News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:48 pm

Actually that's my fault. I confused Homosexuality with Judaism. They are so close, you know. In other words, I was an idiot.

Tzor: my point is that any religion will have code/lawy in it that is put there as policy (cultural/political/etc...) instead of dogma.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:16 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote:Religion is to blame for people voting pond scum into office. Yours in specific, I've read the policy document. The LDS specifically encourages people to vote for candidates opposed to gay marriage. That makes them terrible people and makes it so that I have to try really, really hard not to hate you by association. And that would be unfair since I would generally describe you as being a worthwhile person.

I do not agree with that policy of my church's, and at election time, when the entire Relief Society was swirling with encouragement to vote against a particular candiate and/or policy, I replied to the contrary, making sure that rumors were dispelled before voting, and encouraging people to look at the bigger picture.

I suspect that there's a chance I may have to do it again with Referendum 71 upcoming (my vote is to confirm it).

I realize that the rights of gay people are not currently protected by the US Constitution, but I believe they should be, and I have faith that they will be - all religion aside.

tzor wrote:Let’s make one thing clear, there is no such thing as a single concept of “Christianity.”

Agreed. Your Christianity and mine are not the same.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 4:51 pm

Maj wrote:I realize that the rights of gay people are not currently protected by the US Constitution, but I believe they should be, and I have faith that they will be - all religion aside.

Why aren't they? Granted it may take gay women longer, like it took them longer (women in general) the right to vote because of the subjective "all men" portion, but it shouldn't now that women in this country have allegedly been granted equal rights.

"Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"

Life - You have the right to live. (here is where abortion controversy comes into play)

Liberty - (Abraham Licoln supposedly finished fixing this one), You are a free person, and have the right to freedom of choice, this includes who to sleep with, or otherwise engage into any kind of activities with..including but not limited to sexual partner preference or wedlock preference. We don't arrange marriages in this country and marry off young girls to rich guys...

Pursuit of Happiness - You have the right to choose which path you want in a vocation that you enjoy for gainful employment and to support yourself. Spelled out again recently from some court case.

None of these rights have been upheld properly, but they still exist to each and EVERY American.

What a church does means nothing, nor what they say, because it is and has been the LAW of the land that ALL people have these rights since this countries founding and separation from England and with the Declaration of Independence.

The ARE protected by the constitution, just not the law enforcers, or judicial system, or other governing bodies, for fear of religion.

I thought the church and state were divorced from each other long before I was born....guess not huh?

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:32 pm

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are not in the Constitution. They're from the Declaration of Independence. In the 14th Amendment, the rights listed are life, liberty, and property.

And while I believe that the rights of gays are technically covered by that amendment, in practice, they are not recognized. I don't know if that's because of the heritage that homosexuality has as a mental disorder (and thus not a "natural" state of being), if it's fear - most failures of civility are because someone's hysterical about a different group of people for whatever reason, be they women, black, teenagers, whatever - or if it's something else.

Regardless, I do believe that DOMA is unconstitutional. I believe it will be repealed. I believe that gay rights will be recognized. And I hope it happens sooner rather than later.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:49 pm

I happen to think that the 14th amendment is abused more often than it is properly used. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The former is a due process clause (it would be hard to define a due process to deny someone the pursuit of happiness). The later involves “protection.” The government could tax all left handed people (note I’m left handed) and that would not be any matter of “protection” whatsoever. The government cannot, on the other hand, deny Miranda rights to left handed people.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:52 pm

Maj wrote:And while I believe that the rights of gays are technically covered by that amendment, in practice, they are not recognized. I don't know if that's because of the heritage that homosexuality has as a mental disorder

??? I know you live in crazy land and obey the whims of crazy people who make a point of lying to you, but this is just weird.

heritage as a mental disorder? I can assure you that non Mormons don't think that. Like, even other crazy people who hate gays don't think it's a disorder.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:59 pm

Majority of Nobel jury 'objected to Obama prize'

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... Zu4BHMqFdw

So 2 out of the 5 awarded Obama the peace prize, while 3 objected to it.

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:02 pm

Kaelik wrote:
Maj wrote:And while I believe that the rights of gays are technically covered by that amendment, in practice, they are not recognized. I don't know if that's because of the heritage that homosexuality has as a mental disorder
??? I know you live in crazy land and obey the whims of crazy people who make a point of lying to you, but this is just weird.

heritage as a mental disorder? I can assure you that non Mormons don't think that. Like, even other crazy people who hate gays don't think it's a disorder.

It used to be a mental disorder, actually. Now it isn't. DSM III defined it as a mental disorder, DSM IV does not.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:12 pm

More correctly: it used to be considered one. And I'm sure there are some people who still believe that, just as there are some people who believe the world is flat and some people who still believe... I don't know, some hilarious bullshit or a cheap snipe at a game or something. You fill in the blanks.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:17 pm

Kaelik wrote:??? I know you live in crazy land and obey the whims of crazy people who make a point of lying to you, but this is just weird.

heritage as a mental disorder? I can assure you that non Mormons don't think that. Like, even other crazy people who hate gays don't think it's a disorder.

Are you not aware that the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973? That's when it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - II. For the DSM - III, it was replaced by the "Sexual Orientation Disturbance" category.

Modern psychology has looked at homosexuality as a mental disorder for far longer than it's been recognized as just a way people are.

And while it's been generations since that happened, you don't just change someone's mind by removing information from a book. People who were alive back then and ingrained with the idea that you could just give a gay person therapy and they could stop being gay are still alive today, and they still vote.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:36 pm

shadzar wrote:Majority of Nobel jury 'objected to Obama prize'

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... Zu4BHMqFdw

So 2 out of the 5 awarded Obama the peace prize, while 3 objected to it.

shadzar, please think more before posting. You're attempting and successfully contributing more to the actual purpose of this board with your recent posting schedule than I am and so I don't really want to dampen your enthusiasm, but really. It's okay to be lost and confused when talking about games because they're ultimately these airy and childish things that we have transformed into Serious Business, but when you deal with the real world it will help you to read for context and actually form coherent and reasonable ideas and opinions prior to communicating.

THE LINK YOU JUST POSTED wrote:"VG has spoken to a number of sources who confirmed the impression that a majority of the Nobel committee, at first, had not decided to give the peace prize to Barack Obama," the newspaper said.

...

"Each year, we start with many candidates and many different points of view and agree as the discussions move along. This year was no exception," Lundestad commented Thursday.

The newspaper quotes Ytterhorn and Five as saying they both supported the committee's final decision.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:43 pm

I just want to know exactly why they changed their minds.... Seems again like maybe a political agenda to it. How did the minority sway the majority?

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:36 pm

Wow that is the stupidest statement I have ever heard. If they consider more than 1 candiate for the award, people are going to have to advocate why X should get it over Y.

If they take 30+ candiates in, someone on the committee has to have thought they were a contendor.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:56 pm

Except it was 205 candidates this year, and initially 3 were opposed, so how did Obama even make it tot he second round selection?

Sounds like a beauty pageant scam to me. Where one contestant slept with some judges and they push her through to the win.

Who were the other 204 candidates, and just how were the responses and votes for them as the proceedings went?

Something is fishy the more info that comes out, the more speculation comes about.

violence in the media · Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:50 am

For fuck's sake shadzar, it was the illuminati alright? It was all part of the plot to destabilize the U.S. space program.

You see, the Jews put forth Obama's nomination before they realized that he wasn't bending over quite as far backwards for Israel as previous presidents did. As a result, Kabbalistic elements teamed up with Fox news to put forth the Birther scandal in an attempt to detract from national healthcare, but the Knights Templar turned that partially around and the Birther crew just wound up looking like a bunch of goddamn idiots. Meanwhile, the Insurance industry took up backing the Nobel nomination with secret meetings with the Norwegian government where they negotiated a peace treaty with the mole men. Russia pulled back the missiles because they needed spare parts for their space program. As a side-effect of this, Kim Jong Il is running low on his mole-people clones, and will need to name a successor soon.

While all this was going on the Sons of the Patriots released the Augustine Commission Report to bring the sorry state of NASA's future flight capabilities to the forefront and take spotlight away from the healthcare debate. Because they didn't want any red-blooded American having to rely on the communists to get into space, and they certainly weren't going to provide health care to any illegal aliens. The Chinese tried to intercept the courier, Solid Snake, but they lost him in a UPS warehouse.

Sadly for the Patriots, the American public responded with a collective "yawn" as they haven't been interested in the space program since Tom Hanks nearly crashed into the moon. Ultimately, the plight of the space program was ignored as attention turned back to health care, peppered with controversy over Obama's Laureate status, which is just as the illuminati wanted as it makes way for the new European launch site. Which they're paving over Ireland to create, partially as a nut-kicking repayment for not voting down the new EU constitution and partially because no one likes the Irish.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:26 am

Some of you people must be really in love with Obama. Let me guess, it is the big ears right? He reminds you of Disney's Dumbo? Ross Perot had big ears too.

NativeJovian · Post by **NativeJovian** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:03 am

shadzar wrote:Let me guess, it is the big ears right?

Hell yes, dude. Big ears are sexy.

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:33 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_ ... ial_rebuff

I thought you guys had this over and done with already. Really, now...

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:35 am

Heath Robinson wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_ ... ial_rebuff

I thought you guys had this over and done with already. Really, now...

WTF?

If you are doing it for the kids, then don't let anyone get married. I wonder if he knows that the Pres is from a mixed couple.

Also I notice a gem in that article.

She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."

If that is true, why are people even voting on gay marriage anywhere, since they have no say and the ruling has been made? Are there more hanging chads that need to be counted or something? How can there be debate about something the Supreme Court already decided? (or is that ruling for the LA Supreme Court only?)

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:38 am

Lame. I won't go to LA then.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:54 am

Well, it was one volunteer racist in a small parish in LA. It's not like it was paid, professional racism.

-Crissa

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:02 am

shadzar wrote:
She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 "that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry."
If that is true, why are people even voting on gay marriage anywhere, since they have no say and the ruling has been made? Are there more hanging chads that need to be counted or something? How can there be debate about something the Supreme Court already decided? (or is that ruling for the LA Supreme Court only?)

LA doesn't have a Supreme Court. But they are in fact talking about the US Supreme Court, not the California one, in Loving v Virgina. (Loving is specifically about an interracial couple being prosecuted under miscegenation laws justified amongst other ways as being about the poor children.)

However, the court did not say "the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry" because that would be retarded, since in fact only the government can actually tell people that.

What Loving did rule is that "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state."

This is based of course on the 14th amendment, which the court has always ruled as demanding strict scrutiny in cases of state made racial distinctions that they don't require in situations of non racial distinctions. It also has a part about marriage being part of liberty that depriving people of is outside of due process.

While the equal protection clause could be used to justify states not being allowed to not allow gays to marry, and the due process argument in loving is painfully obviously applicable to gays, the actual case is clearly only dealing with racial distinctions, and gays totally don't get shit out of it.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:09 am

wrong thread.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:21 am

From that article: "I have piles and piles of black friends."

Isn't that the standard thing to say right after you've shown you are a racist? Sort of like how if someone says "I'm not racist, but..." then you know their next sentence is going to be very racist.

Actually, I'm tempted to prefix all my statements with "I'm not racist, but" (even though I am), just to confuse people.

"I'm not racist, but I keep hundreds of tabs open in Firefox."
"How was that racist?"
"It wasn't. That's why I said I'm not."

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:10 am

A_Cynic wrote:(sigh) Draco, you would have to hate a few more on this board because of the association biz.

I'm well aware of the extent of the problem caused by giving in to tribalism.

Maj wrote: I do not agree with that policy of my church's, and at election time, when the entire Relief Society was swirling with encouragement to vote against a particular candiate and/or policy, I replied to the contrary, making sure that rumors were dispelled before voting, and encouraging people to look at the bigger picture.

I know you're in the right here. Thats why you don't get a stream of bile directed at you. Of course you probably donate money to your church, thereby providing material support to the enemy. Hence the tough decision, your actions don't completely align with your stated moral stance.

Approve on 71 btw everyone in Washington. Anyone ticking reject is a horrible person who will be remembered with contempt by future generations. I note that tzor's mob is in favour of reject, hope you enjoy contempt.

PS: Whats up with the seniors part of the law?

Maddow explains the Nobel Prize thing.