitted. Protecting Jews from anti-Semitism is a “violation potential” of the anti-Semite’s religious freedom.[/B] The Liberty Counsel said Uncle.

The Nadler-Staver battle (Nadler 1, Staver 0) was eerily similar to a [URL="http://www.dallasvoice.com/houston-pastor-pleas-discriminate-jews-10173147.html"]hilarious but little-reported exchange[/URL] in Houston last month between City Councilwoman Ellen Cohen and the aptly-named Paster Betty Riggle of Grace Community Church.

Like Nadler, Cohen—who is also Jewish—substituted “Jewish” for “gay” and watched Riggle wriggle. The judge asked: “If somebody owns a store …. and I come in as a woman, or a senior, or a person of the Jewish faith … they have a right to refuse me business, is that what you’re saying?”

“I don’t have any problem with that. That’s not the issue,” Riggle replied. As Cohen continued, Riggle said, “They have the right … to be able to refuse service that goes against their religious belief.”

“That’s what I’m saying,” Cohen said. “So … they have a right to refuse me service.”

“Yes,” Riggle said quietly.

“So you’re saying ‘Yes,’ they do have the right to refuse me service as someone of the Jewish faith.” And here’s the best line, unedited:

“No. No, I’m not saying—Yes, I am saying that, but that is not the issue that we’re talking about.”

[B]What both of these exchanges indicate is that, indeed, there is no difference between turning the gays away and turning the Jews, blacks, seniors, or women away. There are people with religious beliefs that disfavor all those groups.[/B] Just decades ago, Southerners argued that being able to keep their schools segregated was a matter of “religious freedom.” The only difference is that some discrimination is bad, but other discrimination is good.

Of course, religiously-motivated racial discrimination used to be “good,” right up through the 1980s. One of the most notorious desegregation cases, about the Heart of Atlanta Motel, centered around a restaranteur who said his religion forbade mixed-race seating. And the evangelical Bob Jones University went all the way to the Supreme Court to defend its religiously-grounded racist policies, as recently as the Reagan administration.

Now, of course, Staver, Riggle, and the like are shocked, shocked, that anyone might want to discriminate against blacks or Jews. (Although it’s interesting that Staver refused to fold when Nadler asked about African-Americans; perhaps a Jewish wedding, unlike a “black wedding,” is really a thing, and something that someone might object to supporting.)

Ironically, these real-life slippery slopes come right on the eve of a Supreme Court case, Hobby Lobby, that court-watchers expect will ratify exactly the kind of [URL="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/08/a-victory-for-religious-freedom-is-a-loss-for-religion.html"]religiously-motivated discrimination[/URL] that these exchanges are really about. There, the context is health insurance and contraception, not gays and weddings. But the same principle should hold: if you can opt out of some laws because they offend your religious freedom, why not opt out of others?

[B]This, of course, is exactly the aim of the ‘religious liberty’ crowd. The ship may have sailed on African-Americans and Jews, but it is just leaving the harbor when it comes to LGBT people—and it is sinking fast when it comes to women’s healthcare. If people don’t have to obey the laws protecting women and gays, they aren’t really laws.
[/B]
In the meantime, look forward to more squirms and wriggles like these. To be fair, Riggle and Staver are right about one thing: there probably aren’t as many overt racists and anti-Semites out there as there are homophobes and sexists. But then again, isn’t that the point?[/quote]

And, of course, when one holds those kinds of beliefs, it affects ones advice to parents:

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/pastor-alienate-gay-kids_n_5491931.html"]"Pastor Says Parents Should 'Alienate' Gay Kids, 'Turn Them Over To Satan'"[/URL]

Thanks for both of the above posts, Richard, even if they did bump my blood pressure by 20-30.

Here's an "interesting" argument against opening marriage to same sex couples. The channel island of Jersey is under pressure to follow suit and open marriage now that England and Wales have already done so, with Scotland to follow shortly. The Jersey Evangelical Alliance has opined that the institution of marriage would be weakened if same sex couples were part of it, because:
[QUOTE]Rather than extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, redefining marriage would introduce the instabilities and infidelities commonly associated with homosexual relationships into society's understanding of marriage.[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-jersey-28047496?SThisFB[/URL]

Ah, the argument from marital norms. Just one of a number of arguments which can be found at: [url]http://www.discussingmarriage.org/[/url]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;376950]Ah, the argument from marital norms. Just one of a number of arguments which can be found at: [URL]http://www.discussingmarriage.org/[/URL][/QUOTE]
Thanks. I guess I can summarize the argument written there by the following:
If we change the definition of marriage, we might send the signal that people are free to form their relationships and families as their true nature leads them to do, instead of keeping things the way we think they ought to be.
Have I got it right?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;376958]Thanks. I guess I can summarize the argument written there by the following:
If we change the definition of marriage, we might send the signal that people are free to form their relationships and families as their true nature leads them to do, instead of keeping things the way we think they ought to be.
Have I got it right?[/QUOTE]

Not really.

From what I have gathered from your recent posts, your position is that it is (morally) wrong to deny the expression of someone's "true nature".

Their argument has nothing to do with what people morally ought or ought not to do. Rather, it has to do with encouraging social positives in a specific context. This includes encouraging permanence, exclusivity, and fidelity, all of which are social goods for the purposes of raising children. Lack of any of those traits are social negatives for raising children, regardless of any morality considerations.

So, I would change your summary to read:

If we change the definition of marriage, we send the signal that marriage is primarily about the individual--it is about people being free to form their relationships and families as their true nature leads them to do--thus losing its social purposes related to the rearing of children.

Or, as they summarized it:

[QUOTE]Just as moral belief systems inform law, laws also inform and shape public conscience, and changes to social policy can have cascading effects in terms of what the public believes to be right and good about marriage. For example, the implementation of no-fault divorce has cultivated norms of divorce and serial marriages, with tremendous costs today.

Formalizing same-sex unions as marriage will make the revisionist view of marriage the explicit policy of the state, and this will further affect crucial marriage norms permanence, exclusivity, and fidelity. It signals to the public that fathers and mothers are interchangeable, and therefore ultimately expendable. This will affect the ways in which marriage partners live out those norms. We don’t have to disapprove of same-sex relationships to understand the costs of using marriage law as the vehicle for normalizing them.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;376962]Rather, it has to do with encouraging social positives in a specific context.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. I have seen it argued that the extensive promiscuity in certain male homosexual communities (think gay bath houses) is a societal negative that can be partially mitigated through supporting homosexual marriage, providing societal support for stable long term relationship. I suppose that every change has its positives and negatives that must be weighed, and that proponents of particular views are often motivated to articulate only one side.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;376962]From what I have gathered from your recent posts, your position is that it is (morally) wrong to deny the expression of someone's "true nature".[/QUOTE]
Yes, I do indeed believe that. But I also believe that governments should do their utmost to ensure that families, especially those bringing up children, have as much support as possible in their struggle to remain stable environments. And I think policy on this issue should base itself on human nature as it is, and not on some flimsy edifice of mythology about how human nature ought to be.

[QUOTE=wblipp;376978]I have seen it argued that the extensive promiscuity in certain male homosexual communities (think gay bath houses) is a societal negative that can be partially mitigated through supporting homosexual marriage, providing societal support for stable long term relationship.[/QUOTE]
Similarly with the extensive promiscuity in certain straight communities (think brothels) that can be partially mitigated by supporting marriage in general.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;376987]Yes, I do indeed believe that. But I also believe that governments should do their utmost to ensure that families, especially those bringing up children, have as much support as possible in their struggle to remain stable environments. And I think policy on this issue should base itself on human nature as it is, and not on some flimsy edifice of mythology about how human nature ought to be.[/QUOTE]

I believe that too.

[QUOTE=wblipp;376978]Interesting. I have seen it argued that the extensive promiscuity in certain male homosexual communities (think gay bath houses) is a societal negative that can be partially mitigated through supporting homosexual marriage, providing societal support for stable long term relationship. I suppose that every change has its positives and negatives that must be weighed, and that proponents of particular views are often motivated to articulate only one side.[/QUOTE]

True. Even "no-fault divorce" has its positives.

A federal judge has demolished the arguments of the lawyers acting for the governor of the state of Kentucky in a particularly withering fashion, striking down the state's ban on same sex marriage (though staying his ruling).

[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/01/same-sex-marriage-kentucky/11903703/[/URL]

[QUOTE]In Tuesday's ruling in favor of two Louisville couples, [Judge] Heyburn rejected the only justification that lawyers for Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear had offered — that traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate and the state's long-term economic stability.
"These arguments are not those of serious people," he said.
[/QUOTE]Needless to say, I agree with the judge, but I'm also quite surprised by the ridiculing tone of his judgment.

Does anyone here think that the Kentucky lawyers' argument that same sex marriage threatens the birth rate in the state has any merit?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;377476]
Does anyone here think that the Kentucky lawyers' argument that same sex marriage threatens the birth rate in the state has any merit?[/QUOTE]

Merit? maybe. I would guess expanding equal rights to another 3-10% of the population would be a rather small part of the reasons for a declining birthrate. Especially given the fact that most of the people we are talking about probably aren't going to have children, they just aren't going to be married.

It's also unclear whether a declining birthrate is a bad thing. We aren't in the position of needing Kindergeld anywhere in the US as far as I know.

We have a slightly below stable birthrate at the moment. That's not a bad thing, in my opinion.

It's hard to see any justification in the economic argument. Does this state lawyer make the claim that gay people don't contribute to the economy? Or that suddenly having gay marriage will cause a drop in economic growth? I'll have to look this up later when I'm less drunk.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;377476]Needless to say, I agree with the judge, but I'm also quite surprised by the ridiculing tone of his judgment.[/QUOTE]Perhaps if this had been only the first or second time that same-sex marriage opponents had introduced such an argument into a federal court case, the judge would have simply delivered a even-toned judgement. But this argument had already been introduced -- and failed -- in many other federal cases.

Judges tire of plaintiffs who raise unfounded legal arguments that have already been repeatedly refuted in similar cases, and try to discourage future plaintiffs and their attorneys from raising the same refuted arguments in future cases. Judges don't like cases with no merit that clog their court schedules.

[quote]Does anyone here think that the Kentucky lawyers' argument that same sex marriage threatens the birth rate in the state has any merit?[/quote](* snort *) It's already been repeatedly refuted in other federal courts.

Here is an interview with Yvette Cantu Schneider who was active in the Ex-Gay movement for 14 years, campaigning against recognition and equality for LGBT people, but is now the latest in a series of such figures to apologise for her previous activism and renounce it. It is quite a lengthy interview, but also suitable for "dipping in" rather than necessarily reading from start to finish, because it was conducted over an extended period, partly on social media. I find it a fascinating insight into the workings of conservative Christian groups in the USA from a former insider.

[URL]https://www.glaad.org/blog/qa-former-ex-gay-activist-yvette-schneider-i%E2%80%99ve-never-met-ex-gay-man-i-thought-was-not-still[/URL]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;379351]Here is an interview with Yvette Cantu Schneider who was active in the Ex-Gay movement for 14 years, campaigning against recognition and equality for LGBT people, but is now the latest in a series of such figures to apologise for her previous activism and renounce it. It is quite a lengthy interview, but also suitable for "dipping in" rather than necessarily reading from start to finish, because it was conducted over an extended period, partly on social media. I find it a fascinating insight into the workings of conservative Christian groups in the USA from a former insider.[/QUOTE]

Care to give the "Reader's Digest" version?

Please explain why we should care.

[QUOTE=chalsall;379361]Care to give the "Reader's Digest" version?

Please explain why we should care.[/QUOTE]
You don't have to care, of course.:smile:

I recommended "dipping in" rather than reading from start to finish, and that gives a good impression with this particular interview.

But the reason I care about the slow demise of the "ex-gay" movement is that it is horrifyingly damaging to many people. The movement basically asserts that homosexuality is "curable", and that people who are lesbian or gay can, and should, go into "therapy" which will enable them to love someone of the opposite sex and form a traditional mum, dad, kids family. The "science" behind it is bogus, discredited, and it survives mostly by feeding off religious beliefs. It is not only bogus though: it is destructive. Devastating. Both to the "ex-gay" people it purports to "cure", and of course to their subsequent opposite sex partners and families. The destruction rears its head in the subsequent years when the man or woman concerned starts to realise that the "cure" has not worked.

Even worse than the above scenario is when a young person, a teenager for example, is referred to this "therapy" by his or her parents (rather than taking their own initiative). The psychological damage which can be caused is horrifying.

In recent years we have seen several high profile people in the ex-gay movement realising themselves that they are still lesbian or gay. John Paulk was a high profile example: he was the pin-up boy of the movement for a number of years, wrote books about it with his wife Anne (who is also "ex-gay"), then suffered an incident in which he was spotted in a gay bar, and then some years after that "came out" as "ex-ex-gay", divorcing his wife and apologising for all the damage he had caused. (His ex-wife continues with her ex-gay campaigning nevertheless.) A more recent, just as high-profile, case was Alan Chambers who was the CEO of Exodus, one of the main ex-gay organisations. He disbanded his company saying that "gay cure therapy" doesn't work.

Now we have Yvette Schneider. She came out as a lesbian in 1987, became "ex-gay" in later years and was prominent in all sorts of anti-gay campaigning in past years, but has now denounced what she stood for. Her interview is the one I linked to and I find it very revealing of the circles in which she moved and how they operate.

All of this does the damage to the "ex-gay" movement which I believe it deserves. And that's why I care.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;379368]And that's why I care.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for sharing. Sincerely.

To share, my ex-wife claimed she was a lesbian before our wedding. But she never brought a woman (or even a man) back home.

Can you say "Bait and Switch" boys and girls?

[QUOTE=chalsall;379372]To share, my ex-wife claimed she was a lesbian before our wedding. But she never brought a woman (or even a man) back home.

Can you say "Bait and Switch" boys and girls?[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't put it like that.:smile:

I can say "bisexual" though. Also "sexual nebulosity". Neither necessarily to be applied to your ex though: you know much better about that, and she probably even better still.

Here's another interview. This time with someone, Julie Bindel, whose views on the subject I thoroughly disagree with. She thinks homosexuality is a choice (a related topic to gay "curing" in that it is also seized upon by people who don't let LGBT people be the people who they are). In short: Bindel feels she chose to be a lesbian back in the 1970s (I don't have a problem with that) and that *therefore* everyone can choose to be gay or straight (here I break camp with her pretty emphatically).
[URL]http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/is-sexual-orientation-a-choice-9582897.html[/URL]

Changing attitudes
 

Randy Thomas, who was formerly an "ex-gay" activist [URL="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/09/03/former-ex-gay-activist-im-glad-that-courts-are-striking-down-marriage-bans/"]according to pinknews.co.uk[/URL], has written an interesting blog post welcoming the recent spate of judgments in the USA striking down same sex marriage bans and apologising for his former role in trying to promote those bans, for example California's Proposition 8.

[URL]http://randy.today/gay-marriage/[/URL]
[QUOTE]When it comes to gay marriage as a public policy issue, I was once very outspoken on the topic. From the 2003 to 2008 I lobbied for marriage amendments in Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, California, and on other national media platforms (interviews.) I went to Washington DC more than a few times and lobbied for the Federal Marriage Amendment on Capitol Hill. I also visited the Bush White House a couple of times and sat [URL="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11442710/ns/politics/t/bush-urges-federal-marriage-amendment/#.VAXUoktHIdI"]20 feet away from when President Bush made a statement[/URL] in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
[...]
The night that Prop 8 in California and Amendment 2 in Florida (both banning gay marriage) passed I was jubilant. I truly believed what we had done was right and good. In the following days, and for a while afterwards, I repeated the talking points I had willingly adopted. I [I]truly[/I] believed what I was saying. What I didn’t make widely known was how heart-broken I was when I saw the gay community in California take to the streets. Their protests that night and in the days afterwards tugged at me. When I saw their grief-stricken faces my heart twisted in my chest. It was the first time in a long time I remember thinking, “did we do something wrong?” I quickly shoved that thought out of my mind as I joined my fellow religious activists celebrating the marriage “wins.”
[...]
The part that breaks my heart, is that the night that Prop 8 (and other marriage bans) passed, we made it very clear to the gay community that policy was more important than they are. We made it clear that we thought that investing in rules was more important than sacrificially serving in honest relationship. We communicated that we valued the letter of the law more than the authentic expression of grace in the context of humbly living our lives and loving our neighbor. The message we sent was deeply damaging to our relationships with our gay neighbors and family members.
[I]For my part in this, I deeply apologize.[/I]
[...]
[/QUOTE]When strong campaigners reverse their stance on an issue, it seems very significant to me.

The speedy change in attitudes in the USA and elsewhere on the issue discussed in this long-running, epic thread has astounded me in recent years. Living as I do in the country which was the first (in 2001) to break the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples, I was helped in my own change in attitude on the issue by my location. I probably first started to believe that marriage between two people of the same sex was not a ludicrous concept in around 1995. If I had lived elsewhere, I believe my personal change in attitude would have occurred later.

And now I'm interested to hear if anyone here has changed their opinion during recent years too. If so, what has caused this change of opinion for you personally?

[url]http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/catholic_league_gays_can_t_keep_their_pants_on_may_masturbate_in_st_pat_s_parade[/url]


Okay, what is this world coming to when a man can't get pissed and then drop trou and jerk off on St. Pats?

I should point out that I live in the Irish neighborhood in St. Louis and we take our drunken celebrations seriously round here.

[QUOTE=chappy;382257][URL]http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/catholic_league_gays_can_t_keep_their_pants_on_may_masturbate_in_st_pat_s_parade[/URL]


Okay, what is this world coming to when a man can't get pissed and then drop trou and jerk off on St. Pats?

I should point out that I live in the Irish neighborhood in St. Louis and we take our drunken celebrations seriously round here.[/QUOTE]
*Grin*

I'm quite glad to hear he intends to keep his pants on.

Anyway, these days I personally take lectures about sexual morality from senior Catholic figures with some contempt.

To be fair he has exactly no standing in the Catholic church hierarchy. He's just a dude who says bigoted things that speak to a percentage of mostly older and very conservative Catholics (and other like minded people).

It gives the church plausible deniability. Honestly though, there's a lot of tension between this twit and the actual church leaders (outside of New York City)--though my dealings with the laity show that they often don't realize that.

[QUOTE=chappy;382317]To be fair he has exactly no standing in the Catholic church hierarchy. He's just a dude who says bigoted things that speak to a percentage of mostly older and very conservative Catholics (and other like minded people).

It gives the church plausible deniability. Honestly though, there's a lot of tension between this twit and the actual church leaders (outside of New York City)--though my dealings with the laity show that they often don't realize that.[/QUOTE]
Thanks. I should be more careful about implicating an entire religion in what one person who identifies with it says. The precedent of doing that with other religions, tarring people with the same brush, is very damaging: currently, identifying Judaism with the Israeli government's actions, or Islam with terrorists, spring to mind.

[url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/09/05/judge_richard_posner_s_gay_marriage_opinion_is_witty_moral_and_brilliant.html[/url]

still working my way through all the extra material packed into this one article, but even so it's a worthwhile read/listen.

[QUOTE=chappy;382325][URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/09/05/judge_richard_posner_s_gay_marriage_opinion_is_witty_moral_and_brilliant.html[/URL]

still working my way through all the extra material packed into this one article, but even so it's a worthwhile read/listen.[/QUOTE]

OMG! Just one link from original article, with many nested. The exchanges are hilarious, as Judge Posner mildly probes irrationality.
[url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/08/27/listen_to_judge_richard_posner_destroy_arguments_against_gay_marriage.html[/url]

Here's a report of a very special wedding. We have a female couple, aged 91 and 90, who have been together for [U]72 years[/U] and have just now married because they finally can.

Can [U]anyone[/U] find it in themselves to object to this wedding?

[URL]http://qctimes.com/news/local/wedding-vows-open-new-chapter-in--year-relationship/article_e350e94e-4eb4-551b-ad6a-d84092f7ec3f.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;382484]
Can [U]anyone[/U] find it in themselves to object to this wedding?[/QUOTE]Last Wednesday I had a meal with my brother and another man who is estranged from his gay son. The topic came around to gay marriage. I said that in business, people can shop around for the best partnerships possible without restriction and asked why domestic contracts are different.

Of course then they both brought up the frequently touted goals of marriage: family, procreation, nurturing, etc. So, some people are going always going to find a deficiency in some aspect or other, and then object. The fact that they don't object to the same deficiencies in some traditional marriages is hypocritical IMO.

I then suggested that society could offer incentives rather than restrictions to achieve general goals but my brother feels that there is no distinction between incentives and restrictions. In any case I don't like separate treatment.

I like the commitment of marriage, and like when two people who care for each other can get married. The fact that these two can now do so is nice. Some people will always object though. Interracial marriage, for example, might have been illegal for much longer if the law was only informed by popular majority.

I wish I'd been present to hear you argue with the two of them, Ross.:smile:

The current situation whereby some states of the USA will not recognise same sex marriages performed in other states, has led to some unexpected and horrifying red tape for a woman in Texas who legally took her wife's name when she married her in California. When she applied to renew her driving licence, she discovered that the Department of Public Safety in Texas will not recognise her legal name.

[URL]http://www.texasobserver.org/same-sex-marriage-drivers-license-dps/[/URL]

[QUOTE][Connie] Wilson said the DPS employee, who turned out to be a supervisor, suggested that she should apply for a driver’s license using her maiden name. However, Wilson said she lacks the necessary documentation to do so.
The DPS supervisor later told her she could apply for a Texas license if she obtains an order from a state court changing her name to Wilson. But Wilson said obtaining such an order would cost at least $500 and there’s no guarantee the petition would be successful.
“My name is already legally Wilson,” she said. “I don’t know if a judge will even grant me a name change from Wilson to Wilson.”
[...]
Among other things, Wilson said the pending expiration of her California license has threatened her family’s ability to close on a house in Texas. It could also jeopardize the couple’s ability to obtain disability benefits for one of their children, who has both autism and Down syndrome.
“I still can’t believe I’m being met with all the roadblocks that I am,” Wilson said. “For the first time in my life, I in a minuscule way know what it feels like for a person who is undocumented, how terrifying it must be to function in day-to-day life. It terrifies me—I’m a U.S. citizen—the fact that I can’t get something that I’ve had all my life, that I assume is my right. My right was taken away.”
[/QUOTE]

Then there are the gradual improvements in flexibility and recognition like this one:[QUOTE]Share content with your family
[I]Coming soon[/I]—With Family Library, link your Amazon account to that of your spouse [B]or partner[/B] so you can easily share apps, games, audiobooks, books, and Prime Instant Video content without changing accounts[/QUOTE]my bold

[QUOTE=only_human;383649]my bold[/QUOTE]
Well, isn't Amazon being inclusive here! Now, I wonder how quickly the "pro-family" groups will get their acts together on this one and protest about people who live together in sin being allowed to read each other's books.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;383652]Well, isn't Amazon being inclusive here! Now, I wonder how quickly the "pro-family" groups will get their acts together on this one and protest about people who live together in sin being allowed to read each other's books.[/QUOTE]I think this one is going to stay without much blowback. Apple is doing it too:[QUOTE]Apple included a similar feature -- it's called Family Sharing -- in iOS 8, the latest version of its mobile operating system, which became available for download on Wednesday. Apple lets you share music, books and other content with up to six people. Amazon's Family Library only allows for two adults and four kids. (Amazon has kid-specific accounts.)[/QUOTE][url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/amazon-kindle-family-library_n_5838490.html[/url]

[url]http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/catholic_high_school_coach_fired_for_his_role_in_beating_of_philadelphia_gay_couple[/url]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;383681][URL]http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/catholic_high_school_coach_fired_for_his_role_in_beating_of_philadelphia_gay_couple[/URL][/QUOTE]

Gee! They sure learned their Loving Christian Lessons well at that Catholic High School. Nice that the coach got fired. It would be nicer if similar repercussions could fall on the rest of these cowards.

The pastor of a Louisiana Baptist Church has told an Alcoholics Anonymous group that they can no longer meet in his church because of same sex marriage. He is clamping down on the use of his church by outside groups because he does not want to be forced to "accommodate the homosexual and lesbian community". His argument is interesting when you consider that (1) Louisiana has no same sex marriage, (2) Louisiana does not even have any legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or identity, and (3) even in areas where marriage is equal, no church is ever forced to conduct same sex weddings.

[URL]http://www.kpho.com/story/26622287/church-boots-aa-group-over-gay-weddings[/URL]

[QUOTE]KEITHVILLE, LA (KSLA) - A local Alcoholics Anonymous group will have to find another place to meet, after the church told them they are no longer welcome because they don't want to be forced to accommodate homosexual weddings.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;384044]The pastor of a Louisiana Baptist Church has told an Alcoholics Anonymous group that they can no longer meet in his church because of same sex marriage. He is clamping down on the use of his church by outside groups because he does not want to be forced to "accommodate the homosexual and lesbian community". His argument is interesting when you consider that (1) Louisiana has no same sex marriage, (2) Louisiana does not even have any legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or identity, and (3) even in areas where marriage is equal, no church is ever forced to conduct same sex weddings.

[URL]http://www.kpho.com/story/26622287/church-boots-aa-group-over-gay-weddings[/URL][/QUOTE]

Never imagine you've heard the craziest thing ever. There's always something wilder lurking. Churches, and other non-profits, often depend on facility rentals to help pay the bills. This seems like a case of blowing one's foot clean off with a shotgun. :loco:

[url]http://xkcd.com/1431/#[/url]

[url]http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/06/voters-31-states-favor-same-sex-marriage/[/url]

It seems that not everyone in the Republican party who has been engaged in campaigning against equal marriage has managed to think out their arguments for themselves. Here's someone whose speech in 2012 against New Hampshire's equal marriage law has just been shown to have been plagiarised from a previous editorial in the National Review.
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/marilinda-garcia-plagiarism_n_6035420.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]Marilinda Garcia, a Republican U.S. House candidate from New Hampshire, plagiarized portions of [URL="http://youtu.be/4ZqDnPFPB6E"]a 2012 speech[/URL] she gave against same-sex marriage, according to an analysis by the left-leaning group Granite State Progress.
[...]
Zandra Rice Hawkins, executive director of Granite State Progress, said the plagiarism is evidence that Garcia simply parrots right-wing talking points, rather than thinking for herself.
"Marilinda Garcia is a Koch-funded and scripted candidate who sticks closely to the talking points provided by her big dollar donors. On the occasions she has had to speak in more detail about her own record and positions, she has struggled. Now we learn that she plagiarized major sections of a speech she gave on the House floor. We cannot be certain this was the only time Garcia has taken someone else's work and passed it off as her own," she said.
Garcia's campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
[/QUOTE]

Could gays be legally marred? Not for too much longer.
Same-sex-marriage for the nation has become inevitable.

Gay Baiting FAXes show up in KS for Brownback
 

[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/25/1339069/-Gay-Baiting-FAXes-show-up-in-KS-for-Brownback-Showing-Conservatives-Haven-t-Left-the-80s[/url]

[QUOTE]In an apparent effort to encourage the anti-gay vote, this Fax began appearing around Kansas City and throughout the state and was posted to Reddit. I've since been able to confirm the fax was received in places like Wichita, Kansas City, Topeka.
This, however, may be in part because well, people gave up fax machines* years ago.
[/QUOTE]

*The above is not entirely true. The author does acknowledge that there are still some uses, such as sending hate literature, it seems.

[QUOTE=kladner;386200][...]such as sending hate literature, it seems.[/QUOTE]
I can't describe the fax in any other terms than hate literature either. I find it really disturbing, but then I guess I've been pretty sheltered from hate here in The Netherlands for the last 21 years and it's easy lose sight of the sheer bigotry you can encounter elsewhere in the world.

One part of the fax which I simply cannot place is the following:

[QUOTE]UNDERSTAND THE MOVEMENT THAT HAS BEEN LANDSCAPED UNDER FALSE PRETENSES
The Homosexual Declaration of War, read in the CA House of Representatives on July 27 1987
It reads, 'we will sodomize your children. All churches who condemn us will be closed. The family unit eliminated. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust, will be automatically barred from any position of influence.'
[/QUOTE]What is this? Anyone?? I googled "Homosexual Declaration of War" and found nothing relevant. Are the authors of the fax ("we the children") simply telling ludicrous lies here?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;386241]One part of the fax which I simply cannot place is the following:[quote]UNDERSTAND THE MOVEMENT THAT HAS BEEN LANDSCAPED UNDER FALSE PRETENSES
The Homosexual Declaration of War, read in the CA House of Representatives on July 27 1987
It reads, 'we will sodomize your children. All churches who condemn us will be closed. The family unit eliminated. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust, will be automatically barred from any position of influence.' [/quote]What is this? Anyone?? I googled "Homosexual Declaration of War" and found nothing relevant. Are the authors of the fax ("we the children") simply telling ludicrous lies here?[/QUOTE]Down in the comments there is a [URL="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.asp"]link[/URL] that explains where the passge originated.[quote]In 1987, Michael Swift was asked to contribute an editorial piece to GCN, an important gay community magazine, although well to the left of most American gay and lesbian opinion. A decade later this text, printed in the Congressional Record is repeatedly cited, apparently verbatim, by the religious right as evidence of the "Gay Agenda".[/quote]

[QUOTE=schickel;386248]Down in the comments there is a [URL="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.asp"]link[/URL] that explains where the passge originated.[/QUOTE]
Ahah, that explains it. The text of the passage looks satirical to me. I suppose this shows up the dangers of writing satire, namely that your opponents can quote it forever afterwards pretending that you meant it literally. Thanks for finding this.:smile:

[QUOTE=Brian-E;386249]Ahah, that explains it. The text of the passage looks satirical to me. I suppose this shows up the dangers of writing satire, namely that your opponents can quote it forever afterwards pretending that you meant it literally. Thanks for finding this.:smile:[/QUOTE]

It also seemed like satire to me- but satire born of frustration.

My favourite comment this week was posted by someone called "cantake8" in the comments section of [URL="http://pinknews.co.uk/2014/10/30/apple-ceo-tim-cook-i-am-proud-to-be-gay/"]this article[/URL], concerning the recent public personal revelations of the CEO of Apple:

[QUOTE="cantake8"]Looks like One Million Moms and other right wing hate groups will have to throw out their Apple computers, phones, iPads and iPods.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29947000"]Gay marriage bans upheld in four states[/URL]

[QUOTE=xilman;387094][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29947000"]Gay marriage bans upheld in four states[/URL][/QUOTE]

While this likely does mean the issue will go to the Supreme Court, there is still a chance that an en banc hearing would reverse the panel ruling.

Paths to same-sex marriage review

[url]http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/analysis-paths-to-same-sex-marriage-review/[/url]

Courts do predictable things. The equality issue will keep coming up at the circuit court level ad nauseum until it finally gets to the supreme court. So the circuit courts sometimes deliberately give an adverse ruling for the explicit but unstated purpose of forcing it up to the supreme court. This has the hallmarks of being such a case. A deliberate split at the circuit court level to knock it down so they don't have to keep hearing it one state at a time at the circuit level.

While there may be reasonable practical grounds for the lower courts to decline to overturn the marriage ban in some states so that the supreme court will be involved, the governor of at least one of the four states to have upheld the marriage ban is acting spitefully and outrageously in my opinion.

Rick Snyder, Republican governor of Michigan, has [URL="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/15/us-governor-of-michigan-voids-300-same-sex-marriages-claims-they-never-existed/"]voided the marriages[/URL] of more than 300 couples who married during the period when same sex marriage was available in their state.

That's right, 300 couples who joyfully joined in matrimony and celebrated their commitment to each other in front of their families and friends in what would normally be the happiest day of their lives have just been informed that their marriages are now void and that they are not married to each other.

If I recall correctly, the people who married in California in 2008, before Proposition 8 was passed stopping any more same sex marriages in that state, remained married. In fact I can't recall any instance before of any state actually turning back people's marriages when they had already legally married. Am I wrong? Does anyone have any good word for the recent legal actions of the governor of Michigan?

Many evil things can be said of Snyder. I am hard put to come up with anything positive. He has acted in clear disregard of the will of the citizenry, especially on the Emergency Manager law. This was passed once, and taken down by referendum. It was then rammed through again, with a caveat which made it immune to referendum. It has since been used to sideline elected local officials, and to sell off public assets, such as parks, to corporate interests.

While progress on legal rights for same sex couples and for LGBT people in general seems to be advancing fast in much of the Western world now, progress on some aspects of acceptance amongst the general public may be lagging behind, in the USA at least. A study conducted at Indiana University has shown much less acceptance of public displays of affection by same sex couples than acceptance of equal legal rights for those couples.

[url]http://www.idsnews.com/article/2014/11/heterosexuals-support-legal-rights-of-same-sex-couples-not-pda[/url]

[QUOTE]“Support for legal benefits for gays and lesbians should not be conflated with favorable attitudes toward same-sex couples in general,” [study author Long] Doan said in the release. “We come to the conclusion that although heterosexuals may be increasingly willing to grant legal benefits to gay and lesbian couples, entrenched prejudice that takes on subtler forms may remain.”
[/QUOTE]

Of course. I consider myself fairly open-minded and I still am less comfortable with gay public displays of affection. Some things are visceral and bypass whatever enlightenment we try to possess especially when exposed to things that vary from upbringing. Quite some time back I was watching the movie Death Trap in a theater at the plot twist where Michael Caine kissed Christopher Reeve. Someone shouted out "not Superman!" and there was a general murmur of agreement.

[QUOTE=only_human;388192]Of course. I consider myself fairly open-minded and I still am less comfortable with gay public displays of affection. Some things are visceral and bypass whatever enlightenment we try to possess especially when exposed to things that vary from upbringing. Quite some time back I was watching the movie Death Trap in a theater at the plot twist where Michael Caine kissed Christopher Reeve. Someone shouted out "not Superman!" and there was a general murmur of agreement.[/QUOTE]
You're right, it isn't at all surprising. Actually I find your frank admission of your own difficulty with public displays of affection between two men or two women truly admirable (when your open-mindedness and humanitarian attitudes are so well known here). Saying what you say is a bit like admitting to ourselves (let alone to others!) that we are racist. We have to do it, though, because if we don't we can never succeed in tackling our attitudes properly.

Uh.....no offense intended, but is hand holding over the line? I too respect your humanitarian credentials, and your openness. The question is not meant literally. I agree that sloppy, lascivious, public displays which involve inter-(intra?)-mucosal contact are in poor taste, regardless of the relative genders of the participants.

But where is the line of discomfort in terms of Public Displays of Affection?

[QUOTE=kladner;388208]Uh.....no offense intended, but is hand holding over the line?[/QUOTE]Hand holding is great. I think people should do more of it. It displays a connection is not lascivious or anything that even a child should be unprepared to witness. In her later years my sweetheart could not walk well and always held my hand. I loved that continual contact and awareness.

[QUOTE=kladner;388208]But where is the line of discomfort in terms of Public Displays of Affection?[/QUOTE]
Context is a key factor, of course. An obvious situation that comes to mind is at a busy railway station or an airport. When one partner is going away for an extended period or returning from a long absence, our basic human instincts make us want to hug and kiss our loved one. The longer the absence will be or was, the more intensely we will want to do this.

Both you and I have plenty of first-hand experience of the double standards at work here concerning what we are safe doing and what opposite sex couples can and will do without any qualms.