More gay marriage discussion!

[RobinFinderson]

You have defined being un-PC as unfairly portraying someone as something that they are not. I don't see how that has anything to do with the PC debate. You are not using the same definition of political correctness as anybody else I've heard discuss it.

You complain that conservatives who don't think they are racists don't like being called racists. Big surprise! I'm guessing liberals who don't think they are racists also don't like being called racists. But again, that has nothing to do with political correctness.

That isn't how I defined the PC thing. The sentence you bolded was simply where I recognized that a majority of conservatives would feel that a label like 'bigot' was not accurate.

The PC debate is about shaping culture so that some terms become unacceptable to use in public discourse. That is how I define the issue, and from what I can see, conservatives are currently working harder than liberals to make certain words un-PC.

[RobinFinderson]

I found his hypothetical on point. At least in my advanced con law class the liberal professor thought it important to discuss separate men's and women's bathrooms as part of the separate but equal discussion.

Men are prohibited from entering womens restrooms, and vice-versa and this is not seen as problematic like blacks being prohibited from white bathrooms, or gays from straight bathrooms. Or gays being denied the word marriage.

The bathroom issue is simply a way to say that 'separate but equal' can sometimes work. The truth is it doesn't work for bathrooms. Have you ever looked at the average lines outside men's and women's bathrooms? It isn't working. But that is a different issue.

If I understand correctly, I think DDD is pointing out that the bathroom exception doesn't really seem applicable when it comes to gay marriage. Maybe if you were arguing that gays needed their own bathroom, because you felt uncomfortable and unsafe having to share a bathroom with gay people, then maybe it would be applicable in a direct way. But no one is arguing that there are similarities between the gay marriage issue and having bathrooms for separate sexes (which isn't a legal requirement, btw. The only requirement is that if you are going to have bathrooms for one sex, you must also provide bathrooms for the other sex. It would be perfectly legal to provide one set of unisex bathrooms).

[byu71]

That isn't how I defined the PC thing. The sentence you bolded was simply where I recognized that a majority of conservatives would feel that a label like 'bigot' was not accurate.

The PC debate is about shaping culture so that some terms become unacceptable to use in public discourse. That is how I define the issue, and from what I can see, conservatives are currently working harder than liberals to make certain words un-PC.

Do you think a majority of liberals, uh I mean progressives, they don't like the word liberal, would think being called "socialists" is not accurate.

[Jacob]

If I understand correctly, I think DDD is pointing out that the bathroom exception doesn't really seem applicable when it comes to gay marriage.

I'll let him speak for himself. The discussion turned towards separate but equal, and byu71 gave the bathroom example. I clarified how that applies to that discussion.

[byu71]

I'll let him speak for himself. The discussion turned towards separate but equal, and byu71 gave the bathroom example. I clarified how that applies to that discussion.

I appreciate you doing that. I also brought up the religion seperate but equal thing, but that was ignored.

If there is no seperate but equal, or shouldn't be, I would suppose there could be a lot of people who would feel slighted.

I will admit every time I am in a big hurry to park somewhere and I see a reserve space unused sitting there for a handicap person, I am a bit bothered at the seperate treatment.

[byu71]

Oh I do. There really aren't too many on here that I don't like (only maybe two that I can think of off hand). I do like to mix it up a little but no hard feelins.

There are no hard feelings. I will also admit I have learned and even altered some of my positions due to those of you of a more liberal persuasion. This subject just isn't one of them.

You may not believe this, but last night O'Reilly came on and I switched to Campbell Brown.

[byu71]

I think foremost you need to drop this self-deprecation thing. If you truly consider yourself to be a knucklehead, so be it, but no need to keep bringing it up.

You are truly good at what you do. Lingo didn't stand a chance.

Your quotes: "If you can lift up that white sheet and look at yourself in the mirror and be happy, then who am I to judge" LOL, who are you to judge?

How about this one? "This isn't that difficult to understand, I would think".

I have no problem playing the knucklehead role to your "gotcha role". I am OK with it and it puzzles me why it would bother you. If you truly think I am incapable of thinking at the level you do, why would it bother you if I self-deprecate. (rhetorical, no need to answer)

I hope this does't keep you upset at me. I am ready to move on if you are.

[wuapinmon]

He's back at it again.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...sen_floor.html

http://legiscan.com/gaits/view/403003

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 400 of the Family Code is amended to read:
400. Although marriage is a personal relation arising out of a
civil, and not a religious, contract, a marriage may be solemnized by
any of the following who is 18 years of age or older:
(a) A priest, minister, rabbi, or authorized person of any
religious denomination. A person authorized by this subdivision shall
not be required to solemnize a marriage that is contrary to the
tenets of his or her faith. Any refusal to solemnize a marriage under
this subdivision , either by an individual or by a religious
denomination, shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any
entity.
(b) A judge or retired judge, commissioner of civil marriages or
retired commissioner of civil marriages, commissioner or retired
commissioner, or assistant commissioner of a court of record in this
state.
(c) A judge or magistrate who has resigned from office.
(d) Any of the following judges or magistrates of the United
States:
(1) A justice or retired justice of the United States Supreme
Court.
(2) A judge or retired judge of a court of appeals, a district
court, or a court created by an act of Congress the judges of which
are entitled to hold office during good behavior.
(3) A judge or retired judge of a bankruptcy court or a tax court.

(4) A United States magistrate or retired magistrate.
(e) A legislator or constitutional officer of this state or a
Member of Congress who represents a district within this state, while
that person holds office.

[wuapinmon]

[YOUTUBE]A8JsRx2lois[/YOUTUBE]

You absolutely HAVE to watch this video until the end in order to capture its full effect.

[UtahDan]

You absolutely HAVE to watch this video until the end in order to capture its full effect.

That is powerful.

[Jacob]

[YOUTUBE]A8JsRx2lois[/YOUTUBE]

You absolutely HAVE to watch this video until the end in order to capture its full effect.

He sounded like a lunatic from the start, didn't he?

[pellegrino]

I had to watch it twice to get the full effect. I wasn't paying attention until the key change. I do wonder how effective it was at the time. Did the audience know who he was and where he stood on the issue? Is the guy a local hero for gay rights? I mean, I know he stated clearly where he stood at the beginning, but the first time I watched it (not paying attention) knowing he was an advocate, I misheard his arguments as to mean that the bible supported gay rights, then I was completely confused when he switched. I wonder if there were some in the audience or on the council who missed the subtlety at the beginning.

[wuapinmon]

I had to watch it twice to get the full effect. I wasn't paying attention until the key change. I do wonder how effective it was at the time. Did the audience know who he was and where he stood on the issue? Is the guy a local hero for gay rights? I mean, I know he stated clearly where he stood at the beginning, but the first time I watched it (not paying attention) knowing he was an advocate, I misheard his arguments as to mean that the bible supported gay rights, then I was completely confused when he switched. I wonder if there were some in the audience or on the council who missed the subtlety at the beginning.

I'm not sure, because I knew nothing of him and I assumed that he was advocating against gay rights. When the surprise happened, I wondered if it was a sinister Freudian slip.

[pellegrino]

I'm not sure, because I knew nothing of him and I assumed that he was advocating against gay rights. When the surprise happened, I wondered if it was a sinister Freudian slip.

the title to the video made me think that he was in favor of gay rights, so I wasn't listening well early on, looking for the end that you said was a clincher.

[Clark Addison]

Cool speech, but he didn't really fool me, because my gaydar was pinging from the start.