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

Saturday, February 01, 2014

OTP - Feb 2014: Politics remains a hurdle for immigration reform

Yet Obama might find his best-chance legislative compromise in an issue that lately has seemed to be on life support: an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.

Curiously, immigration was an issue the president barely mentioned in this year’s speech. Maybe he does not want to interfere with those Republicans who actually agree with him on the need to bring the nation’s millions of undocumented workers out of the shadows.

Bitter Mouse Posted: February 01, 2014 at 04:01 PM | 3524 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 13 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›
   1201. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 12, 2014 at 07:18 PM (#4655902)
My name is Bitter Mouse and I have never used illegal drugs. I also drink maybe six drinks* in a year (last year was the drinkingest EVER, less than a dozen total drinks).

1168. gef the talking mongoose Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4655688)
You ####### lush. I don't think I've had a drink in a decade.

The entire Varmint Caucus is a bunch of virtual teetotalers! Who knew?
   1202. spike Posted: February 12, 2014 at 07:56 PM (#4655920)
The right to choose to enter into a sexual relationship with a consenting party and the right choose to enter into a business relationship with a consenting party come from the identical place - personal freedom to interact with those you choose to.

Could not be more false.

Business relationships can be compelled, and it is the current law of the land. Specifically -

Title II[edit]
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[39]

Title III[edit]
Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.

Now if you are arguing that homosexuals do not merit the same protections from segregation, feel free to carry on. But your equivalence of sexual and business relationships is demonstrably false.
   1203. spike Posted: February 12, 2014 at 08:12 PM (#4655929)
and of course the most odious part of the Kansas bill is that they extend the freedom to discriminate to state employees - so that they can decide whether or not a taxpayer is religiously entitled to the services he's paid for provided from someone whose salary is he's paying. FREEEDOM!
   1204. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 12, 2014 at 08:30 PM (#4655934)
There was an actual election yesterday. San Diego elected a mayor to replace disgraced Democratic serial sexual harasser Bob Filner, who had resigned. Looks like another datapoint suggesting that it could be a GOP year, since the Republican candidate won by a considerable margin despite some Democratic advantages:
. . . Democrats also have a 14-point registration advantage over Republicans in San Diego, which gave President Obama more than 60 percent of its votes in 2012 as it lifted the liberal Filner into the mayor's office. And despite help from an enormous field operation looking to make those numbers work for Democratic special-election candidate David Alvarez, Faulconer still garnered almost 55 percent of the vote as many fewer people cast ballots than in 2012.

Democrats outspent the Republican candidate, and government employee unions went all in since there were some spending & pension issues they were invested in, but they couldn't generate much of a turnout. That might be a theme echoed throughout the year.
   1205. Lassus Posted: February 12, 2014 at 08:58 PM (#4655941)
Whigs shut out again. Wherefore art thou, David Kurtz?
   1206. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: February 12, 2014 at 09:50 PM (#4655962)
Did anyone really expect Faulconer to lose to Alvarez? Bob Filner was so toxic that he became a state-wide joke, even in cities hundreds of miles away. The guy was basically psychotic, and he pretty much salted the Earth for the Democratic candidate. I've got quite a few friends down in SD (including your voice of the San Diego Sockers!). All of them go left, and none of them seemed to care about this election. When your party's previous guy sexually accosted at least 20 women, cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and forces a recall election that cost the city more than $7 million, chances are you're gonna lose. Throw on top of that Faulconer being a 10-term (!) councilman and a familiar face in SD politics and Alvarez a 1-term, 33-year-old upstart who barely got a quarter of his own party's support in the primary election... yeah.

The polling had indicated that Alvarez needed a massive turnout to win. If you need a massive turnout to win, you're probaby not gonna.
   1207. Jick Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:15 PM (#4655974)
Filner was the first Democrat to be Mayor of San Diego in thirty years or so, and he won on the coattails of Obama's reelection, when all sorts of youthly folk showed up. If the Democrats do indeed have a registration advantage, that's very much been a recent development, and 2012 might have been the first time in decades where more of them showed up than did Republicans. My polling place was so empty I had to convince the ballot workers that my street was, indeed, a part of the precinct - it was mid-afternoon and I was the first person to show up from there.

Faulconer's win is not a surprise by any means. I do wonder what would have happened had Todd Gloria run. By all accounts he's done an excellent job as the interim mayor.

(Edited for clarity.)
   1208. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:34 PM (#4655977)
The right to choose to enter into a sexual relationship with a consenting party and the right choose to enter into a business relationship with a consenting party come from the identical place - personal freedom to interact with those you choose to.


Could not be more false.

Business relationships can be compelled, and it is the current law of the land. Specifically -

Title II[edit]
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[39]

Title III[edit]
Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.

Now if you are arguing that homosexuals do not merit the same protections from segregation, feel free to carry on. But your equivalence of sexual and business relationships is demonstrably false.


He's not arguing from law, he's arguing from philosophy.

There's no coherent reason why a Gov't which is allowed to dictate who you may do business with can not also dictate who you may have sex with.
   1209. zonk Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:35 PM (#4655978)
Eh, of major cities - San Diego tends to lean Republican more than other major metropolises.

It's awfully hard for me to see how anyone can draw national conclusions from a mayoral election -- I mean, NYC spent 20 years under Republican mayors before swinging pretty hard left to elect its first Democratic (and one who sold himself very much as a left-leaning Democrat) since what... Dinkins?

Does the NYC mayoral election portend a growing power of the dyed in the wool liberal Democrats?

The one to watch is probably the FL-13 in a few weeks.

It's a slimly Republican district, albeit one that Obama won by an absolute sliver in 2012. Young had a pretty powerful incumbency hold. The Democrats have a pretty well know and strong - albeit, taint of loser - candidate in Alex Sink. However, if things are as gloomy as Clapper likes to claim -- it's probably about as even a barometer of the potential for waves as a single off-cycle election can be.

I would be willing to accept the following as baseline conclusions we can draw from that race, once settled:

1) Sink wins comfortably...say 5+ points. While it's still not an ideal environment, any fears of a big GOP wave are pretty much nothing more than huff-n-puff. In a wave environment, a Democrat does not flip a toss-up seat comfortably. November still presents challenges, but Democrats ought to be mightily cheered by the idea that they're not facing anything more than a standard tough map combined with a lot of discontent. No amount of excuse making plays in this case - a wave fundamentally means the national barometer overwhelms all else. Sink's a fine candidate - but she's hardly Jesusette. A solid win means - absent some really disastrous news - Clapper is full of ####.

2) Sinks squeaks out a win... say - 1-5 points Cloudly. It doesn't feel quite as wave-denying, but again - its' a seat flip, in an almost exactly 50/50 district, in a special election without the benefit of Presidential year turnout. It means that individual Democrats don't need to be perfect in perfect situations to win - it just means they need to run solid campaigns. It means any insurmountable demographic alignment hasn't yet arrived - and Democrats ought to take the position that they can't take anything for granted, but that 2014 doesn't need to played wholly on defense. They can win toss-ups and they can beat Republicans. Clapper survives to predict another day.

3) Less than one point race, no matter who wins Hard to draw much of any conclusion. Obviously - picking off a red seat, even by a single vote is good news for Democrats. However, if we get into <1 point territory - it's awfully hard to see how either side can legitimately draw any grandiose conclusions. Again - Obama won the district in 2012, but just barely... A popular GOP incumbent had zero problem winning it previously. Sink is a good candidate, but hardly anything electric (I mean, when you lose to a Pakuni like Rick Scott... well... ). Obviously, whoever wins will play up the bragging rights... but either side is just puffing chests and blowing smoke. We really didn't learn much except neither party is particularly popular nor ready to coast.

4) Jolly wins a squeaker... again - 1-5 points Cloudly, again... Democratic turnout traditionally suffers in non-Presidential year elections. The slim Obama win in 2012 in this district means that the Democrats won't be able to win squeakers based on pure numbers. It's not panic time - but it does mean that Democratic candidates will legitimately need to beat Republican opponents rather than just playing to a draw and hoping for a good coin flip. I would say it means they really need to think 'firewall' in the Senate... Whether McConnell in KY, Pryor in AR, or whereever -- they should forget about any real movement in the House and need to focus on finding a way to 50 Senate seats. Clapper gets to notch a win for the wave theory - but there's still room for interpretation.

5) Jolly wins comfortably.... 5+ points Yeah, the Democrats are in trouble. Every ounce of party resource goes into perhaps not just holding the Senate, but keeping things from becoming a bloodbath and making it a situation that means just picking off a Collins, Murkowski, or some other Republican. Clapper gets arrested for mopery in a BBTF thread.
   1210. Lassus Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:48 PM (#4655985)
There's no coherent reason why a Gov't which is allowed to dictate who you may do business with can not also dictate who you may have sex with.

The government is dictating who you are not allowed to refuse to do business with, which isn't the same thing.
   1211. zonk Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:49 PM (#4655987)
He's not arguing from law, he's arguing from philosophy.

There's no coherent reason why a Gov't which is allowed to dictate who you may do business with can not also dictate who you may have sex with.


Sure, it's the same point the Pauls would argue on the CRAs...

I do think you're right on the last point, though, I'd just say it also means that there's no inherent reason - beyond the religious sort - for the government to forbid interracial marriages.

Once upon a time, I guess I might have even agreed that the gay rights movement wasn't the same as the 60s era civil rights movement for African-Americans... However, the more you strips things away to the basic construct, absent any of the emotional flavor - I'm left with the simple idea that the asterisks don't work as legitimate differentiators.
   1212. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:52 PM (#4655992)
I do think you're right on the last point, though, I'd just say it also means that there's no inherent reason - beyond the religious sort - for the government to forbid interracial marriages.

No, there isn't any coherent reason to ban inter-racial marriage.

   1213. spike Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:55 PM (#4655994)
There's no coherent reason why a Gov't which is allowed to dictate who you may do business with can not also dictate who you may have sex with.

This sounds like a legal objection, not a philosophical one, but sure there is - guarantee of equal access is a far more desirable societal construct than enforced sexual preference
   1214. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:56 PM (#4655995)
The government is dictating who you are not allowed to refuse to do business with, which isn't the same thing.

Not allowing you to refuse is the same as compelling you to do business with them. Adding a double negative doesn't change the reality.

Now, I think you can make a compelling argument that for true public accommodations (restaurants, bars, etc.) the burden of allowing business owners t refuse service is too great on the potential customers.

But, I don't see how most other businesses would fall under that umbrella. No one is harmed if a specific caterer doesn't want to do their wedding. Just find another caterer who is willing.
   1215. Tilden Katz Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:59 PM (#4655996)
No, there isn't any coherent reason to ban inter-racial marriage.


Right. Then again, there isn't one to ban same sex marriage either.
   1216. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 10:59 PM (#4655997)
This sounds like a legal objection, not a philosophical one, but sure there is - guarantee of equal access is a far more desirable societal construct than enforced sexual preference

And someone else can reply, "no, freedom of association is a far more desirable social construct than equal access". And a third person can say "sexual license is far more damaging to society than discrimination".

There is no definitive way to value freedom vs. equality vs. social order. People can have preferences all across a spectrum.

That's the paradox of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". You can't have all three, and usually can't even have two. Gains in one almost always lead to losses in another.
   1217. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:01 PM (#4655998)
There's no coherent reason why a Gov't which is allowed to dictate who you may do business with can not also dictate who you may have sex with.

Right, as if preventing the harming of** an enormous and born-at-birth category of people isn't enough reason to pass a public accommodations law. Stupid me, I thought that Strom Thurmond had died 11 years ago, but I guess that certain "libertarians" still want to keep carrying a torch to his grave.

**"Sorry about that, boy, but you can always #### behind that bush, sleep in your car, and try to find a colored restaurant 50 miles down the road."
   1218. Tilden Katz Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:01 PM (#4655999)
There's no coherent reason why a Gov't which is allowed to dictate who you may do business with can not also dictate who you may have sex with.


Sure there is. Matters of sex are conducted, for the most part, in privacy. Business transactions of this sort, for the most part, are conducted in the public square. The government has more power to dictate what goes on in public than private.
   1219. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:04 PM (#4656002)
Right. Then again, there isn't one to ban same sex marriage either.

No, you're wrong there. There's no coherent reason to ban gay sexual relationship, but there is one to not recognize them as marriages.

The argument is that heterosexual marriage is a fundamental building block of society, in that it fosters the raising of the next generation, upon which the survival and health of society depends. Society seeks to privilege and subsidize heterosexual marriage, because it is by far the best way to raise and nurture productive citizens.

It is completely rational to deny that same privilege to homosexual unions, b/c they don't perform that function.

You may disagree with that, but it is a coherent argument.
   1220. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:06 PM (#4656003)
Sure there is. Matters of sex are conducted, for the most part, in privacy. Business transactions of this sort, for the most part, are conducted in the public square. The government has more power to dictate what goes on in public than private.

I agree with you on sexual acts. There is no reason for Gov't to regulate them.

But marriage is an inherently public act. You can't seek public recognition and Gov't benefits and them claim it's a purely private matter.
   1221. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:08 PM (#4656005)
Right, as if preventing the harming of** an enormous and born-at-birth category of people isn't enough reason to pass a public accommodations law. Stupid me, I thought that Strom Thurmond had died 11 years ago, but I guess that certain "libertarians" still want to keep carrying a torch to his grave.

So just ignore what I said in [1217]. The logic is strong to prevent discrimination in public accommodations.

But, public accommodations are a small fraction of total businesses. There is no harm in allowing a caterer, or gardener to serve whoever he chooses.
   1222. Lassus Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:08 PM (#4656006)
But marriage is an inherently public act.

Like business transactions. Fitting, as that's how they started.
   1223. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:11 PM (#4656009)
Like business transactions. Fitting, as that's how they started.

Well, that's my point. If the Gov't has the power to compel or prohibit one transaction, they have the same power in the other.
   1224. Tilden Katz Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:12 PM (#4656010)
The argument is that heterosexual marriage is a fundamental building block of society, in that it fosters the raising of the next generation, upon which the survival and health of society depends. Society seeks to privilege and subsidize heterosexual marriage, because it is by far the best way to raise and nurture productive citizens.


And how does allowing people of the same sex to marry hurt that fundamental building block? You've established that there's a rational reason to subsidize marriage, but haven't shown there's one to ban same sex couples from marrying.
   1225. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:13 PM (#4656011)
The argument is that heterosexual marriage is a fundamental building block of society, in that it fosters the raising of the next generation, upon which the survival and health of society depends. Society seeks to privilege and subsidize heterosexual marriage, because it is by far the best way to raise and nurture productive citizens.

So how many next generations has your marriage produced? Should prospective heterosexual couples be forced to pass fertility tests and swear that they'll produce two replacement level offspring in order to be certified?

It is completely rational to deny that same privilege to homosexual unions, b/c they don't perform that function.

Hmmm, what about the gay couples who deter more abortions by adopting and raising otherwise unwanted children?
   1226. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:16 PM (#4656013)
The government is dictating who you are not allowed to refuse to do business with, which isn't the same thing.

Not allowing you to refuse is the same as compelling you to do business with them. Adding a double negative doesn't change the reality.

Still wrong. Nobody is being compelled to do business with anyone. If you don't wish to do business with the public, don't open a public business. Simple as that. What we are compelling, is that, should you choose to open a public business, you make it available to the whole public.

This is akin to compelling public businesses not to sell food containing excess amount of rat feces, because TYRANNY! There are a certain number of hard-core libertarians, who will think that is a valid argument. But for 99.875% of the population it is not the least bit compelling. If you open a public business, you are agreeing to adhere to the regulations on public businesses. Don't like it, don't open one. Nobody is forcing anybody to go into business.

The gap between that, and laws regulating private sexual activities between consenting adults is so wide, you could drive several hundred trucks through it at once. Sideways.
   1227. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:18 PM (#4656014)
So how many next generations has your marriage produced? Should prospective heterosexual couples be forced to pass fertility tests and swear that they'll produce two replacement level offspring in order to be certified?

Jeeze Andy, you're going to stoop to this too? Probably time for another BBTF vacation.

I could ask the same question of you, and producing children to support your beloved welfare state, but I don't engage in that crap.

It is pathetic that grown adults can't bear to see their precious preferences questioned w/o resorting to insult.

Somebody email me about the softball game.
   1228. steagles Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:19 PM (#4656015)
No one is harmed if a specific caterer doesn't want to do their wedding. Just find another caterer who is willing.

you're right, who cares if one caterer does it...but if one caterer can refuse service, what's to stop another and another and another? what if it's every caterer? or every electrician? or every plumber?

if you are seriously making the argument you appear to be making, you have failed as a human being.
   1229. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:21 PM (#4656016)
I don't know about legal niceties but I am pretty sure there is a huge difference between having a sexual relationship and a business relationship, and I am much MUCH more comfortable with regulations regarding businesses (of which there are ever so many) than I am the government interfering with intimate personal relationships.
   1230. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:27 PM (#4656020)
Jeeze Andy, you're going to stoop to this too?


Yeah, uncool Andy. I love you dude, but really, not cool. I just have no idea why people feel compelled to make stuff personal.

That said I think snapper is wrong on the merits, but that can be argued on the merits, even using the same basic argument, without making it personal.
   1231. Lassus Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:29 PM (#4656021)
Ugh. Again?
   1232. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:36 PM (#4656023)
So how many next generations has your marriage produced? Should prospective heterosexual couples be forced to pass fertility tests and swear that they'll produce two replacement level offspring in order to be certified?

Jeeze Andy, you're going to stoop to this too? Probably time for another BBTF vacation.

I could ask the same question of you, and producing children to support your beloved welfare state, but I don't engage in that crap.

It is pathetic that grown adults can't bear to see their precious preferences questioned w/o resorting to insult.


That wasn't intended as an insult, but merely a logically obvious question to ask of you, given your stated "reason" for anointing your (and my own) marriage while denying that anointment to the lesbian couple who until recently lived next to us. If you're honestly basing your position on the premise that we need heterosexual marriages to produce children (which you did in your previous comment), it's hard to see why childless heterosexual couples should get some sort of an exemption from that test.

As for me and Mrs. JOSN and the welfare state, we don't have children, but we're glad to pay taxes that go to a whole host of programs that support children in countless numbers of ways. Why might you ever suppose otherwise?

But forget my comment as being directed to you, and aim it straight at me, exclusively if you will. Would that be an insult to myself? Why should my childless marriage be favored over that of the lesbian couple that recently lived next door, based on your very own stated reasoning?

   1233. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:46 PM (#4656027)
In other mayoral news, Ray Nagin, the former Democratic Mayor of New Orleans was convicted on 20 counts related to bribery:
Former New Orleans mayor C. Ray Nagin — who became the face of a desperate, drowning city during Hurricane Katrina — was convicted Wednesday on charges of accepting bribes from city contractors while in office. Nagin, a Democrat, was found guilty by a federal jury on 20 of 21 criminal counts, including bribery, conspiracy and wire fraud. He was acquitted on one count of bribery.

Louisiana has been a consistent contender for most corrupt state in the Union. Perhaps this might be the beginning of the end of that.
   1234. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:47 PM (#4656029)
Yeah, uncool Andy. I love you dude, but really, not cool. I just have no idea why people feel compelled to make stuff personal.

See my revised version of the question. The problem is that when you use wholly abstract arguments in discussing issues like this, it's way too easy to miss the forest for the trees.

Snapper made a case for favoring heterosexual marriage exclusively, based on procreation. My wife and I haven't procreated, so by his standard, what's the difference between us and a gay or lesbian couple?

And trust me, I wasn't trying to get nasty with the boy---I've defended him here on many occasions when he was being trashed by many of my fellow liberals---but sometimes you have to use a 2 x 4 to get some people to get out of their textbooks and Bibles and look at the real world.
   1235. steagles Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:58 PM (#4656031)
That said I think snapper is wrong on the merits, but that can be argued on the merits, even using the same basic argument, without making it personal.
no. no no no.

the arguments he's making were already fought on the merits 50 years ago. and he lost. replacing one affected minority with another doesn't change the underlying law, which has been clearly settled for 50 years. there is no acceptable argument here other than wondering whether snapper uses chlorinated bleach or chlorine-free bleach to wash the pillowcase he uses at his weekend klan rallies.


to do anything other than call snapper's arguments out for being the bigoted horseshit they clearly are will only serve to set the civil rights movement back those 50 years. engaging his arguments legitimizes them and even when you prove him wrong (not hard to do), the fact that you've engaged him in the first place encourages him to move the goalposts and continue to spew his not even thinly-veiled bigotry.
   1236. Lassus Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:04 AM (#4656032)
Louisiana has been a consistent contender for most corrupt state in the Union. Perhaps this might be the beginning of the end of that.

The former Mayor of New Orleans - who left in 2010 - is somehow more responsible for state corruption than the current Governor and Lieutenant Governor how?
   1237. OCF Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:13 AM (#4656039)
About the San Diego mayoral election: while I don't know for sure about San Diego, I would assume that the election was conducted without party labels - the way most such elections are conducted in California. That is, the two candidates would not have appeared on the ballot as "Republican - Falconer" and "Democrat - Alvarez" but rather simply as "Falconer" and "Alvarez." And their platforms, to the extent that they had platforms, would have dealt with issues not easily recognizable from national party platforms. And a Republican mayor isn't going to try to shut down every abortion clinic in the city or seek an end to various already-established anti-discrimination policies or to declare total non-cooperation with Obamacare. None of that is what mayors do.

I've voted in every national election (including primaries) since I turned 18. But I know I've missed some municipal elections. Our municipal elections (which are held at different times than national elections) tend to have absurdly low turnout. For various reasons, I happen to know more about my city's upcoming (April) mayoral election than usual. The one candidate who seems to have enough money to have sent us multiple flyers in the mail? Those mailings prominently feature pictures of the candidate so that everyone knows he's a young African-American man. Nowhere in any of those mailings is the slightest word or hint that he's actually a Republican (which he is, and a coalition of local business interests helps explain why he has money.) There's also a young Latino man - who happens to be gay. But I know his real deep dark secret, which is that he was a College Republican. (His opinions have changed, and he's a Democrat now.) And then there's the veteran politician who shares a last name with her ex-husband who is also a veteran politician - let's just say that she has name recognition. Whatever happens, (and I haven't exhausted the list of candidates), it will be hard to draw any national conclusions in any direction from that election.
   1238. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:14 AM (#4656040)
St. Nick & Steagles - defending the indefensible, plain & simple.
   1239. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:20 AM (#4656041)
Louisiana has been a consistent contender for most corrupt state in the Union. Perhaps this might be the beginning of the end of that.

The former Mayor of New Orleans - who left in 2010 - is somehow more responsible for state corruption than the current Governor and Lieutenant Governor how?

???? Didn't say anything about the Governor or Lt. Governor, although AFAIK they haven't been accused of anything.
   1240. tshipman Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:22 AM (#4656042)
The entire Varmint Caucus is a bunch of virtual teetotalers! Who knew?


If no one else will, I will at least give it up for the varmint caucus line. I chuckled. BM and gef better be on the lookout for Romney!

There's no coherent reason why a Gov't which is allowed to dictate who you may do business with can not also dictate who you may have sex with.


Uhhhhhhhhhh ... sex has nothing to do with interstate commerce? That's just the easiest one.
   1241. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:22 AM (#4656043)
One final point about "personalizing" this issue.

Why is it considered to be "personalizing" this issue by referencing a particular heterosexual (be it either snapper or myself), while it's not considered to be "personalizing" it by merely not naming particular individual Primates? Or non-Primates, for that matter----Lurkers here always far outnumber everyone else, 408 to 62 by current count.

snapper and I may be heterosexual, but there are more than a few self-identified gay people who post here regularly, and who might well have read snapper's "reasoning" about why only heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry. Why shouldn't they take snapper's comments personally? Just because he's not citing them and their spouses (current or potential) by name, does anyone really think his comments don't hit them between the eyes just as surely as if he'd called them out?

   1242. steagles Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:22 AM (#4656044)
St. Nick & Steagles - defending the indefensible, plain & simple.
i don't care about snapper or his personal life. i care about the fact that he uses his own religious bigotry to justify institutional discrimination (by both governmental and non-governmental agencies) against me and people like me despite the fact that such discrimination has been ruled unconstitutional for the better part of the last half-century.


   1243. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:24 AM (#4656045)
St. Nick & Steagles - defending the indefensible, plain & simple.

Whereas defending bigotry with logically self-contradictory reasoning is wholly within the bounds of propriety and decorum. Score another one for the Republican rapid response team.
   1244. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:26 AM (#4656046)
See my revised version of the question. The problem is that when you use wholly abstract arguments in discussing issues like this, it's way too easy to miss the forest for the trees.


Sure, but it is a sensitive subject for him and is better avoided. I very much like your revised question. Personally I think marriage largely started as a resource pooling and procreation mechanism, but who cares? It is not that now.
   1245. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:46 AM (#4656048)
Sure, but it is a sensitive subject for him and is better avoided. I very much like your revised question.

Perhaps snapper and I might both have benefited by attempting to put ourselves in the "other" person's shoes before making our initial comments. And if some of his "best friends" are gay, he might want to keep them "personally" in mind before stating that they should be denied the same natural right to marry that my wife and I enjoy.
   1246. Lassus Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:48 AM (#4656051)
???? Didn't say anything about the Governor or Lt. Governor, although AFAIK they haven't been accused of anything.

No, I did, in response. Here's what you said:
Louisiana has been a consistent contender for most corrupt state in the Union. Perhaps this might be the beginning of the end of that.
My point is that if you're going to knock LA for corruption, and then make a point to say that the conviction of the evil Democrat Nagin will somehow turn that around, you might want to look for fault regarding the state's corruption at your own party, the PARTY THAT HOLDS THE HIGHEST OFFICES IN THE STATE. Something Nagin never did, nor has even been running his own little corner in over three years.
   1247. Jick Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:59 AM (#4656057)
About the San Diego mayoral election: while I don't know for sure about San Diego, I would assume that the election was conducted without party labels - the way most such elections are conducted in California. That is, the two candidates would not have appeared on the ballot as "Republican - Falconer" and "Democrat - Alvarez" but rather simply as "Falconer" and "Alvarez."


This is true. That said, campaigning was more partisan than any of the other mayoral elections I've endured since I've been here ('twas my third). I only saw the flyers that were stuffed in my mailbox every day, but they were all "Faulconer is the candidate of the 1%" and "If Alvarez loves unions so much, why doesn't he marry them?" so it wasn't hard to tell who belonged to which party. But you're certainly right that no national issues were really on the table. Obama's endorsement of Alvarez didn't come until the other day and Faulconer, as far as I saw, didn't try to identify Alvarez with any national Democrats.
   1248. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:59 AM (#4656058)
Sure there is. Matters of sex are conducted, for the most part, in privacy. Business transactions of this sort, for the most part, are conducted in the public square. The government has more power to dictate what goes on in public than private.

The right to not engage in the act of selling flowers to Joe and Bob is the exact same right as the right for Joe and Bob to enter into a consenting, sexual relationship. If you protect one and not the other, you're not protecting a right, you're protecting a *preference*. The notion of businesses being public accommodations (outside of actual governmental institutions) is sophistry, a pretense used to deny rights one doesn't like, the same weak pretense that the social conservatives use when they declare "marriage is defined as a man and a woman, 'nuff said!"

The only real difference between a store and a home is the services available within and the desired exclusivity of entrance decided by the owner of the property. To separate them is just an excuse to punish people who have different values than you (and me).
   1249. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 13, 2014 at 01:02 AM (#4656059)
My point is that if you're going to knock LA for corruption, and then make a point to say that the conviction of the evil Democrat Nagin will somehow turn that around, you might want to look for fault regarding the state's corruption at your own party, the PARTY THAT HOLDS THE HIGHEST OFFICES IN THE STATE. Something Nagin never did, nor has even been running his own little corner in over three years.

I was speaking of Louisiana's historical corruption problem which dates back to the days it was a one-party state, part of the Democratic Solid South. Although hoping that Nagin's conviction is a sign of progress may prove overly optimistic, or not, I don't see how it leads to criticism of the current Republican administration, which AFAIK, has yet to be tainted by such allegations. Seems like a misplaced knee-jerk reaction.
   1250. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 13, 2014 at 01:07 AM (#4656061)
That is, the two candidates would not have appeared on the ballot as "Republican - Falconer" and "Democrat - Alvarez" but rather simply as "Falconer" and "Alvarez."

One of my favorite reforms.

If I had my way, no parties would be listed on any ballot for any office and the order of the names would be completely randomized for each individual ballot (obviously more practical on a computer voting machine). An election ballot should not be advertising a group that a candidate has affiliated themselves with - "Republican" or "Democrat" has as much business being on a ballot as NRA, ACLU, or Colgate Cavity Patrol.
   1251. steagles Posted: February 13, 2014 at 01:13 AM (#4656062)
The right to not engage in the act of selling flowers to Joe and Bob is the exact same right as the right for Joe and Bob to enter into a consenting, sexual relationship. If you protect one and not the other, you're not protecting a right, you're protecting a *preference*. The notion of businesses being public accommodations (outside of actual governmental institutions) is sophistry, a pretense used to deny rights one doesn't like, the same weak pretense that the social conservatives use when they declare "marriage is defined as a man and a woman, 'nuff said!"

discrimination is not a right. you're too smart to believe something that stupid.
   1252. Lassus Posted: February 13, 2014 at 01:13 AM (#4656063)
Seems like a misplaced knee-jerk reaction.

Yes, entirely unlike you singling out the conviction of a Democrat as the reason Louisiana's historical corruption - caused by Democrats, of course - might be coming to an end.


The only real difference between a store and a home is the services available within and the desired exclusivity of entrance decided by the owner of the property.

This is actually kind of creepy, as well as a null set. There are no services available in my home, so to compare it to a store on this basis is entirely illogical.
   1253. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 13, 2014 at 01:17 AM (#4656064)
Sure, but it is a sensitive subject for him and is better avoided. I very much like your revised question. Personally I think marriage largely started as a resource pooling and procreation mechanism, but who cares? It is not that now.

It's a sensitive matter for people who currently can't get married, or visit their loved ones in hospital, or do any number of other things normal couples can do, because of the "morality" and and belief system that snapper represents, and in many places is the basis for the law of the land.

You picked the wrong side to accuse of "making it personal". It was always personal. You are delusional if you think it could ever be anything but personal. If you want to have a discussion free of personal issues, don't fuck with other people's relationships and their sex life.
   1254. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2014 at 08:26 AM (#4656095)
The right to not engage in the act of selling flowers to Joe and Bob is the exact same right as the right for Joe and Bob to enter into a consenting, sexual relationship. If you protect one and not the other, you're not protecting a right, you're protecting a *preference*. The notion of businesses being public accommodations (outside of actual governmental institutions) is sophistry, a pretense used to deny rights one doesn't like, the same weak pretense that the social conservatives use when they declare "marriage is defined as a man and a woman, 'nuff said!"


discrimination is not a right. you're too smart to believe something that stupid.

Dan's not stupid, but he's got his usual horse blinders on when it comes to the realities of the damage that was wrought by "private" discrimination. It's rather telling that instead of addressing the very real issue of tens of millions of people being forced to drive through the night looking for a place to eat, sleep, or relieve themselves, he symbolically reduces discrimination to the act of "selling flowers to Joe and Bob", in order to defend the rights of the world's bigots to make life miserable for people born into the wrong category.

---------------------------------------------

You picked the wrong side to accuse of "making it personal". It was always personal. You are delusional if you think it could ever be anything but personal. If you want to have a discussion free of personal issues, don't #### with other people's relationships and their sex life.

The connecting thread between anti-gay marriage and anti-CRA** positions is often simply the invisibility of the victims of these acts of discrimination, in the eyes of the people defending these positions. Faceless black people in the Jim Crow era suffering one indignity after another under the white folks' radar, and faceless gay couples in many states today being forced to delay their life plans because of some archaic religious dogma that can't even justify itself with its own internal logic. This is what happens when lifeless "principles" become put on a pedestal without any regard for the collateral damage.

**the public accommodations section of the 1964 bill
   1255. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2014 at 09:03 AM (#4656101)
to do anything other than call snapper's arguments out for being the bigoted horseshit they clearly are will only serve to set the civil rights movement back those 50 years. engaging his arguments legitimizes them and even when you prove him wrong (not hard to do), the fact that you've engaged him in the first place encourages him to move the goalposts and continue to spew his not even thinly-veiled bigotry.


I disagree with most of this. I mean feel free to call his argument bigoted horsepucky, so long as you are talking about the argument. Bringing in the person, talking about them to bolster your argument is wrong. The most bigoted person in the world can be right on the merits of a particular argument, because their argument matters and not their personal life (in terms of rightness of argument).

Engaging in arguments on a board like this does nothing like legitimize his arguments. Here we have the opportunity to discuss in depth and there is a fair degree of intelligence here. Occasionally engaging does legitimize, for example when various legit news outlets engage with conspiracy nuts, it gives them credibility. However my engaging with snapper on the merits of his argument does not grant his argument more credibility, I am not CBS news, I am part of the Varmit Caucus (which is not yet all that prestigious).

As to "encourages him to spew", now you are being ridiculous. The whole point of the thread is for each of us to spew and discuss politics. it is not up to you or I to encourage, monitor, ban or otherwise govern other peoples posts as to subject matter other than perhaps within the TOS. snapper suggesting gay marriage is bad, no good, and wrong is the (IMO) wrong position, but not bigoted in and of itself*. If snapper were to attack a person based on something about them that would be bigoted.

Shorter form - attacking someone else is bad, attacking their argument is good.

* I know we (the thread) has had this discussion before, and some here think anyone against gay marriage is a bigot. I still disagree with than analysis. being against gay marriage is certainly correlated with bigotry, but is neither necessary nor sufficient to be bigotry.
   1256. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2014 at 09:13 AM (#4656102)
Why is it considered to be "personalizing" this issue by referencing a particular heterosexual (be it either snapper or myself), while it's not considered to be "personalizing" it by merely not naming particular individual Primates? Or non-Primates, for that matter----Lurkers here always far outnumber everyone else, 408 to 62 by current count.


My fundamental stand, and I have been consistent about it for a long time for all sides, is when arguing a point make your argument without any reference to the person making the argument*. The correctness of a position is not best evaluated by discussing the person who hold the opinion, rather it is best to discuss the opinion itself.

Now obviously you can't talk about gay marriage without talking about gays. But the fact that I am straight mayu have informed my decision about gay marriage, many factors of my biography inform many of my opinions, but they are not relevant to the rightness or wrongness of my opinions. It is the Ad Hominem logical fallacy that so many here have a hard time understanding.

You can mention whoever you want (within the TOS). Feel free to explain how your own biography has informed your opinion, or various experiences have shown the rightness or wrongness of others opinions.

* Note: This is not to say you can't attack people (with the TOS of course). Gratuitous insults are somewhat par for the course, and it is fine for me to call GF not very bright and him to refer to me as a hypocrite (just random examples), but neither of those facts, even if true, have any bearing on the correctness of our opinions. They are not relevant to the discussion - no matter how fun it is to write.
   1257. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2014 at 09:19 AM (#4656104)
It's a sensitive matter for people who currently can't get married, or visit their loved ones in hospital, or do any number of other things normal couples can do, because of the "morality" and and belief system that snapper represents, and in many places is the basis for the law of the land.


Nonsense. The central point is it is a sensitive personal point which has no bearing on the correctness of his opinion. Sensitive subjects can always be raised. If people don't like it they can leave. But personal attacks are not relevant to the argument. You want to bring up my personal life to attack me (within the TOS, of course) I am fine with that actually, so long as you don't pretend that has any bearing on the argument at hand. The value of diversity in modern society does not hinge on where I live. Shocking I know.

I have a very high opinion of Andy. I like him a great deal and think very highly of him. I agree with him on the substance of most issues (except steroids) probably 95% of the time (and maybe higher). I agree with him on this very subject in fact. If GF or SBB or JoeyB had made the same post I would have reacted differently (probably), because I expect more from Andy than them (perhaps unfairly).
   1258. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2014 at 09:29 AM (#4656108)
The right to not engage in the act of selling flowers to Joe and Bob is the exact same right as the right for Joe and Bob to enter into a consenting, sexual relationship.


No it really is not, you have abstracted way too far. There is a strong difference culturally, historically, and legally between the public and private. You can argue that there should be no difference, but you can't reasonably just assume away the difference and then make an argument based on their being no difference.

There are many reasons society has decided that there is a strong distinction between those two spheres. It is very fundamental. It was obvious when my boys hit the developmental milestone when they separated the two, because they wanted their own rooms (and began locking doors and ...). They no longer wanted everything they did to be done in the public sphere.

That separation between public and private, the desire for a degree of privacy, a separation from the public, is as fundamental a drive as you get (past survival and reproduction). Suggesting that it does not exist or that such a significant factor should not be instantiated in our customs and laws is completely ridiculous.
   1259. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 13, 2014 at 09:51 AM (#4656114)
There is a strong difference culturally, historically, and legally between the public and private.

There is a strong difference culturally, historically, and legally between marriage between a man and a woman and between a man and a man and a woman and a woman. That makes it a bullshit argument, prejudice enshrined by law.

There are many reasons society has decided that there is a strong distinction between those two spheres. It is very fundamental.

Just like marriage = one man + one woman was fundamental historically, culturally, and legally for milennia. Again, that the prejudices of social conservatives and the prejudices of progressives are able to be enshrined and enforced by law is of no surprise to me. Doesn't make it just.

I believe that people have a fundamental right of association with other consenting adults. You and Phil Robertson don't. I'm sure you and Robertson are both very nice people otherwise, of course - lots of people I like very much are with you two, on either issue. But I find the position of you and Robertson on the rights of consenting adults to be inimical to my worldview of a just society.

   1260. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 13, 2014 at 09:52 AM (#4656115)
There are no services available in my home,


That's what she said.
   1261. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 13, 2014 at 09:54 AM (#4656117)

If no one else will, I will at least give it up for the varmint caucus line. I chuckled. BM and gef better be on the lookout for Romney!


And I don't even drink much caffeine (gave it up for a few years in the late '90s while working late shifts, inf act), though I'm midway through my pre-work frappucino even as I type.

   1262. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 13, 2014 at 09:58 AM (#4656118)
As for the unfortunate situation with snapper, it's obviously a very sensitive subject with him, & yeah, Andy clearly should've employed some common sense. Still & all, if his skin isn't going to be any thicker (& the fact that it's not is perfectly understandable, it seems to me) in this matter, perhaps he'd be wise to stay away from pronouncements about procreation & building blocks of society & whatnot.

*sigh*
   1263. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:03 AM (#4656120)
Don't know if gef is talking to me, but as a courtesy, remember gef, you've been on my ignore list for some time.
   1264. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4656121)
Just like marriage = one man + one woman was fundamental historically, culturally, and legally for milennia.


No it wasn't.
   1265. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4656123)
Don't know if gef is talking to me, but as a courtesy, remember gef, you've been on my ignore list for some time.


Someone please tell Little Miss Drama Queen that I wasn't, please.
   1266. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:11 AM (#4656125)
There is a strong difference culturally, historically, and legally between marriage between a man and a woman and between a man and a man and a woman and a woman. That makes it a ######## argument, prejudice enshrined by law.


You realize that historically marriage has meant many things right? It has not always been one man and one women. But, that is totally besides the point.

You made a claim that there was no difference between the public and private sphere. That is totally wrong. There is a difference. Drawing a false analogy to marriage and misrepresenting my opinions on the subject have nothing to do with the fact that in every society I know of, for every single person I know, there is a strong difference between the public and private.

Now you can argue that there should not be, but you can't just assume that there is not a difference. Similarly proponents of gay marriage could not just wish away the cultural context they were in that overwhelmingly was against gay marriage. They had to confront the fact that there was a strong (but not universal tradition) against formalized legal gay marriage, and they have done so and successfully.

You want to cheat though. You want to skip past the argument as to whether the public and private are the same, and skip to your conclusion that since they are the same there is no difference between public business and private fornication vis-a-vis the government. You don't get to do that skipping.

Feel free to argue that there should be no difference between the public and private, but don't just assume it. It exists it is real. That is why your initial statement about there being no difference between sex and business was ridiculous. It is based on an assertion, an assumption you have not bothered to argue. It is also an assumption that anyone with any knowledge of human nature knows is foolish.
   1267. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM (#4656128)
Why is it considered to be "personalizing" this issue by referencing a particular heterosexual (be it either snapper or myself), while it's not considered to be "personalizing" it by merely not naming particular individual Primates? Or non-Primates, for that matter----Lurkers here always far outnumber everyone else, 408 to 62 by current count.

My fundamental stand, and I have been consistent about it for a long time for all sides, is when arguing a point make your argument without any reference to the person making the argument*. The correctness of a position is not best evaluated by discussing the person who hold the opinion, rather it is best to discuss the opinion itself.


But I think that there's a distinction to be made between

---a gratuitous personal insult; and

---a pointed question that enhances the discussion by providing specific examples of the real world consequences of a person's position.

A gratuitous personal insult---and I don't pretend that I haven't made some of them---is like a soap bubble. It may sting a person's eye, but obviously it's irrelevant to the substance of the argument under discussion.

But a pointed "personal" question isn't always intended as an insult, even if some people (including snapper and you) may take it that way. When I asked that rhetorical question of snapper (and of course it was rhetorical, since I knew the answer beforehand), it was simply a way of trying to force him to confront the curious logic of his stated position that heterosexual marriage should get preference because of its necessity for preserving the species. If I had made such a dubious assertion, it would have been perfectly legitimate for STEAGLES or anyone else to have asked me the same "personal" question.

Of course "personalizing" the issue doesn't add or subtract from the legitimacy of the argument. If Mr. & Mrs. snapper had a dozen children, his argument would still be absurd, because that would still leave Mrs. JOSN and me, and millions of other childless couples, as the thumb-on-the-scale beneficiaries of his stated form of reasoning.

But again, leave snapper's personal situation out of this. Under snapper's own rule of preference, why should any straight couple who either can't have, or doesn't want children, be treated more favorably than a gay or lesbian couple? Until snapper can answer that question without references to mystical sources like the Bible or 1950's TV shows, he's going to have to face up to his own blatant (and quite self-serving) hypocrisy, not to mention his self-exploding idea of logic.

   1268. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:16 AM (#4656129)
I believe that people have a fundamental right of association with other consenting adults. You and Phil Robertson don't. I'm sure you and Robertson are both very nice people otherwise, of course - lots of people I like very much are with you two, on either issue. But I find the position of you and Robertson on the rights of consenting adults to be inimical to my worldview of a just society.


This is just sad by the way. How about you argue with me and not lump me in with Phil Robertson or whatever other random person you think of?

My opinion is that in private people have a right to associate with whoever they want - consenting adults and all that. In the public sphere, however, there are restrictions. You can yell "Fire!" all you want in private, but you can't in a public theater. You can refuse to allow a black person into your home if you want, but if you operate a public store you can't.

There are rules that differ between the public and private. Everyone knows this, you act it out every single time you go out in public, everyone does.

EDIT: Another example, your home is your castle (metaphorically), but your place of business is most certainly not. Totally different things, because your home is in the private sphere and your business in the public one.
   1269. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:19 AM (#4656131)
Don't know if gef is talking to me, but as a courtesy, remember gef, you've been on my ignore list for some time.


Someone please tell Little Miss Drama Queen that I wasn't, please.

Consider it done.
   1270. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:23 AM (#4656133)
Under snapper's own rule of preference, why should any straight couple who either can't have, or doesn't want children, be treated more favorably than a gay or lesbian couple?


Hey I think his logic is wrong. It has some roots in history, but part of progress is leaving some of the unneeded bits of history behind. We don't live in the world, with its set of conditions, that caused the 1950 to be like they were. We don't need to pretend that everything that shaped that decade still shapes us today or will shape us tomorrow. We don't get to assume away heterosexual marriage, but we do get to challenge its assumptions and decide how we as a society want to go forward.

And clearly we have decided (rightly IMO) that gay marriage is part of the new normal.
   1271. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:33 AM (#4656137)
This is just sad by the way. How about you argue with me and not lump me in with Phil Robertson or whatever other random person you think of?


You lumped yourself by deciding for yourself which practices between consenting adults are legitimate and which are not.

My opinion is that in private people have a right to associate with whoever they want - consenting adults and all that. In the public sphere, however, there are restrictions. You can yell "Fire!" all you want in private, but you can't in a public theater. You can refuse to allow a black person into your home if you want, but if you operate a public store you can't.

Ah, so you believe that gay consensual relationships are a fundamental right, so long as they are in the house? But holding hands in public? Going out to a romantic dinner in public?

Duh, you can't legally refuse to admit a person to your private store (erroneously called public) based on race or other protected classifications. You also can't legally marry your lover of the same gender in many states. I'm talking what's just, not what personal prejudices progressive or social conservatives successfully enshrine in law.

[And no, Wal-Mart or Harry's Hardware is not actually a public store, it's just that statists conjured up that fiction to impose their prejudices. Those locations are private facilities that have freely chosen to have an extremely open entrance policy for other consenting adults and legal minors]
   1272. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:34 AM (#4656139)
Under snapper's own rule of preference, why should any straight couple who either can't have, or doesn't want children, be treated more favorably than a gay or lesbian couple?

Hey I think his logic is wrong. It has some roots in history, but part of progress is leaving some of the unneeded bits of history behind. We don't live in the world, with its set of conditions, that caused the 1950 to be like they were. We don't need to pretend that everything that shaped that decade still shapes us today or will shape us tomorrow. We don't get to assume away heterosexual marriage, but we do get to challenge its assumptions and decide how we as a society want to go forward.


What's rather ironic about much of this is that I probably agree more with snapper than most others here about the benefits of marriage and why it should be encouraged for many reasons. The single lifestyle is fine if that's your preference, but overall I think that stable nuclear units are much the better idea for a society going forward.

But the idea that a stable gay or lesbian nuclear unit should be given any diminished form of state recognition----that fails on every count imaginable, no matter what sort of historical or Biblical references are used to back it up.
   1273. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:36 AM (#4656142)
Duh, you can't legally refuse to admit a person to your public store based on race or other protected classifications. You also can't legally marry your lover of the same gender in many states. I'm talking what's just,

So are we, although we seem to have a radically different concept of what constitutes justice.
   1274. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:38 AM (#4656144)
You realize that historically marriage has meant many things right? It has not always been one man and one women. But, that is totally besides the point.

But it's mostly been one man and one woman in this culture and this society.

And clearly we have decided (rightly IMO) that gay marriage is part of the new normal.

Ah, so your beliefs that gay relationships are OK isn't rooted in the fundamental rights of two consenting adults to freely enter into a sexual relationship, but in the idea that a bunch of people totally decided it wasn't icky anymore? So, a jurisdiction where that society has still decided it's icky, there's no right to enter into a same-gendered sexual relationship? And when a society decides it's so gross that those people shouldn't be allowed to exist anymore, well, that's cool brah?

Well, I guess this is consistent with the roots of progressivism...
   1275. BDC Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4656146)
Marriage as an institution seems weirder to me by the hour. But since it's not going anywhere fast, everybody ought to have access to it.
   1276. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4656147)
You realize that historically marriage has meant many things right? It has not always been one man and one women. But, that is totally besides the point.

But it's mostly been one man and one woman in this culture and this society.


For milennia?
   1277. spike Posted: February 13, 2014 at 10:50 AM (#4656150)
On the lighter side of the news, apparantly Rand Paul can't even manage to be an attention whore without plagiarizing someone else's work.
   1278. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2014 at 11:10 AM (#4656165)
You lumped yourself by deciding for yourself which practices between consenting adults are legitimate and which are not.

Ah, so your beliefs that gay relationships are OK isn't rooted in the fundamental rights of two consenting adults to freely enter into a sexual relationship, but in the idea that a bunch of people totally decided it wasn't icky anymore? So, a jurisdiction where that society has still decided it's icky, there's no right to enter into a same-gendered sexual relationship? And when a society decides it's so gross that those people shouldn't be allowed to exist anymore, well, that's cool brah?


You keep mischaracterizing my positions as some sort of gotcha. You keep trying to drag in gay marriage as a proxy for suggesting there is no difference between the public and private. I assure you both straights and gays very much appreciate the difference and a strong majority want them to stay different, totally separate from the issue of gay marriage.

You keep trying to skate away from the fundamental dichotomy between Public and Private. Are you suggesting there is no difference? Why do you think that? Why should we move away from our current strong recognition of the difference between the two in our current society, both in customs and laws?

The gay marriage folks have made their strong argument and society has largely accepted that argument. But just because they changed the current framework of laws does not mean every change is up for grabs; each change must be argued, and thus far you have presented zero argument for your position, you have just latched onto someones elses argument and suggested they made the change, so your change is OK.
   1279. Delorians Posted: February 13, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4656173)
I know we (the thread) has had this discussion before, and some here think anyone against gay marriage is a bigot. I still disagree with than analysis. Being against gay marriage ... is neither necessary nor sufficient to be bigotry.

This. If snapper truly has left the discussion, I will attempt to speak for the anti-gay marriage position, at least as it refers to the accusation of bigotry.

Before doing so, I felt it prudent to review the exact definition of bigotry. From Wikipedia:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ...sexual orientation.

Speaking for myself, I can affirm that I have no fear, distrust, hatred, or contempt towards gay people. I do not get afraid when I see a gay person. I do not think that they are going to lie or steal from me. I do not hate them. I am not disgusted by them. They do nothing to anger me. The idea of gay sexual intercourse does not repulse me. If I was in a gym shower, or sauna, or sports clubhouse, I would not be afraid of showering next to a gay man.

The only category of the definition of bigotry that requires more than a split second of thought for me is intolerance. I believe that sexual intercourse should be reserved for a man and his wife. I don't expect to convince anyone's mind on this issue, but simply point out that while I do not condone/support/encourage gay sexual intercourse, I also do not condone/support/encourage adultery, or sex between unmarried people of the opposite sex. Which I believe would separate my position from the Phil Robertsons of the world who appear to be more motivated by disgust of the gay sexual act than anything else. So regarding the sexual act, I do not believe that I am any more intolerant to gay people than to heterosexual people who are not married.

The logical followup question for me from some of you is bound to be - do I think that gay people should refrain from sexual intercourse for their entire lives; my answer is yes. I did for 29 years before I married my wife. Priests make this vow. Nuns make this vow. Some single people are not called to be married. Some people live for years after their spouse dies without remarrying.

Of course, people have free will, and nobody here is suggesting using the power of government to prohibit adultery, unmarried heterosexual intercourse, or gay sexual intercourse. But while I fully oppose all 3 of these, only one is currently being debated regarding legal recognition, thus my opposition to gay marriage. I don't expect to change any minds here, I don't expect you to understand our position, I don't even expect you to not laugh at us while thinking we're outdated prudes. All I ask is that you not call us bigots.
   1280. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4656174)
[And no, Wal-Mart or Harry's Hardware is not actually a public store, it's just that statists conjured up that fiction to impose their prejudices. Those locations are private facilities that have freely chosen to have an extremely open entrance policy for other consenting adults and legal minors]


You seem really to be struggling (perhaps purposefully) with the distinction between in the public sphere versus in the private sphere and the concept of private property versus public property. Everything is not defined by property rights. If I own a store (which is in the public sphere) and a house (which is private), both are my property, but they are very different things, and are and have been treated both in custom and law very differently.

If I own a private car there is one set of regulations, if I own a car as a taxi then it is in the public sphere (despite still being privately owned by me) and falls under a totally different set of laws and customs. It so happens I think current society has gone too far in distinguishing between the public sphere and private sphere, and some of the rules around (for example taxi services) are silly,. but I don't get to assert the differences away, if I want to be credible I have to argue why I think that, why the current state should be changed.

You are trying to elide the difference between the public and private, you want them to be treated in a similar fashion. However currently, in today's society, they are treated very differently. If you want that changed you need to argue why. You can't just assert they are the same.
   1281. spike Posted: February 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4656175)
I believe that sexual intercourse should be reserved for a man and his wife.

On what basis?
   1282. GregD Posted: February 13, 2014 at 11:30 AM (#4656177)
The right to not engage in the act of selling flowers to Joe and Bob is the exact same right as the right for Joe and Bob to enter into a consenting, sexual relationship. If you protect one and not the other, you're not protecting a right, you're protecting a *preference*. The notion of businesses being public accommodations (outside of actual governmental institutions) is sophistry, a pretense used to deny rights one doesn't like, the same weak pretense that the social conservatives use when they declare "marriage is defined as a man and a woman, 'nuff said!"

The only real difference between a store and a home is the services available within and the desired exclusivity of entrance decided by the owner of the property. To separate them is just an excuse to punish people who have different values than you (and me).
If this is a question of ethics or ideal types, then that's one thing.

Historically there has been a monumental difference between regulation of commerce and everything else. Regulation of who could engage in commerce is much more deeply embedded in legal practice than legal marriage (which is not all that old a concept in many parts of the world, even in Europe.)

Cities almost always regulated who could buy and sell; market days were strictly enforced and people were beaten for selling at times not allowed.

Licensing is one of the most-deeply embedded legal traditions in Anglo-American law, just shortly behind property. Conservative lawyers in the 19th century worried a great deal that regulations would disrupt what they saw as the fundamental right of a community to license and prohibit whatever businesses it wanted. The idea that someone could engage in commerce without intervention was bizarre across the political spectrum in the 19th century.

Of course the Founders took for granted the regulation of commerce that they put the commerce clause in, and many contextual readings suggest that they meant commerce extremely broadly (though also that they did not at that point intend to permit the federal government to regulate commerce entirely within an individual state, because they expected that state to rigorously license and regulate its own commerce.)

By contrast laws against consensual adult sex have rarely been enforced and have often been show laws to get some kind of public approval. It's terrible when people get punished severely as part of this show-trial and should definitely be eliminated. But any county would have a slew of license violations in any decade in the nineteenth century and almost no adult consensual sex crimes cases. Even cases of sex between slaves and whites were prosecuted at far lower rates than cases of selling goods between slaves and whites in the antebellum south.

So historically the two areas have always been treated wildly differently. That may be a relic of barbarism, or something that is unjustifiable. And people should have to justify whatever they support, not just on tradition.

But there's a reason why people don't think that regulation of commerce inevitably leads to regulation of private, non-commercial relationships; that's a barrier that has--on the whole--held up.

If you think there should be no regulation of commerce as an ideal type, that's totally valid. It's a relatively new belief in Anglo-American history, and should never be defended as tradition (which you didn't) since the history goes the other way way way back, but it's perfectly defensible. But it's not a very strong argument to say that regulation of commerce leads to regulation of sex since there's lots of evidence that this is not inevitable at all.
   1283. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 13, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4656185)
You are trying to elide the difference between the public and private, you want them to be treated in a similar fashion. However currently, in today's society, they are treated very differently.

Yes. And in 1960s society, interracial relationships were treated very differently than non-interracial ones. Whoop-de-doo. People have a right to consenting relationships with other parties whether they convince 0 people or 10 billion people. Homosexuals didn't suddenly stop being degenerates when support for their right to love another hit 51% in the polls, as you apparently think - they were never degenerates to begin with, they were people who had their fundamental rights violated grossly.

So essentially, you're of the Sam position in that a government cannot possibly violate the rights of another because the rights only stem from government. So slaves in the United States only became people when a white man set them free. And homosexuals in African and North Korea aren't having any rights violated because those societies haven't granted them the rights to love another.

Have fun with that and all - if Facebook and the internet have taught me anything, it's that arguing someone out of a morally repugnant position formed out of hatred is a waste of time.
   1284. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 13, 2014 at 11:46 AM (#4656187)
Licensing is one of the most-deeply embedded legal traditions in Anglo-American law, just shortly behind property. Conservative lawyers in the 19th century worried a great deal that regulations would disrupt what they saw as the fundamental right of a community to license and prohibit whatever businesses it wanted. The idea that someone could engage in commerce without intervention was bizarre across the political spectrum in the 19th century.

Let's get this straight: I. Do. Not. Care. What. The. Law. Says. The idea that two men could marry was bizarre across the political spectrum in the 19th century. I couldn't care less about the legal traditions in Anglo-American law when they act in a contrary manner to justice.

Marriage being between a man and a woman is one of the most-deeply embedded legal traditionals in Anglo-American law. And it was bigoted and unjust. An injustice is an injustice whether the law allows it or the law bars it.
   1285. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4656188)
Of course, people have free will, and nobody here is suggesting using the power of government to prohibit adultery, unmarried heterosexual intercourse, or gay sexual intercourse. But while I fully oppose all 3 of these, only one is currently being debated regarding legal recognition, thus my opposition to gay marriage. I don't expect to change any minds here, I don't expect you to understand our position, I don't even expect you to not laugh at us while thinking we're outdated prudes. All I ask is that you not call us bigots.

As long as you're equally against all three of those practices, then I wouldn't call it bigotry. But from what you've expressed up to this point, your reasoning for opposing gay marriage isn't the same as snapper's, even if he might also agree with you on all three counts. Where snapper's slip is showing is in his refusal to equate gay couples with infertile or child-refusing heterosexual couples.
   1286. Lassus Posted: February 13, 2014 at 11:52 AM (#4656190)
Have fun with that and all - if Facebook and the internet have taught me anything, it's that arguing someone out of a morally repugnant position formed out of hatred is a waste of time.

I understand everything you've said - while not agreeing with any of it - except this. Hatred of what?
   1287. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 13, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4656192)
So let's sum up:

There's no such thing as race.
There's no such thing as intelligence.
Intelligence has nothing to do with economic success.
Men never get aroused when they're around attractive women in the workplace, or really anywhere other than in the bedroom.
Physical proximity to and physical contact with an attractive woman is no different for a straight guy than the same with another guy.
A balding 28-year-old guy on the factory line has as much of a shot with Kate Upton as Justin Verlander does.

Anything missing?
   1288. Mefisto Posted: February 13, 2014 at 11:55 AM (#4656194)
they did not at that point intend to permit the federal government to regulate commerce entirely within an individual state, because they expected that state to rigorously license and regulate its own commerce


At least some of the Framers, including Madison, did expect regulation of commerce within individual states, provided that such regulation had effects beyond the state lines. In fact, the Constitution itself includes some such regulations (Art. I, Sec. 10).
   1289. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 13, 2014 at 11:58 AM (#4656196)
So essentially, you're of the Sam position in that a government cannot possibly violate the rights of another because the rights only stem from government. So slaves in the United States only became people when a white man set them free. And homosexuals in African and North Korea aren't having any rights violated because those societies haven't granted them the rights to love another.


You really are not interested in what I am actually saying, are you? I never said anything of the sort.

My simple assertion, which you are running away from dealing with is that there is a clear difference between public and private in today's society. If you want to change that then argue that position, don't just pretend there is no difference and make pronouncements based on your pretend version of the world.

Nowhere (in this argument) have I suggested any moral component at all. I am not asserting moral supremacy for my position, or your position or any position. Currently I just want you to acknowledge that there is a difference between the public and private sphere in today's society and then lay out why you think this should change (if you do, though if you don't I am a loss for what you are arguing for in this discussion).

I assure you in all the examples you have given, slavery, gay marriage, and so on, the proponents of change were able to do those two simple tasks very well and did them often.

However, pretending that my insistence you actually lay out your position is somehow the same as being for whatever it is you claim Sam is for, is completely unhinged. Rein in the indignation and describe what you think the current state is and why it should change, and then I can point out where we agree or disagree, and maybe I will even bring in a moral component for you to be outraged by.
   1290. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4656197)
So let's sum up:

There's no such thing as race.
There's no such thing as intelligence.
Intelligence has nothing to do with economic success.
Men never get aroused when they're around attractive women in the workplace, or really anywhere other than in the bedroom.
Physical proximity to and physical contact with an attractive woman is no different for a straight guy than the same with another guy.
A balding 28-year-old guy on the factory line has as much of a shot with Kate Upton as Justin Verlander does.

Anything missing?


Yeah, a photo of you in your state of arousal.
   1291. Rickey!'s people were colonized by wankers Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4656199)
Let's get this straight: I. Do. Not. Care. What. The. Law. Says. The idea that two men could marry was bizarre across the political spectrum in the 19th century. I couldn't care less about the legal traditions in Anglo-American law when they act in a contrary manner to justice.


Justice is, of course, whatever Dan says it is. Not sure if he's received texts in the form of lightening inscribed tablets or not.
   1292. tshipman Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4656202)
Yeah, a photo of you in your state of arousal.


Only if TGF then informs us what SBB's SMV is.
   1293. Rickey!'s people were colonized by wankers Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4656203)
So essentially, you're of the Sam position in that a government cannot possibly violate the rights of another because the rights only stem from government.


Keep clapping, Tinkerbell. One day you may learn to read for comprehension.
   1294. Publius Publicola Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4656206)
I was speaking of Louisiana's historical corruption problem which dates back to the days it was a one-party state, part of the Democratic Solid South.


Whcih is now, and has been for over 30 years, part of the Republican Solid South, stemming from the same constituency.

Physician, heal thyself.
   1295. Rickey!'s people were colonized by wankers Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:07 PM (#4656209)
Which I believe would separate my position from the Phil Robertsons of the world who appear to be more motivated by disgust of the gay sexual act than anything else.


This is a misreading of Phil Robertson's position, actually. In point of fact, if you read his entire statement on the subject, you'll see that he is motivated by the sort of sexual-panic-bracketed-as-moralism that you're using above.
   1296. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:08 PM (#4656211)
Yeah, a photo of you in your state of arousal.

Only if TGF then informs us what SBB's SMV is.


Would that be with or without his mansiere?
   1297. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:08 PM (#4656212)
Snapper made a case for favoring heterosexual marriage exclusively, based on procreation. My wife and I haven't procreated, so by his standard, what's the difference between us and a gay or lesbian couple?

It's easy, Andy, if you'd ever stop and actually think before personalizing and insulting. Limiting marriage to heterosexuals is a prophylactic way to accomplish the ends Snapper noted, without the invasiveness and pointlessness of government inquiry into millions upon millions of specific circumstances.

Now, I don't agree with that line of reasoning -- but I accept it as perfectly valid. You very rarely do that, instead resorting to your customary 60s era categorizing -- Strom Thurmond this, Ayn Rand that, yadda yadda.
   1298. Publius Publicola Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4656213)
Don't know if gef is talking to me, but as a courtesy, remember gef, you've been on my ignore list for some time.


Goose, you lucky bastard.
   1299. Rickey!'s people were colonized by wankers Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4656214)
Until such time as prostitution is legal the equivalency of sexual freedom to market freedom is specious and false. Of course, Dan will simply reply (if he is not ignoring me in a state of vapours) that prostitution *should be legal* but at that point it's just his moral code, him clapping loudly, and Tinkerbell still dying.
   1300. Rickey!'s people were colonized by wankers Posted: February 13, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4656218)
Limiting marriage to heterosexuals is a prophylactic way to accomplish the ends Snapper noted, without the invasiveness and pointlessness of government inquiry into millions upon millions of specific circumstances.


Clearly it's a window into the limits of Snapper and the general Catholic dogmas faith. They clearly think that the Lord, by his Grace, may grant children to even Abraham and Sarah, if they so believe. But G*d clearly lacks the power to grant children to Adam and Steve, because the Lord has his limits. What sort of believer puts such chains on their god?
Page 13 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPapelbon blows lead, gets ejected for crotch-grabbing at fans
(59 - 1:00am, Sep 16)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(813 - 12:15am, Sep 16)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(2507 - 12:09am, Sep 16)
Last: Shredder

NewsblogBowman: A year’s worth of struggles leads reason to wonder what changes are in store for the Braves
(10 - 12:03am, Sep 16)
Last: bigglou115

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(14 - 11:51pm, Sep 15)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-15-2014
(78 - 11:46pm, Sep 15)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogHeyman: Mariners have decided not to retain the ice-cream buying scout
(4 - 11:45pm, Sep 15)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogSports Bog: Fans Switch From Skins to Nats
(62 - 11:41pm, Sep 15)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogCalcaterra: Derek Jeter got a bucket of crabs and a captain’s hat from the Orioles
(12 - 11:41pm, Sep 15)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(219 - 10:43pm, Sep 15)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(161 - 10:11pm, Sep 15)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!)

Newsblog10 Degrees: Why WAR doesn’t always add up
(340 - 9:46pm, Sep 15)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(245 - 9:20pm, Sep 15)
Last: spike

NewsblogJesus Montero gets heckled by Mariners cross checker during rehab stint
(67 - 9:09pm, Sep 15)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogKapler: Baseball’s next big competitive edge
(83 - 8:45pm, Sep 15)
Last: McCoy

Page rendered in 1.2566 seconds
55 querie(s) executed