Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, March 31, 2013

OTP: April 2013: Daily Caller: Baseball and the GOP: To rebrand the party, think like a sports fan

This week’s GOP autopsy report, commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is a great start in the much-needed task of rebranding the Republican Party. As the chairman acknowledged, “the way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough” and “we have to be more inclusive.” The report contains 219 recommendations to “connect people to our principles.” To achieve that goal, the party will need a strategic vision of how voters think about politics, which is something that the report lacks. For that, the GOP can learn a lot from another American passion: baseball.

This year, about 75 million Americans will go to the baseball stadium to watch a ballgame, about the same number as those who will vote in next year’s election. We rarely think about why someone becomes a baseball fan, or why they root for a certain team. Nor do we usually think about why someone chooses to vote for a certain political party. But it’s actually a very useful exercise.

When it comes to baseball, fan loyalty has almost nothing to do with the brain, and almost everything to do with the heart. In all of history, there’s never been a baseball fan who rooted for his team because it had the lowest ticket prices, or because it had the most taxpayer-friendly stadium deal, or because its players did the most community service. For the vast majority of Americans, rooting for a baseball team — not to mention, voting for a political party — isn’t really a rational choice; it’s more of a statement of personal identity — a statement telling the world, “This is who I am.” And for most people, defining “who I am” starts with family and community, before branching out into areas like race, age, gender, and class.

Family is pretty straightforward. If your mom and dad are Yankee fans, you’re almost certainly a Yankee fan. The same is true in politics. If your mom and dad are Republicans, you’re almost certainly a Republican.

Community is also pretty straightforward. If you grew up in, say, Philadelphia, chances are pretty great you’re a Phillies fan. Likewise, someone who grew up in Republican territory like, say, suburban Dallas or rural Indiana is much more likely to become a Republican than a nearly identical person from Seattle or Santa Fe.

Cities with more than one baseball team, like New York or Chicago, show revealing breakdowns by race and gender. The racial split in Chicago between Cubs fans on the North Side and White Sox fans on the South Side is well-documented. In New York, there’s an intriguing gender gap between Mets and Yankee fans, with women gravitating a lot more to the Yanks. While there’s a few theories out there trying to explain that, one obvious answer leaps out: Yankees heartthrob Derek Jeter.

In sports, as in politics, people’s convictions can’t be conveniently reduced to who their parents are or what they look like. But those things are an important foundation, upon which more rational sentiments come into being. Once you’re attached to your team on an emotional level — seeing them as a personal reflection of who you are and what you care about most — a rational exterior comes into being through phrases like “the Red Sox are the best team because they have the most heart” or “the Republicans are the best party because they know how to create jobs.”

Tripon Posted: March 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM | 6544 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 66 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   101. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4401151)
What will be the legal justification for restricting multiple partner marriage? Once it's no longer one man and one women, how does the limitation on two partners hold up legally?


Are there any classes of individuals who would be arbitrarily denied entry into that (two-person) contract?
   102. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4401152)
yes and yes, though many may dispute your characterization of their sexual orientation as a lifestyle [choice].

Their orientation may not be a choice, but the behavior is. I have never said there was anything wrong or sinful with having the orientation.
   103. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4401155)
I can see a judge here and there, ruling that if gays can't be denied marriage then polygamists can't either... but I don't see any kind of groundswell developing to push the "issue" any further.

Exactly. It will be judicial.
   104. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 01, 2013 at 02:58 PM (#4401159)
Their orientation may not be a choice


as far as many evangelicals (Yes, I know you are not one) are concerned it is- in fact one of the anti-gay marriage/rights attys said as much during the SCOTUS arguments last week...

   105. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 02:58 PM (#4401161)
Are there any classes of individuals who would be arbitrarily denied entry into that (two-person) contract?

Yes, people who love more than one person.

Once you have made marriage exclusively about emotion, attraction, and sexual expression, there is no grounds to limit the number.
   106. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4401168)
I didn't say all gay people feel that way. I'm talking about the activists who drive the agenda.


First, "the agenda" is mostly just paranoia in your head. There is no "gay agenda" outside of "treat gays and lesbians as normal people with all of the rights and responsibilities of everyone else; stop treating them as second class citizens." Everything else is you being a nut.

Secondly, "they want to compel society to ratify their behavior, and they want to brand as bigots anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle." If by "ratify their behavior" you mean "stop pretending that gays and lesbians are second class citizens just because they were born in such a way as to be attracted to same sex partners" well, okay. If by "brand as bigots anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle" you mean anyone who wants to tell gays and lesbians they can't be operative and respected members of society because you don't like the way they ####, well, okay, yeah, I'll cop to that. Because that's bigotry.
   107. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4401169)
And any marriage that was actually forced could be declared invalid if the parties petitioned.


Is it a valid marriage or not? You specifically stated, without equivocation, "a marriage not freely consented to by both parties is not a valid marriage." So is an arranged marriage made for financial and political considerations between two families as per my very specific claim, "I say it started as soon as parents were no longer able to force their children into arranged marriages or sell them into marriage as part of a profitable political arrangement" a valid marriage or not?

Lack of validity of a marriage does not impact the legitimacy of children.


Is that a legal standard or something else? Has this always been the case?

The more you speak, the more you expose your ignorance.


Tell us again how "fetal stem cell research has turned out to be a complete dead-end," you sanctimonious blowhard.
   108. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:01 PM (#4401174)
Once you have made marriage exclusively about emotion, attraction, and sexual expression, there is no grounds to limit the number.


Will not happen in my lifetime. And again it would not bother me if it did (other than being wrong), but the slope is never as slippery as many think.
   109. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:01 PM (#4401177)
as far as many evangelicals (Yes, I know you are not one) are concerned it is- in fact one of the anti-gay marriage/rights attys said as much during the SCOTUS arguments last week...

And I think they are wrong, at least as a general statement.

I'm pretty sure for some people it is a choice, and for some it isn't. I mean sexual attraction almost certainly is a spectrum. There are people who are attracted 100% to same-sex, there are people 100% opposite sex, and there's probably every gradation in between. If you're equally attracted to men and women, then I guess being exclusively homosexual or heterosexual in your behavior is a choice.
   110. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:04 PM (#4401183)
Exactly. It will be judicial.


You live in a special world sometimes, Snapper. This is not going to happen any time soon. Judges don't randomly rule without some sort of social movement to support the rulings.

Once you have made marriage exclusively about emotion, attraction, and sexual expression, there is no grounds to limit the number.


No one is claiming marriage is "exclusively about emotion, attraction and sexual expression." That's what you tell yourself people are saying to avoid their actual arguments, which you can't rebut.

The state currently endorses a social contract called "marriage." If that contract is not open to all citizens - regardless of whether they are marrying a same sex spouse or not - the state is creating "separate but equal" status at best, and second class citizenry at worst. The state can't do that, legally or morally. Thus ends the argument for same sex marriage.

The idea that the state must expand the two-person marriage contract to include multiple partners, just because it can't exclude arbitrarily certain classes of citizens from the existing two-person contract, is not supported by facts or logic.
   111. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:06 PM (#4401187)
If you're equally attracted to men and women, then I guess being exclusively homosexual or heterosexual in your behavior is a choice


"Bisexual" is a word in the English language. You can use it to describe folks in between the poles of the spectrum if you like. Might save some confusion around how you're drastically misusing "choice" otherwise.
   112. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:06 PM (#4401188)
Is it a valid marriage or not? You specifically stated, without equivocation, "a marriage not freely consented to by both parties is not a valid marriage." So is an arranged marriage made for financial and political considerations between two families as per my very specific claim, "I say it started as soon as parents were no longer able to force their children into arranged marriages or sell them into marriage as part of a profitable political arrangement" a valid marriage or not?

Is that a legal standard or something else? Has this always been the case?

In Catholic terms, which would matter if we're talking European historical political marriages, every marriage is presumed valid. It is only questioned if one of the parties asks for a decree of nullity; usually so they can marry someone else.

There are many reasons a marriage could be nullified. Lack of consent is one. Probably the most famous case (Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon), the claim was that since Catherine was the widow of Henry's brother, they couldn't marry because of close familial relationship (just like you can't marry your sister, or your mother-in-law).

So, a marriage would be viewed as valid until one of the two parties raises the issue. Since the marriage is presume dvalid, the children are legitimate, even if it is later determined the marriage wasn't valid. As far as I know this has always been true.

   113. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:07 PM (#4401190)
Once you have made marriage exclusively about emotion, attraction, and sexual expression, there is no grounds to limit the number.

Kagan: "Suppose a state said 'because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55.' Would that be constitutional?"
Charles Cooper, attorney supporting Proposition 8: "No, your honor, it would not be constitutional."
Kagan: "Because that's the same state interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different" than denying homosexuals from marrying?
Cooper: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional —
Kagan: "I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage."


Even Scalia couldn't quite bring himself to support the concept that Marriage= procreation therefore you must be fertile to marry:
I suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get the marriage — you know, Are you fertile or are you not fertile?
(Laughter.)
I suspect this Court would hold that to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, don't you think?


Of course we all know which way Scalia's voting anyway, but I like how his attempt to zing Olsen backfired:
Scalia:
"I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?" he asked. "1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"
Olson: "When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages?" which the court overturned in 1967.
Scalia: "Don't give me a question to my question."
   114. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4401192)
The state currently endorses a social contract called "marriage." If that contract is not open to all citizens - regardless of whether they are marrying a same sex spouse or not - the state is creating "separate but equal" status at best, and second class citizenry at worst. The state can't do that, legally or morally. Thus ends the argument for same sex marriage.

Incorrect. All citizens have always had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but not of the same sex. The treatment is equal.
   115. spike Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4401194)
And there are no civil benefits that I can see, except some people have to pay higher taxes.

Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
   116. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4401195)
Well, just a hypothesis on my part, but I'll guess that if you did have gay loved ones, and/or gay close friends with whom you'd talked about the marriage-rights issue, you'd be less inclined to believe things like, "they want to compel society to ratify their behavior, and they want to brand as bigots anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle."


I didn't say all gay people feel that way. I'm talking about the activists who drive the agenda.

The common agenda of every gay person I know, including the lesbian couple who live next door, is simply to be accorded equal rights and justice under the laws of the land. What a radical request. Everything else is just a series of disputes among private individuals, and I doubt if too many gays or lesbians care what you happen to think about them, as long as you don't try to prevent them from enjoying those rights. They're not asking you to "approve" of them any more than a black person trying to get a meal in a restaurant cared what the owner thought about him---as long as the owner couldn't refuse to serve him a meal.
   117. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4401198)
"Bisexual" is a word in the English language. You can use it to describe folks in between the poles of the spectrum if you like. Might save some confusion around how you're drastically misusing "choice" otherwise.

But a person who is attracted to both men and women may not be bisexual in lifestyle. They may be exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. It's a confusing label, since it could mean attraction, or behavior. I prefer to be precise.
   118. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:11 PM (#4401200)
Incorrect. All citizens have always had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but not of the same sex. The treatment is equal.


A familiar gambit. Always wrong. Try again.

NOTE: As you correctly pointed out earlier with regard to marriage across the generations, marrying someone you don't want to marry is not really marriage.
   119. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:11 PM (#4401201)
The common agenda of every gay person I know, including the lesbian couple who live next door, is simply to be accorded equal rights and justice under the laws of the land. What a radical request.

And, I've already said I'm fine with them getting all those rights under a civil partnership arrangement, that wouldn't even need to be limited to romantic partners.
   120. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4401202)
Judges don't randomly rule without some sort of social movement to support the rulings.


some do and will.

And I'd be surprised if sometime in the next 10 years we won't hear about some lower court judge ruling that bans on polygamous marriage are unconstitutional - what I don't know is if the 1st judge to do so will be sincere or not- I can see a "conservative" judge doing it as a way of tweaking the pro-gay rights side.
   121. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:13 PM (#4401204)
But a person who is attracted to both men and women may not be bisexual in lifestyle. They may be exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. It's a confusing label, since it could mean attraction, or behavior. I prefer to be precise.


This is distinction without meaning. Homosexuals can abstain from sex entirely, as can heterosexuals. People behave as they will. That is neither here nor there. It has nothing to do with marriage.
   122. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:14 PM (#4401205)
A familiar gambit. Always wrong. Try again.

It's only wrong if you think there is some right to marry whomever you love. There has never been such a right before the attempt to create it that is going on today.

There were always restrictions on whom one coul could marry (e.g. close family, even family by marriage with no blood ties).
   123. Bruce Markusen Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:14 PM (#4401207)
Sad that on Opening Day, yet another political article has to be posted, inviting yet another tired and repetitive political thread.

Why did Baseball Think Factory have to become Political Think Factory?

Correction: Now I see that this was posted yesterday. Perhaps not as bad as I thought.
   124. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:15 PM (#4401209)
And, I've already said I'm fine with them getting all those rights under a civil partnership arrangement, that wouldn't even need to be limited to romantic partners.


"Separate but equal" simply does not play with regard to civil rights. We've heard that song and dance before.
   125. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:15 PM (#4401211)
Concern troll is concerned. Film at 11.
   126. Lassus Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:15 PM (#4401213)
And, I've already said I'm fine with them getting all those rights under a civil partnership arrangement, that wouldn't even need to be limited to romantic partners.

I'm sure you're equally fine with me being given an FTL ship and leaving the planet permanently. However, that isn't going to happen.

The rights and benefits that have been given to straight people by the state via marriage are never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going away. Ever. The minute you go for the separate-but-equal plan, you've failed in the equality department. This may sound familiar.

EDIT: More familiar than I thought.
   127. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4401215)
Sad that on Opening Day, yet another political article has to be posted, inviting yet another tired and repetitive political thread.


If you message me via BTF or FB mail I'll forward you Jim's email address so you can complain about it in a way that's not mere grandstanding.
   128. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4401217)
Sad that on Opening Day, yet another political article has to be posted, inviting yet another tired and repetitive political thread.


I for one am horrified that you were apparently forced to read and post in this thread.
   129. spike Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4401218)
I'm fine with them getting all those rights under a civil partnership arrangement, that wouldn't even need to be limited to romantic partners.

Surprisingly, many conservatives seem to have a problem with that.

Georgia GOP Chair warns that straight people will enter into sham gay marriages for benefits
   130. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:17 PM (#4401220)
The common agenda of every gay person I know, including the lesbian couple who live next door, is simply to be accorded equal rights and justice under the laws of the land. What a radical request.

And, I've already said I'm fine with them getting all those rights under a civil partnership arrangement, that wouldn't even need to be limited to romantic partners.


Fine, and if you also say you'll do away with the entire institution of state-recognized marriage, at least you'll be consistent.
   131. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4401221)
Sad that on Opening Day, yet another political article has to be posted, inviting yet another tired and repetitive political thread.


I for one am horrified that you were apparently forced to read and post in this thread.

edit- and besides, I'm a Mets fan, what do I have to look forward to? Sure they usually win on opening day, but I know Games 2-162 are gonna be gruesome

and no one wants to hear how my roto team is doing
   132. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:18 PM (#4401223)
This is distinction without meaning. Homosexuals can abstain from sex entirely, as can heterosexuals. People behave as they will. That is neither here nor there. It has nothing to do with marriage.

So sayeth you. I believe attraction and behavior are two separate things, and that has tremendous moral import.

If a man is attracted to women besides his wife, that is one thing. If he has sex with other women, it's another. We don't call every man who's tempted to cheat an adulterer.

I think it is a mistake to characterize people by labels based on sexual attraction or behavior. It's a gross simplification, and makes it out like sexuality is the only important aspect of peoples' life.
   133. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:19 PM (#4401225)
Fine, and if you also say you'll do away with the entire institution of state-recognized marriage, at least you'll be consistent.


I think he did
   134. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4401231)
Fine, and if you also say you'll do away with the entire institution of state-recognized marriage, at least you'll be consistent.

Already said it on page one.

I actually inquired if my wife and I could marry in church without a civil license. Unfortunately you can't, or I would have.
   135. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:22 PM (#4401235)
It's only wrong if you think there is some right to marry whomever you love. There has never been such a right before the attempt to create it that is going on today.


So, when people point out the fact that historically marriage has been a business proposition entered in between (male members of) families and which treated the entrants as property more than humanity, you respond by telling us that outside of rare circumstances like royals and such, marriage has always been about two people who wanted to be together agreeing to be together in marriage. Hell, if an arranged marriage wasn't agreed to by the two involved, it could be dissolved even!

But when you want to defend closing the modern version of the institution of marriage off to gays and lesbians, you tell us that marriage has never been about a right to be with the person you love.

Whatever serves the purpose on any given day, Snap? Relativism doesn't suit you.
   136. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:23 PM (#4401237)
The minute you go for the separate-but-equal plan, you've failed in the equality department.

Then limit civil recognition to partnerships only. That's all you can get from the state.

If you want a marriage, go to your church.
   137. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:25 PM (#4401240)
If a man is attracted to women besides his wife, that is one thing. If he has sex with other women, it's another. We don't call every man who's tempted to cheat an adulterer.


We don't?

I think it is a mistake to characterize people by labels based on sexual attraction or behavior. It's a gross simplification, and makes it out like sexuality is the only important aspect of peoples' life.


We could move more quickly to your orientation-blind utopia once we get the state to stop arbitrarily creating second class citizenship for some folks just because they are inclined one way or the other.
   138. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:25 PM (#4401242)
So, when people point out the fact that historically marriage has been a business proposition entered in between (male members of) families and which treated the entrants as property more than humanity, you respond by telling us that outside of rare circumstances like royals and such, marriage has always been about two people who wanted to be together agreeing to be together in marriage. Hell, if an arranged marriage wasn't agreed to by the two involved, it could be dissolved even!

But when you want to defend closing the modern version of the institution of marriage off to gays and lesbians, you tell us that marriage has never been about a right to be with the person you love.

Whatever serves the purpose on any given day, Snap? Relativism doesn't suit you.


Consent does not equal love. You can enter into a perfectly valid marriage with someone you don't love. You can love someone you are not permitted to marry, e.g. if they're married already.

   139. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:27 PM (#4401247)
We don't?

We don't. They are separate sins. "Thou shalt not commit adultery", "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife". Just like stealing, and coveting his goods are separate sins.

Verse picking always leads towards shoddy theology.
   140. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:30 PM (#4401250)
If you want a marriage, go to your church


This is the crux of your argument. It's not without merit. It just happens to be far afield from any conversation anyone else is having on the issue.

Your church does not have to perform gay marriages. You church will never have to perform gay marriages. No one really cares what your church thinks, to be honest. This is about the state, and the state sanctions marriages with a bevy of legal privileges. To do so arbitrarily for a majority cohort while denying access to those privileges to a minority cohort is against Constitutional law, and also immoral and wrong.
   141. spike Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:30 PM (#4401251)
I actually inquired if my wife and I could marry in church without a civil license. Unfortunately you can't, or I would have.

Because in order for all the civil benefits to accrue, you have to register with the state. And if your church won't marry you without state registration, that would seem to be your church's problem, assuming you were willing to forego the civil benefits that the registered can take advantage of, and have solely religious notice of your commitment.
   142. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:31 PM (#4401252)
Fine, and if you also say you'll do away with the entire institution of state-recognized marriage, at least you'll be consistent.

Already said it on page one.


Okay, then in the Land of Snapper, you'd have these features:

1. State-recognized civil unions available to all, with all benefits and protections currently granted to married straight couples extended to gays and lesbians.

2. All current civil rights laws, including those dealing with private pension plans, extended to gays or lesbians.

3. Church-sanctioned unions to be an optional supplementary ceremony only, performed by willing ministers to any couple they wish.

4. But the absence of that sort of supplementary ceremony shall in no way infringe in any way on the right of any gay or lesbian couple to be treated any differently from a straight couple under civil or criminal law.

Am I missing anything?
   143. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:31 PM (#4401253)
The rights and benefits that have been given to straight people by the state via marriage are never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going away. Ever.


QFT. It is hard to take things away once given. It is much easier to not give it in the first place. This is true raising kids all the way through to governing nations. It is one of the reasons the modern liberal state is so hard to change, benefits once given are very hard to "ungive". Hence my confidence in the durability of ObamaCare.
   144. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:33 PM (#4401256)
Am I missing anything?


The fact that everyone would call snapper's civil unions "marriage".
   145. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4401261)
Okay, then in the Land of Snapper, you'd have these features:

1. State-recognized civil unions available to all, with all benefits and protections currently granted to married straight couples extended to gays and lesbians.

2. All current civil rights laws, including those dealing with private pension plans, extended to gays or lesbians.

3. Church-sanctioned unions to be an optional supplementary ceremony only, performed by willing ministers to any couple they wish.

4. But the absence of that sort of supplementary ceremony shall in no way infringe in any way on the right of any gay or lesbian couple to be treated any differently from a straight couple under civil or criminal law.

Am I missing anything?


1. Yes or fewer benefits, or no benefits.

2. I don't think any private entity should be forced to extend benefits to anyone. The employee, the spouse, the gay partner, anyone. If they do extend benefits, it should be in a neutral way: employee + chidlren, employee + 1 adult, etc.

3. Church unions are not supplementary, they are sufficient. No one needs a civil union to be married in Church.

4. Under the laws of the state, no. In practice, laws should be made blind to the person's marital status.
   146. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:38 PM (#4401263)
Because in order for all the civil benefits to accrue, you have to register with the state. And if your church won't marry you without state registration, that would seem to be your church's problem, assuming you were willing to forego the civil benefits that the registered can take advantage of, and have solely religious notice of your commitment.

No, I don't want the civil benefits. In fact I don't get any benefits from being married. I probably pay slightly higher taxes, than if we weren't.

It's a Church regulation in the US. I don't know why it exists. Probably so the parish doesn't have to check if the people are civilly married to anyone else.
   147. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:39 PM (#4401265)
Am I missing anything?

The fact that everyone would call snapper's civil unions "marriage".


Maybe so, but there's a difference between an outside the box proposal that would leave everyone equal under the law in reality, and a phony proposal that would be little more than a dodge to get around the central issue of equality. At this point, I have to give snapper the benefit of the doubt, but I did want him to respond to my inquiry.
   148. spike Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:42 PM (#4401269)
In fact I don't get any benefits from being married.

See the rather lengthy list I posted in 115. Just because you may not be taking advantage of them at this moment does not mean they do not exist.
   149. Nasty Nate Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:43 PM (#4401272)
No, I don't want the civil benefits. In fact I don't get any benefits from being married.


Did you see #115?
   150. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:46 PM (#4401274)
1. State-recognized civil unions available to all, with all benefits and protections currently granted to married straight couples extended to gays and lesbians.

1. Yes or fewer benefits, or no benefits.


But in any case, no distinctions between straight and gay couples?

2. All current civil rights laws, including those dealing with private pension plans, extended to gays or lesbians.

2. I don't think any private entity should be forced to extend benefits to anyone.


But that's a separate issue altogether. I'm talking about cases where those benefits already exist and will continue to exist.

The employee, the spouse, the gay partner, anyone. If they do extend benefits, it should be in a neutral way: employee + chidlren, employee + 1 adult, etc.

IOW with no distinction due to sexual orientation? If that's your position, then fine.
   151. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:47 PM (#4401277)
#147. Yes and understandable.

I mostly wanted to comment that in the history of the world no has ever* declared "I am in a civil union" or I am "unioned" (That can't be the term can it?) or whatever. If you are in 'that kind' of relationship you are married. And as stated upthread nothing is going to take away existing benefits. It is coming to a nation near you, it is 100% inevitable. Fight it if your morals say you must (though I think you are wrong on the merits), but it is happening.

* Perhaps an exaggeration.
   152. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:47 PM (#4401280)
Did you see #115?

Not until now, no.

I've skimmed the list, and I don't benefit from any of those.

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.


This one's a joke. Everyone I know pays more taxes b/c they're married.
   153. Spahn Insane Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:50 PM (#4401287)
No, I don't want the civil benefits. In fact I don't get any benefits from being married.

Yes, you do. See spike's post above.
   154. The District Attorney Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:51 PM (#4401288)
If I can interrupt AMA: Pope Urban II for a moment... Just got polispam from the "Progressive Change Campaign Committee." They want the NCAA to require that schools cover their athletes' health insurance. Sounds good to me. Know what didn't appeal to me? The picture of Kevin Ware's leg broken in half that accompanied it -- the one I have been trying to avoid for days. Thanks a lot, guys.
   155. Spahn Insane Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:51 PM (#4401289)
I've skimmed the list, and I don't benefit from any of those.

Maybe not so far.
   156. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:51 PM (#4401290)
But in any case, no distinctions between straight and gay couples?

Yes, and no distinction based on whether they're having sex or not. A brother and sister living together can claim the benefits (if any).

But that's a separate issue altogether. I'm talking about cases where those benefits already exist and will continue to exist.

I said, make it neutral: employee + 1.

IOW with no distinction due to sexual orientation? If that's your position, then fine.

Yes, no distinction based on sexual activity.

Once we have effectively severed marriage from child-rearing (which, to be fair, was well on its way before gay marriage) there is no reason to favor sexual relationships over non-sexual ones.
   157. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:53 PM (#4401291)
They want the NCAA to require that schools cover their athletes' health insurance.

Why athletes and not other students? You can't restrict to just revenue sports. And there's no reason to provide free coverage to the squash team, and not the drama society.
   158. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:54 PM (#4401292)
there is no reason to favor sexual relationships over non-sexual ones


You're doing it wrong. Just a joke. :)
   159. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4401293)
I mostly wanted to comment that in the history of the world no has ever* declared "I am in a civil union" or I am "unioned" (That can't be the term can it?) or whatever. If you are in 'that kind' of relationship you are married. And as stated upthread nothing is going to take away existing benefits. It is coming to a nation near you, it is 100% inevitable. Fight it if your morals say you must (though I think you are wrong on the merits), but it is happening.

Really? You've never heard anyone use the term "partner"?

I have heard tons of people, mostly straight, refer to their "partner", and I had no way to tell if they were married or not, or if they were referring to a man or woman.

I can't imagine I travel in far more progressive circles than you?
   160. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:56 PM (#4401295)
Why athletes and not other students? You can't restrict to just revenue sports. And there's no reason to provide free coverage to the squash team, and not the drama society.


No institution exploits drama society for millions of dollars per year while asking them to do insane *physical* acts.
   161. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 03:57 PM (#4401297)
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."

I'm pretty sure this is patently illegal.
   162. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:00 PM (#4401301)
No institution exploits drama society for millions of dollars per year while asking them to do insane *physical* acts.

And no institution makes a penny off the swim team. Besides football and basketball, schools don't benefit from the athletes, the athletes benefits almost exclusively from the schools.

If you could cover only basketball and football players, there'd be a logical distinction, but NCAA rules won't permit that. How do you argue a distinction between non-revenue athletes and regular students?

Maybe you could get boosters to cover the premiums?
   163. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:01 PM (#4401304)
Snapper (#156),

Fair enough. I don't look to pick arguments with merely eccentric views, and you answered my questions straightforwardly.
   164. Canker Soriano Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:02 PM (#4401307)
The picture of Kevin Ware's leg broken in half that accompanied it -- the one I have been trying to avoid for days. Thanks a lot, guys.

The media as a whole have been surprisingly tasteful with this (lunatic fringe political e-mails excepted). I figured it would be all over Sportscenter and every local sports news update, but aside from a single still image that I found specifically in a discussion about whether the video should be shown, they've stuck with the reaction shots of the coaches and players.

But yeah... you don't want to see it. I never thought anything could be more gruesome than the slow-motion video of Willis McGahee's knee being blown into the back of his leg was, but even the single photo of this was more than I'd ever want to see. I can't imagine how awful that would have been to witness in person.
   165. Srul Itza Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:03 PM (#4401309)

Instead, they want to compel society to ratify their behavior


instead of stoning them to death, as MY GOD demands.
   166. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:03 PM (#4401311)
If you could cover only basketball and football players, there'd be a logical distinction, but NCAA rules won't permit that. How do you argue a distinction between non-revenue athletes and regular students?


If they are putting themselves at physical risk while promoting the school's brand - and all student athletes do exactly that - they deserve to be covered by the school for injury. Hell, you could justify drama club on the off chance someone stepped too far into the lights and fell off the stage.

Schools promote branded activities because the expansion of the brand increases recognition and drawing power. It's pure marketing.
   167. Srul Itza Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:04 PM (#4401312)
I imagine gov't sanctioned polygmy is less than 10 years away.


I give it another half page before he joins Smoltzie and trots out bestiality as the proper comparison.
   168. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:04 PM (#4401313)
Really? You've never heard anyone use the term "partner"?


I've heard many people say "partner." It's what couples use when they are arbitrarily denied the more common term of "spouse."
   169. Srul Itza Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4401316)
I have no gay relatives or close friends that I'm aware of. But my divorced sister is aware I disapprove of her dating. She also knows that if she remarries without an annulment, I won't be there.


A win-win situation, if there ever was one.
   170. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:06 PM (#4401318)
My wife already has people at work who are open about being in "polyamorous" relationships.


I know a fair many open couples. It's important to recognize there are varying degrees to poly relationships. Swingers? Non-monogamous? Fully polyamorous? Even then, there's usually a "primary" and then "secondaries."

I don't think polygamy is happening any time soon for a whole host of reasons, but I do think our cultural norm of "monogamy" is gradually changing. What if Dan Savage is right?

(I feel like Carrie Bradshaw possessed me and wrote that.)
   171. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:06 PM (#4401319)
Really? You've never heard anyone use the term "partner"?


Partner I have heard, but from both married and unmarried folks, never tied directly to a civil union (not sure if such even exists in MN, I suspect not). However if asked if they are married everyone says either yes or we would be. If given the option of a state sanctioned union every single one of them would refer to themselves as married no matter what the state called it.

And I did suggest there was maybe a little bit of over the top in my statement.

I can't imagine I travel in far more progressive circles than you?


I suppose it is possible, but I really really doubt it. I suspect my progressive circles have just decided to be married no matter what the government says. Well there is that group (married and unmarried) that refer to themselves as each others SO (significant other) because they are fighting the oppression of the language or protesting a lack of marital equality or something. I generally let people self-identify.
   172. spike Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:06 PM (#4401320)
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."

I'm pretty sure this is patently illegal.

To quote someone, "The more you speak, the more you expose your ignorance." There are perfectly legal zoning laws that specifically prohibit multi-family use of property, as well as cohabitation. People with children from other relationships that were not married would run afoul of both.

   173. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:08 PM (#4401322)
instead of stoning them to death, as MY GOD demands.

Your God is scary, and nothing like my God. Are you typing from a Taliban bunker in Wahiristan?
   174. DA Baracus Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:09 PM (#4401323)
Really? You've never heard anyone use the term "partner"?


I've only heard it used by gay couples since people like you won't let them get married because it will hurt your feelings if they do.
   175. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:12 PM (#4401325)
To quote someone, "The more you speak, the more you expose your ignorance." There are perfectly legal zoning laws that specifically prohibit multi-family use of property, as well as cohabitation. People with children from other relationships that were not married would run afoul of both.

Where? I've never heard of such a thing. I'm not talking single-family/multi-family. I've heard of "no more than 4 unrelated persons" to prevent rooming houses.

You're saying it's legal to prevent me from buying a home and having a friend live with me? That seems a fundamental violation of property rights.

   176. Srul Itza Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:13 PM (#4401326)
And I'd be surprised if sometime in the next 10 years we won't hear about some lower court judge ruling that bans on polygamous marriage are unconstitutional - what I don't know is if the 1st judge to do so will be sincere or not- I can see a "conservative" judge doing it as a way of tweaking the pro-gay rights side.


You really do know nothing about judges, if you think they are this cavalier with their office.

As for polygamy, there are studies showing anti-societal effects from allowing it; by contrast, every time the anti-gay snappers of the world try to put together such a study as regards gays, it comes out against them.
   177. Srul Itza Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:14 PM (#4401331)
Georgia GOP Chair warns that straight people will enter into sham gay marriages for benefits


I saw a few minutes of that movie. It sucked.
   178. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:15 PM (#4401332)
I've only heard it used by gay couples since people like you won't let them get married because it will hurt your feelings if they do.

It won't hurt my feelings anymore than people in second marriages do.

It's not that I won't let them get married, it's that you can't marry someone of the same sex any more than you can marry someone who is already married. You can call it marriage, but it isn't.
   179. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:16 PM (#4401335)
Why does a Democratic party victory mean a victory for you?

I won't speak for Bitter Mouse, but speaking for myself, a Democratic party victory means a victory for me because there are real and impactful differences between the Dems and the Republicans.


No, there really aren't. Both parties want increasing government involvement in everyone's lives and bigger government. So Democrats want the rate of increase to be higher. Big whoop. That is not a "difference" to any meaningful degree.

You're citing the effect of Supreme Court opinions, Steve? Society is shifting left, has been for a while, so, again, we're going to get to the same place eventually: same-sex marriage, universal health care, full-blown socialism... etc.

You're living in
   180. DA Baracus Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:16 PM (#4401337)
You can call it marriage, but it isn't.


It is (well, should be) marriage. That it doesn't fit your definition of marriage is your problem.
   181. Jay Z Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:18 PM (#4401341)
I don't see the constituency for bigamy in modern society. Classic bigamy is patriarchal. The real life situation is almost always going to be one of the two equal partners wanting to bring in a third person to the indifference at best of the other partner. What would the other partner have to gain by devaluing their share in the marriage?
   182. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:18 PM (#4401340)
I can't imagine I travel in far more progressive circles than you?


Actually, it's very easy for me to imagine that you travel in more progressive circles than some of our more liberal commenters (though not necessarily in this specific case.)

You live in New York. A liberal in Mississippi is going to travel in more conservative circles than you.
   183. Lassus Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:19 PM (#4401345)
It won't hurt my feelings anymore than people in second marriages do.

You're not going to allow second marriages, either?


You can call it marriage, but it isn't.

Language and words are defined by society and history, not the other way around.
   184. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:19 PM (#4401346)
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.


This one's a joke. Everyone I know pays more taxes b/c they're married.


so in every married couple you know both spouses make about the same amount of money?

I suppose that's possible, not likley but possible this day and age.


It works like this:

Husband and wife make 100K
taxes (standard deduction no kids): 12,410

Single Man( or woman) makes 100K: 19,074

Single man or women make 50K: 6,208

So if Hubby and wife each make 50K they pay $12,410 in taxes, whereas if they each filed as single, they'd pay a combined 12,416

If One spouse makes 100% and the other 0%, they pay far LESS in taxes when married.


So what about the so-called marriage penalty?
It kicks in when you get up around $200k
Married at $200K- taxes =39,006
but two singles who make 100K each would pay a combined 38,148

Married at $400K- taxes = 105,814
two singles, $200k each, combined $96,318

so basically for Snapper's claim to be true, every couple he knows must meet the following criteria:
1: each spouse makes about the same as the other
2: must be in the top income percentile









   185. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:20 PM (#4401347)
You're citing the effect of Supreme Court opinions, Steve? Society is shifting left, has been for a while, so, again, we're going to get to the same place eventually: same-sex marriage, universal health care, full-blown socialism... etc.

You're living in


Unfortunately I think you're right Ray.

Any good countries to move to that let you buy citizenship?
   186. The District Attorney Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:20 PM (#4401348)
Georgia GOP Chair warns that straight people will enter into sham gay marriages for benefits

I saw a few minutes of that movie. It sucked.
BTW, the original Three's Company pilot is better.
   187. Srul Itza Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:20 PM (#4401349)

It's not that I won't let them get married, it's that you can't marry someone of the same sex any more than you can marry someone who is already married. You can call it marriage, but it isn't.


Says you. And your church.

The rest of us don't have to accept it as truth or policy.
   188. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:22 PM (#4401353)
Your God is scary, and nothing like my God. Are you typing from a Taliban bunker in Wahiristan?


No their god doesn't demand "stoning" use of an AK-47 in a soccer stadium is perfectly acceptable.
   189. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:23 PM (#4401354)
So what about the so-called marriage penalty?
It kicks in when you get up around $200k
Married at $200K- taxes =39,006
but two singles who make 100K each would pay a combined 38,148

Married at $400K- taxes = 105,814
two singles, $200k each, combined $96,318

so basically for Snapper's claim to be true, every couple he knows must meet the following criteria:
1: each spouse makes about the same as the other
2: must be in the top income percentile


Well from your example, it's either or.

And that's typically true in the NYC area. Everyone tends to have either one high wage earner, or two moderate wage earners.

Two school teachers with 10+ years experience earn >$175K, evenly divided.

   190. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:24 PM (#4401359)
I can't imagine I travel in far more progressive circles than you?


Actually, it's very easy for me to imagine that you travel in more progressive circles than some of our more liberal commenters (though not necessarily in this specific case.)

I dunno Sam, you do live in Georgia don't you?

   191. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:24 PM (#4401360)
The rest of us don't have to accept it as truth or policy.

Everyone is free to reject truth. Truth is mostly inconvenient.

There are a lot of truths I wish weren't so. But wishing doesn't make things true.
   192. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:26 PM (#4401361)
Any good countries to move to that let you buy citizenship?


There's always Libra.
   193. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:28 PM (#4401364)
But wishing doesn't make things true.


Neither does the edited texts of Bronze Age nomadic goatherds, nor the proclamations of men in dresses.
   194. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:29 PM (#4401365)
Well from your example, it's either or.


can't be either or, has to be BOTH or there's no "marriage penalty"

Two school teachers with 10+ years experience earn >$175K, evenly divided.


and no "penalty until they hit about 200k- "evenly divided"

Everyone tends to have either one high wage earner


and will save on taxes by marrying, no matter the income level.

The "marriage penalty" is largely a myth concocted by some rightwing anti-tax yahoos a few decades ago, and it refuses to die despite being a counterfactual for the vast vast majority, someone hears that there's such a thing and the next thing you know they're complaining at a cocktail party about how they're getting penalized by uncle sam for marrying instead of shacking up.

   195. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4401376)
Everyone is free to reject truth.
And people wonder why compromise is impossible.
   196. spike Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:37 PM (#4401384)
You're saying it's legal to prevent me from buying a home and having a friend live with me? That seems a fundamental violation of property rights.

Heaven freaking forfend you actually take two seconds look something up before declaring it to be "patently illegal".

Virginia considers dropping law banning cohabitation

"A Virginia law dating to the 1800s states that it is illegal for “any persons, not married to each other, [to] lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together,”
   197. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:38 PM (#4401389)
Instead, they want to compel society to ratify their behavior, and they want to brand as bigots anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle.

Serious question: do you have gay relatives/friends? Have you talked with them about this issue?


This wasn't directed to me, but yes to both questions, although I have only "spoken to" a very small subset of them about this - those I'm closest with. My position is not one that you can quickly explain to a casual group of friends or observers without being presumed to be insensitive or a bigot, which sparks a much longer conversation in which you are basically put on trial wherein you have to defend yourself from the charge of insensitivity or bigotry, and I usually am not in the mood for such a long conversation or for such an unfair one.

To recap my position: While I would rather government be out of the marriage business entirely, I support same-sex marriage (instead of merely domestic partnerships) because (a) people should be free to do what they want to do as long as it's not harming anymone, (b) this doesn't harm anyone, and (c) it makes people happy and (d) provides them equal benefits under the law, although (e) I do think it harms the institution of marriage as traditionally defined, but (f) I don't care, so basically, in conclusion, I support same-sex marriage but (g) don't pretend, as others do, that it's not simply a redefinition of marriage.

People get upset with (e)-(g).

But Snapper is correct: First, homosexual couples _do_ want society as a whole to ratify their behavior (*). You can see this in their arguments offered up in court cases, that the word "marriage" imbues dignity to the union whereas "domestic partnership" does not. And, second, people who disagree with same-sex marriage _are_ branded bigots. To disagree with either of these points is to simply deny reality.

That's why it's so silly when people post their views supporting same-sex marriage on Facebook or what not. Such as one I saw last week: "I wish it was easy to marry the person of your choice but difficult to get a semi-automatic rifle, not the other way around." Do they _really_ expect people to engage an honest discussion on that absurd statement in Facebook soundbites, to openly disagree with them and be branded bigots? Same-sex proponents don't actually want a conversation on this; they don't want to hear anything that goes against what their views are, and when they do hear that something, they react by branding people bigots.

(*) And maybe society _should_, but that is a separate issue.

   198. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:45 PM (#4401403)
Do they _really_ expect people to engage an honest discussion on that absurd statement in Facebook soundbites, to openly disagree with them and be branded bigots?


No. That's not the function of Facebook updates in general, and not for political/cause updates especially. Those status updates function as a signally device to brand oneself on side A or side B of a general debate, not as an invitation to extensive debate on the topic. You're misunderstanding the purpose of social networking updates.
   199. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:51 PM (#4401409)
You're misunderstanding the purpose of social networking updates.


Well, I don't engage political discussions on Facebook.

And if you're not looking for a discussion, then "signaling" yourself as being on one side or the other looks kind of silly, because half the people reading the update will be on the other side and will see this as a lame attempt to position yourself on the "correct" side but yet above the conversation.
   200. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 01, 2013 at 04:58 PM (#4401424)
And if you're not looking for a discussion, then "signaling" yourself as being on one side or the other looks kind of silly, because half the people reading the update will be on the other side and will see this as a lame attempt to position yourself on the "correct" side but yet above the conversation.


Signalling is part of the primate's social game, son. It just is.
Page 2 of 66 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogWall Street didn't kill sabermetrics - Beyond the Box Score
(1 - 8:23am, Oct 24)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogWhat's Buster Posey's best trait as a catcher? Here's what his pitchers had to say - Giants Extra
(6 - 8:21am, Oct 24)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(370 - 8:02am, Oct 24)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3408 - 7:54am, Oct 24)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(868 - 7:52am, Oct 24)
Last: TFTIO is familiar with the works of Pablo Neruda

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(14 - 7:43am, Oct 24)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(1 - 7:07am, Oct 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogAJC: Hart says ‘yes’ to Braves, will head baseball operations
(16 - 6:46am, Oct 24)
Last: Flynn

NewsblogGleeman: Royals may bench Norichika Aoki for Game 3
(21 - 3:00am, Oct 24)
Last: PreservedFish

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(8 - 2:52am, Oct 24)
Last: mex4173

NewsblogKey question GMs have to weigh with top World Series free agents | New York Post
(28 - 12:50am, Oct 24)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(44 - 11:31pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(39 - 11:25pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8370 - 11:22pm, Oct 23)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogI hope this doesn't get me fired. | FOX Sports
(23 - 11:17pm, Oct 23)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.9025 seconds
52 querie(s) executed