Federal Judge rules Utah's ban on gay marrage illegal. Internet about to explode

[bhsup]

Don't be so hard on him for accidentally saying liberal instead of radical leftist extremist. It's an easy mistake to make.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm sure by your own definition that would include anybody who merely lived in an area where they were not allowed to possess handguns, and who were required to keep all firearms unloaded and locked up when not in use.

But that doesn't change the fact that liberals have no real political power in this country. That this is even true in the most liberal non-state in the US.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

What better definition is there than the people who consider themselves to be so?

You mean they have a slightly more liberal population than other areas? That is indeed quite likely true, which is also generally true of any higher density population areas.

But you have no real proof that they defy the odds in such a manner? That instead of having say 30%, for the sake of argument, who are liberals that they actually have far more than 50%? That the only fact you can provide to support this is that they vote Democrat, a group which is also predominately moderates and conservatives?

If a city votes 90% Democrat, and never votes Republican, and the most a GOP Presidential candidate has received is 22% (Nixon, 1972), I think the majority of the Democrats there are not moderates or conservatives. I've been to DC many times, my great-grandmother was one of the few DC Republicans. Every other person I knew there was liberal.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, that just means the vast majority are Democrats. I would agree.

But you can't just conflate Democrats for liberals. Take Obama, for instance.

 

[downtown]

Well, I think we've officially run out of things to argue about.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is just a shame that nobody who is in favor to DOMA and opposed to the Utah decision has come forward, even though there are numerous people in the forum who think so.

 

[Borachio]

Well, I think we've officially run out of things to argue about.

I think that's as good a place as any to start arguing again.

I don't think you've run out of things to argue about. Officially or not.

:winkysmilie:

 

[bhsup]

It is just a shame that nobody who is in favor to DOMA and opposed to the Utah decision has come forward, even though there are numerous people in the forum who think so.

Why should they? So they can be falsely labeled homophobes and be virtually tarred and feathered for daring to have an opinion that differs from yours?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I haven't "labeled" anybody in this forum a homophobe. Now have I? Can you think of anybody else who has?

But once again, regarding how supposedly bereft of homophobia this topic is "falsely" alleged to be:

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

State-sponsored homophobia includes the criminalization and penalization of homosexuality, hate speech from government figures, and other forms of discrimination, violence, persecution of LGBT people.[37]

Why are you apparently frequently engaging in homophobia denial? Why does it upset you so much that the word is used in discussions regarding the deliberate exclusion of gays from the very same laws which protect the rest of us from discrimination?

After all, the word wasn't even used in this thread until you just used it.

 

[Borachio]

Is there something wrong with homophobia, then?

If you're frightened of something, well... you're frightened of it. Where's the shame in that?

People who are homophobic are very often homosexuals who are in denial about their sexuality, aren't they?

Isn't that how the narrative goes? Or have I got it wrong? (Again.)

 

[Evie]

It's not the label that mark people as deserving tarring and feathered. It's more the whole "witholding right from people who are not causing any harm because religion/tradition says it's icky" part. Call it whatever you will, it's still deserved.

I mean, sure, it's their opinion, and they're entitled to it, and to expressing it in any non-violent way they'd like. Shouldn't be taken away from them.

But the tricky thing about freedom of opinions, though, which people (usually rightists trying to whine about how the evil lefties are not respecting their freedoms) on the internet keep forgetting?

It cuts both ways. I'm just as entitled to the opinion that opposing gay rights is disgusting as they're entitled to their opinion that gay rights should be opposed. I'm just as entitled to express my opinion by shunning and tarring and feathering those who oppose gay rights, as they're entitled to expressing their opinion by voting in politicians who want to deny gay their rights.

 

[W|M]

I think Form is a bot created by a crazy Democrat after Bush won the 2000 election to make liberal arguments in any situation possible.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean like being in favor of handgun ownership? Or supporting and defending the rights of KKK members and neo-Nazis?

Besides I am far more libertarian/anarchistic, instead of authoritarian, in comparison to being a liberal or a conservative. I think this is what confuses many regarding my views.

 

[Farm Boy]

as they're entitled to expressing their opinion by voting in politicians who want to deny gay their rights.

Which is why we have courts to overturn the petty views of the (sometimes) majority when they seek to enact bigotry as statute. At least in theory, no?

 

[Evie]

Within limits. They can only form a safeguard within the boundaries of current constitutional interpretation, which often fall short of actually protecting people from bigoted, abusive statutes.

Witess how separate but equal and miscegenation laws were granted SCOTUS's blessing for a long time before finally being overturned. And before that, there was Dredd...

 

[Farm Boy]

Indeed, I was more speaking to the vague irony that the courts are often the first branch of government willing to actually fight for the expansion of rights precisely because it's the branch that is the least responsive to democracy, and thus the most insulated from a bigoted majority.

 

[de Maistre]

It is just a shame that nobody who is in favor to DOMA and opposed to the Utah decision has come forward, even though there are numerous people in the forum who think so.

Not being able to rub conservatives' noses in it really robs every last drop of joy out of this event.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Indeed, I was more speaking to the vague irony that the courts are often the first branch of government willing to actually fight for the expansion of rights precisely because it's the branch that is the least responsive to democracy, and thus the most insulated from a bigoted majority.

It isn't so much a willingness on their part though. It seems more due to happenstance than anything else a great deal of the time. After all, their job is to interpret existing law based on particular legal cases, not to socially engineer a newer, brighter America.

And you could certainly make a case that the current Supreme Court is itself more bigoted now than it has been in recent history.

Not being able to rub conservatives' noses in it really robs every last drop of joy out of this event.

Fortunately, that doesn't seem to typically dissuade them.

 

[Evie]

I don't know. The fact that they have essentially given up on arguing about it is a victory all in itself.

 

[GenMarshall]

Why are you apparently frequently engaging in homophobia denial? Why does it upset you so much that the word is used in discussions regarding the deliberate exclusion of gays from the very same laws which protect the rest of us from discrimination

Is there something wrong with homophobia, then?

The word itself has fallen to usage as a pejorative term for people. Much like calling people fascist, tolls, and a mirrid of other insulting titles to someone that the person does not agree with the other person's viewpoints.