Warren on Gay Marriage

[Politesse]

As far as I can remember, there was no talk of gay marriage in the 80's by anyone.

The Libertarian Party has supported same-sex marriage since it was founded in 1971.

This is true.

 

[Toni]

As far as I can remember, there was no talk of gay marriage in the 80's by anyone.

The Libertarian Party has supported same-sex marriage since it was founded in 1971.

This is true.

Stopped clocks and all of that.

 

[Politesse]

This is true.

Stopped clocks and all of that.

Well, it ought to be a bloody embarrassment to the DNC that they don't now have such a record to look back on.

 

[Toni]

This is true.

Stopped clocks and all of that.

Well, it ought to be a bloody embarrassment to the DNC that they don't now have such a record to look back on.

I don't disagree but I am extremely cognizant of just how far gay rights have come over the last 30-40 years. Really, in the last 5-10. I realize that it is excruciatingly slow but compared to other Civil Rights issues, the change has been lightening fast.

I'm also cognizant of how difficult and in fact, how destabilizing a lot of social change in a relatively short period of time can be. Look at the rise of fundamentalism in Christianity and in Islam.

Please don't misunderstand me: I am completely thrilled that LGBTQ rights are now being put into place and think it should never have ever been a question of whether it should happen: it should have always been.

Just as it should have always been that women had equal rights as men and that black people and Native Americans should have always been treated as fully human beings with equal rights, as should any other American no matter the color of their skin or the origins of their ancestors, and Japanese Americans should never have been interred and Chinese workers should have been treated as fully human beings instead of semihuman machines to build railroads.

 

[fromderinside]

Christians tried to end the AIDS epidemic in the 80's by speaking out against gay people fornicating.

Great idea. Except they failed.

Remember how Christian did the same by teaching girls to save themselves until marriage. Still pregnancies in HS stayed at 10% of graduating class. Well, until along came the pill and HS pregnancies dropped below one percent. Then Christian suggested prayer and church to stop pregnancies because the pill didn't fit their idea of birth control. And in christian schools pregnancies went up to 10% again. Then when 'bad' girls were expelled church membership began it's long decline.

Is that the what you are promoting for aids?

If so you've got a problem because gays without drug protection will continue to get aids at essentially the same rate. It's only now when aid prevention meds are getting to the point where they can prevent the disease that the rate of aids infections goes down. And still churches would rather throw out those who are gay than give in or admit they don't know shit about the causes of most human behavior.

The problem is you are suggesting a solution from those who worship a fictional faerie and tries impose rules on behavior that were wrong 4000 years ago.

By the way stupid leftists are more likely christians than liberal or sensitive to empirical method and results. A lot of my humanist friends are right leaning.

 

[Lion IRC]

Christians tried to end the AIDS epidemic in the 80's by speaking out against gay people fornicating. Leftists pushed and pushed for normalcy and AIDS increased and well....here we are.

But, it's the Christians who didn't care about AIDS. Yep, sure.

Leftists: How do we stop AIDS from spreading?
Christians: Teach gay men not to fornicate.
Leftists: Bigot!
Christians: But, AIDS will increase if they keep fornicating. We don't want it to increase.
Leftists: Bigot!
Christians: We give up.
Leftists: OMG, why are AIDS out of control now?!?!

When did "Christians" do anything substantive to combat the AIDS crisis? I remember them pointing fingers and assigning blame, that's not the same as addressing it.

Monogamy is what Christianity was proposing as the solution. Not homophobia.

 

[Lion IRC]

You're quick to label me a fascist but I'm not the one advocating you pay higher taxes to fund my "ought statement" ideologies. Abortion 'ought' to be taxpayer funded. Carbon 'ought' to be taxed so that Elon Musk can get even richer.

First, carbon ought to be priced since emitters are damaging a resource (our climate) with their pollution and a higher price will mean less emissions.

Define..."priced", "emitters", "damaging", "resource", "their", "pollution".... oh, I give up.
You know what? How about you justify your ought statement in terms worthy of my attention.

And if someone wishes to avoid paying the tax, they simply do not have to emit.

Or...they could just drive their tractors to downtown Paris and say no, we aren't paying YOUR tax.

Second, people like you do want others to pay higher taxes. Exempting church property from taxation on the spurious reasoning of the separation of church and state means that others have to pay higher taxes to support public services like fire fighting, roads and police.

Tax exemption for charities is economic rationalism 101.
Go on. Tax the Church and see how long it is til the (secular atheist) State has to start opening soup kitchens.

Moreover, making abortion illegal means higher taxes to enforce that law and to support the resulting unwanted children who are born.

Since when are potential workers/consumers/taxpayers a burden on the State?
Taxpayer funded abortion is a fiscal black hole. Plus, it's a get-out-of-jail free incentive for deadbeat dads to pollute the gene pool, which leaves a tax burden legacy of unmarried moms.
Banning abortion makes men realise that the State doesn't want to pay for the cost of murdering or raising THEIR offspring.

 

[laughing dog]

Define..."priced", "emitters", "damaging", "resource", "their", "pollution".... oh, I give up.
You know what? How about you justify your ought statement in terms worthy of my attention.

You can google terms that you don’r understand or look them up in a dictionary or ask your daddy or mommy.

Or...they could just drive their tractors to downtown Paris and say no, we aren't paying YOUR tax.

Unless they are getting thei fuel for free, they are paying that tax.

Tax exemption for charities is economic rationalism 101.
Go on. Tax the Church and see how long it is til the (secular atheist) State has to start opening soup kitchens.

When you reject pollution taces, you reject economic rationalism 101. there is no evidence that the foregone tax revenues from exempted church property would be less than any additional expenditures to help the needy from any reduction in church related charitable work.

Since when are potential workers/consumers/taxpayers a burden on the State?

When the State feeds, cares and protects them.

Taxpayer funded abortion is a fiscal black hole. Plus, it's a get-out-of-jail free incentive for deadbeat dads to pollute the gene pool, which leaves a tax burden legacy of unmarried moms.
Banning abortion makes men realise that the State doesn't want to pay for the cost of murdering or raising THEIR offspring.

Why are you babbling about taxpayer funded abortions?

Unwanted pregnancies and abandoned children were around when abortion was illegal, so your rants about making men realize is delusional.

Your crack about polluting the gene pool is truly revealing.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Bernie's been a senator for decades. Elizabeth is still working on her first decade. Bernie as positions but he has no plan that will pay for them and he's been at it forever. Elizabeth has a good plan for each proposal that looks like they'll pay for what she proposes. Plus she's out organized the pros by orders of magnitude. the financial sector are scared of her with good reason. She'll reign them in again. She's a social democrat bernie is actually a socialist who wants to remove the insurance industry from health care with no plan to accommodate the disruption that would cause.

I'm all for better healthcare but we're on trajectory to have a capitalistic social program like many in the EU, not one that owns the industry. I see no reason why insurance companies can't participate in a single payer plan like medicare.

Competence over ideology every time.

How does the public benefit by "reigning them in again"? Most people need loans to buy a house, buy a car, finance working capital for a company, and etc. How does it help to make it more difficult to get loans? Would it be better to prevent another banking collapse. Absolutely. But she seems to be more intent on just hurting banks. And that will hurt all of us.

You are supposed to be dead. I read somewhere that all those who get in line to worship such as banks drank cool aid in Jonestown back in the day. ...and isn't that microeconomics guru at U of Chicago dead and forgotten?

If I remember my american history accurately, and I wrote a freshman english paper on it back in ought-59, the notion of making coin by just any old bank was smashed in the era of the  Specie Circular and for good measure when America detached it's currency from gold in 1933. It's belief in soundness based on evidence of power that supports currencies. Deficits don't have all that much to do with it.

Your 'get a loan argument' is wasted empty text. Banks are trustees for personal wealth while financial instruments are ways to game the system. These two functions don't belong under the same roof without strong protections against greed.

?? I'm suppose to be dead? What does that mean? You're saying that I should die if I don't have $300,000 cash to buy a house and need to rely on a bank for that? So all people and companies who need bank loans should be dead?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why are you babbling about taxpayer funded abortions?

Kind of like Godwin, every thread Lion posts in will, if he participates long enough, become an attack on abortions.

 

[Politesse]

Christians tried to end the AIDS epidemic in the 80's by speaking out against gay people fornicating. Leftists pushed and pushed for normalcy and AIDS increased and well....here we are.

But, it's the Christians who didn't care about AIDS. Yep, sure.

Leftists: How do we stop AIDS from spreading?
Christians: Teach gay men not to fornicate.
Leftists: Bigot!
Christians: But, AIDS will increase if they keep fornicating. We don't want it to increase.
Leftists: Bigot!
Christians: We give up.
Leftists: OMG, why are AIDS out of control now?!?!

When did "Christians" do anything substantive to combat the AIDS crisis? I remember them pointing fingers and assigning blame, that's not the same as addressing it.

Monogamy is what Christianity was proposing as the solution. Not homophobia.

Bullshit. The bigot solution to gay marriage is for me to betray and abandon my partner because he has the wrong genitals. I should stuff him into a closet, do some weird therapy nonsense, and find a "nice Christian girl" to be with instead. Right? That's not monogamy. That's serial adultery based on prejudice. And if I had AIDS (which I don't) my being back in the closet would do nothing to protect the poor girl from also getting infected. So when does the "solution" part kick in?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Christians tried to end the AIDS epidemic in the 80's by speaking out against gay people fornicating. Leftists pushed and pushed for normalcy and AIDS increased and well....here we are.

But, it's the Christians who didn't care about AIDS. Yep, sure.

Leftists: How do we stop AIDS from spreading?
Christians: Teach gay men not to fornicate.
Leftists: Bigot!
Christians: But, AIDS will increase if they keep fornicating. We don't want it to increase.
Leftists: Bigot!
Christians: We give up.
Leftists: OMG, why are AIDS out of control now?!?!

When did "Christians" do anything substantive to combat the AIDS crisis? I remember them pointing fingers and assigning blame, that's not the same as addressing it.

Monogamy is what Christianity was proposing as the solution. Not homophobia.

You say what? Have you read the Bible?

Exodus 21:10 ESV /
If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.

 

[southernhybrid]

Wearing condoms is the most effective way to stop or greatly decrease the spread of STIs. Imo, people who aren't monogamous should always use condoms. Unfortunately many don't and that's why we continue to have such high rates of STI's.

Have you Christian men never paid attention to all the preachers and priests who have not only cheated on a spouse but who have sexually assaulted women and children? Christianity has nothing to do with morality. Some Christians are very decent moral people, just like many atheists are. Some Christians are horrible, immoral people, as I'm sure some atheists are.

 

[Gun Nut]

Either way, coming from a liberal, it's a pathetically lukewarm response. #appeasement

Fundy: "Real Marriage^TM is between a (real) man and a (real) woman.
Warren : "That's nice"

It's a perfect response that frame the issue the only way it should be framed, a matter of personal choice where no one has any say on anyone's marriage but their own.

If you believe marriage is X, they you should make your own marriage X and that is the only relevance your belief has.

Yes, it's become the standard goto rebuttal used by the liberal left for everything.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
Don't like same sex marriage? Don't have one.

Yes, you get the idea... If there is an ACTION you wish not to take.. don't take the action... The point is that you don;t have the right to prevent others from taking that action.

But notice how this doesn't work in both directions.

It works in all "directions" of the action that we invite you not to take if it is distasteful for you.

Don't think climate change is a problem? Fine. Ignore Greta Thunberg.

Wait.. "thinking"? That's a bait and switch.. no one is saying what you may think or not.. So this one is rejected as a non sequitur.. Be ignorant if you choose... no one cares.

Gun stockpiling? Where's the problem. Nobody is forcing you to own guns.

Where is the problem, indeed? Your point is unclear... another one rejected...

Uncomfortable with fluid gender theory? Easy - you don't have to accept non-binary pronouns.

Another "thought police" bait and switch... think what you want about gender. Accept or reject what you want about individual's personal preferences... it's your relationship to have and respect or not.. no one cares enough about your preferences for them to be important to them... that is the "other direction".

 

[Gun Nut]

Yes, it's become the standard goto rebuttal used by the liberal left for everything.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
Don't like same sex marriage? Don't have one.

But notice how this doesn't work in both directions.

Don't think climate change is a problem? Fine. Ignore Greta Thunberg.
Gun stockpiling? Where's the problem. Nobody is forcing you to own guns.
Uncomfortable with fluid gender theory? Easy - you don't have to accept non-binary pronouns.

There's a difference between an action that hurts someone else, and one that does not. I suspect we agree on this, but not on the boundary between those conditions.

Pretty sure abortion hurts someone.

I'm certain that it does not.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[PyramidHead]

Please take this circa 2004 derail about shit nobody will ever change their mind about elsewhere

 

[Gun Nut]

What pattern? Frankly, I am much more worried and concerned about a candidate who does not ever seem to change a position or who thinks that his/her solution is the only solution than someone who is willing to rethink and even change his/her views based on evidence and reason.

You're being disingenuous. Bernie has shifted his views over time as well, but he has never been a Republican, and his current positions are all better than Warren's.

If he has shifted views over time, then clearly he cannot be trusted using the rubric that changing one's mind is a sign of insincerity. Moreover, he was never a Democrat until 2016.

Whether or not his current positions are all better than Warren's is a matter of opinion not fact. I will say that anyone who wishes to abolish private health insurance without a plan on how to both improve Medicare and fund it so that everyone can get the care they need is either a demogogue or an idiot.

You could be talking about Trump if you just switch "never was a Democrat" to "never was a Republican". If you are sincere about the point you seem to be trying to make (sincerity I challenge), then whomever you vote for, it shouldn't be Trump for all the reasons you are saying.

 

[Gun Nut]

Nearly everyone was against gay rights until the mid-90s or so. Or at least, too afraid to openly embrace them.

I think they were mostly invisible to a lot of us.

I remember a high school teacher in the mid '70's asking a question about whether we believed that sex should be legal between any two consenting adults and my immediate response was: Of course. I think he found it surprising because I was mostly capitalist in those days and certainly not communist then or now. At the time, the notion of 'free love' and down with racism and down with sexism was associated with communism. I was opposed to racism, sexism, discrimination of any kind that I imagined (and my imagination was limited by my youth and lack of experience and exposure).

Note: I was only vaguely aware of homosexuality at the time but that relative ignorance did not color my view and as I became more aware of homosexuality and other sexual orientations, it only solidified my response. This did not include marriage because to be very honest, I had never heard marriage between same sex partners suggested and lacked the imagination to think about it myself. The political times were much more about bringing down the patriarchal norms of marriage = man owning/having rights over woman. Expanding marriage rights was not on a lot of minds of people like myself who frankly could not picture themselves ever choosing marriage and so not even considering that there were same sex couples who absolutely wanted that right. It was, to be honest: a blind spot, or several.

It would surprise a lot of people to learn how much gays were looked down upon by the hippies of the 60s. There was no great aura of acceptance of gays or gay lifestyle in the Haight-Ashbury community then, even though this was before the emergence of AIDS. I was there, and was no less bigoted about it than anyone else. Not that gay people generally bothered me, but flaming gay people definitely did. For someone to need to publicly pronounce their sexual preference seemed ... weird, or mentally unbalanced. Same way that super-macho types who needed to proclaim their uber-masculinity seemed psycho. These days, the latter cases bother me as much as, or more than they ever did - many of that type seem genuinely dangerous. But gays loudly flaunting their gayness doesn't bother me a bit - in fact I get a perverse kick out of seeing people who are visibly bothered by it. As far as marriage ... I've never been able to wrap my head around the idea that who or what someone else "marries" should matter much to anyone else - even my bigoted teen aged hippie self didn't get that, unless maybe a parent who got upset about who or what their baby was marrying. IOW objections to others' loving commitments seem 100% irrational to me.

What changed for you to go from "I found it disgusting to flaunt extreme gayness or straightness" to "I love watching those against it squirm"?

I get what you are saying.. for me, it also changed a bit. Gayness was funny in the past... now its getting way too in-your-face, in my opinion. I suppose hetrosxuality is pretty "in-your-face" all over every magazine, billboard, TV show, and commercial, though.. .so.. ya.

 

[Lion IRC]

Monogamy is what Christianity was proposing as the solution. Not homophobia.

You say what? Have you read the Bible?

Exodus 21:10 ESV /
If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.

I admit that not all Christians value monogamy.
And not all Christians think marriage is heterosexual by definition.