Remaining SF authors choose to abuse their fans...

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:51 am

Crissa wrote: And in nearly no cases is domestic partnership 'better'. Only in cases where marriage would annul a prior benefit - usually for a widow or survivor of a marriage - and that's just kinda cheating. Should just change the prior benefit instead.

Domestic partnerships are better in many cases in that they are easier to end. There are also the mentioned Social Security concerns, but the main way they are better is to end a domestic partnership, you sign a piece of paper and go your separate ways. Marriage takes a minimum of 6 months to dissolve and will almost certainly require paying a lot of money to lawyers.

With regards to Sphere's question: The USC (United States Code, which is most of federal law) is 42 volumes long, and each volume is roughly the size of a very large dictionary. Doing a simple find replace isn't going to cut it. Then there is all the case laws and whatnot. Marriage isn't just a simple thing you can x out and replace without serious consideration and a lot of work.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:08 am

Divorce and domestic partnerships dissolve very similarly - you have each sign a document which may or may not be filed at court, needs to be notarized, and there' a filing fee.

There is no reason for a couple to need more than a rubber-stamp by a court to approve a dissolution of marriage. There's no reason a domestic partnership will be as easy to dissolve. Both require two people's consent, which may or may not be difficult to attain. Both can have common illiquid assets which may need to be split. Both can have children (in California) involved. Both are just as difficult to dissolve.

You don't automatically get joint ownership of prior assets in either deal, but you do automatically get joint ownership of new assets. Look up 'Common law marriage'.

-Crissa

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:08 am

I'm convinced that the only reason religions and governments enforce differences between "traditional marriage" and "gay marriage" is to create an us-versus-them mentality.
It helps people sleep better at night. Or something.

I hope the bullshit clears when Boomers retire in hordes and stop giving a shit down in Florida.

SphereOfFeetMan · Post by **SphereOfFeetMan** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:15 am

When people retire, they vote more.

You'll have to wait longer.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:54 am

SphereOfFeetMan wrote:When people retire, they vote more.

You'll have to wait longer.

Really? I'll look in to that.

I expect a massive push for elderly health care, but whether it comes from better private competitive (corrupt?) insurances or a government straining to deliver on promises it could never fulfill (lies?) while struggling to keep taxes low is what bothers me.
Either way, the system we have now will no longer exist.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:30 am

Wow I guess this sets Card into the category of do not the equate the art with the artist. Can't say it will affect my opinion of his works, nor even surprise me as he is a mormon, but it does cause the lingering annoyance of why does someone who does one thing I like have to do something which pisses me off in a significant way.

On the reasons why anti-gay marriage people care so much: it is that it legitimizes the whole lifestyle by recognizing the marriages. By preventing the use of the word, even if you gave gay unions more real benefits than straight unions, they are trying to say that the gay lifestyle is inherently deficient compared to hetero lifestyles.

So one tactic available for the gay marriage movement to seek advantage of might be to forsake the "sacred" title in return or full benefits in all other regards. Not saying they should, just that it would probably face less opposition and therefore greater chance of succeeding.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:33 am

A dozen some states passed sweeping laws (in 2004) in which they will not recognize unions which are same-sex or not called 'marriage'. Ohio had one of the most extensive of these laws.

So no, merely taking out the word 'marriage' would not trump these people.

-Crissa

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:07 am

Which means that by not giving a flying rat's ass about married or unmarried couples in Ohio, I am breaking Ohio law even as we speak.

-Username17

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:24 am

wow frank, multitasking?

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:49 am

I believe he's talking about the provision of the amendment that prohibits "a legal status for relationship of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." Frank's off the hook, though, since the restriction only applies to the state and municipal governments in Ohio.

BTW, this amendment has had some other interesting consequences. (Nifty thread)

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 9:27 am

I love the proposals to change the federal constitution to ban gay marriage. A self contradictory constitution, that would be quite a sight.

Hopefully .au legalises gay marriage before the US, I'd like to be able to claim to live in a less backward country than you lot.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:10 am

Bring a federal court challenge and Rudd doesn't seem likely to fight it. That's how it got through in Canada and Massachusetts if I recall correctly.

Fun Fact: In my home province there was a problem when the first gay divorce arose because the new law had not considered the problem.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:26 pm

Orson Scott Card demonstrates an ability to blame the media, Democrats, and Black people for the credit crisis.

*sigh*

-Crissa

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:14 am

I gotta love that post for writing up my first thought when reading this particular set of Republican talking points a month ago.

Okay, let’s go with this. Real journalists with personal honor would be pointing out that the real victims of this economic crisis are Republicans and mortgage lenders … victimized by the poor people who’ve lost their homes and their Demoncrap enablers who LITERALLY FORCED lenders to leverage mortgage papers 15, 20 and even 40 times … held a gun to their head and said, ‘Take this couple billion dollars worth of risky paper to the securities market and convert it into $60+ trillion of imaginary Ponzi money, thus causing the subprime meltdown and the current economic crisis!

Why, I recall this scene at my local Countrywide branch, circa 2005:

Angry Black Man: Gimme my loan!

Terrified Banker: Please calm down, sir. I can’t punch in the numbers when my hands are trembling from fear.

ABM: Shut up, bee-yatch! You best type in dat numberology and get me dat money!

TB: It’s done, sir. Your loan is approved.

ABM: Damn straight, muh-fuggah. Now listen up, white boy, and listen good! While you at it, you best be swapping derivatives based on the outstanding debt package I’s just provid-o-lated you wif, and den you kin jus’ leverage dem addition-a-mated paper holdings anutha couple dozen times just to be sho’ you getting all de cash-money juice you can while da gettin’s good, so’s we all happy in this here financialical trans-mogrifa-taction!

TB: But … but, sir! That would be a most irresponsible dereliction of this firm’s fiduciary duties! And it would likely lead to economic disaster!

ABM: Honkey, you best be doing what I done tol’ you to do wif regards to yo fiducia-malogical duties, or I will have B-Frank Da Funky Fixah on yo’ gofay ass like white on rice!

TB: I see. Well, excellent advice, sir! Will you be requiring a $100,000 credit line today, too?

ABM: Casper, please! Hells yeah I be needing that credit line!

And, to avoid any confusion: Crissa's link points to a liberal blogger debunking Orson Scott Card's assertions.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:38 am

I love the fact that apparently the secured loans that Clinton mandated in the late nineties somehow brought down banks worth many times more than the value of those loans. This is wrong for several reasons:

The banks have more operating capital than the value of the loans, meaning that those loans can't cause a bank collapse if the money stopped coming in.
Those loans are secured loans. If they go up, the government guarantees the loss and they can't collapse anything except theoretically the federal government.

So if banks are actually redlining, it's definitionally not Clinton's fault. And anyone who says differently has either got an extremely tenuous grasp on how finance works (itself a fairly common state in our society for obvious reasons or being deliberately deceptive (likewise).

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:05 am

I'll be honest: I don't understand a lot of how the financing works, the way values of stock change (or what sets them in the first place), the exact kind of rautmonkeying that resulted in the various crises or the rest of it. I have the basics, which I suspect may be more than a lot of people out there, but am probably lacking quite a bit.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:18 pm

I don't understand all the complexities of the financing, either. But I figure that anyone who's seen TV ads touting no-money-down cut-rate loans knows that banks have been going for these schemes on their own, without needing any kind of encouragement.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:39 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:I love the fact that apparently the secured loans that Clinton mandated in the late nineties somehow brought down banks worth many times more than the value of those loans. This is wrong for several reasons:

The banks have more operating capital than the value of the loans, meaning that those loans can't cause a bank collapse if the money stopped coming in.

Those loans are secured loans. If they go up, the government guarantees the loss and they can't collapse anything except theoretically the federal government.
So if banks are actually redlining, it's definitionally not Clinton's fault. And anyone who says differently has either got an extremely tenuous grasp on how finance works (itself a fairly common state in our society for obvious reasons or being deliberately deceptive (likewise).

-Username17

Orson Scott Card's now blogging about Obama taking bribes and how teachers get the pay they deserve:
https://www.quora.com/If-life-were-fair ... ott-Card-1

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Nov 17, 2018 8:30 am

Orson Scott Card has been a garbage human being for a long time. But it never ceases to amaze me that Trump can announce on national television that he is supporting Saudi Arabia after its government performs an atrocity because they give him millions of dollars, and publicly announce that he is raising the rents on buildings he owns when renting them out to foreign governments on the grounds that he is the president... and right wing mouth breathers still search for evidence that Obama was taking bribes. There is overt corruption on their side more massive than anything that has ever happened in the history of America, and the Trump administration doesn't even pretend it isn't happening. But people like Orson Scott Card have to tell themselves that actually the black guy was secretly the corrupt one.

Every accusation is a confession with these people.

-Username17

Hadanelith · Post by **Hadanelith** » Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:32 pm

Having had occasion to *work* with Orson Scott Card (it was a theater thing)...dude is kind of an asshole in person. But then you read anything he writes on the internet about the real world...and he is a complete trash fire.
His middlingly-interesting sci-fi novels do not make up for his being this terrible.

Hiram McDaniels · Post by **Hiram McDaniels** » Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:49 pm

I feel like there's a strong right-wing troglodyte undercurrent to a lot of sci-fi/fantasy out there. I haven't really gone out of my way to investigate writers ideological leanings, but some make it patently obvious.

I'm reminded of "The Iron Dream" by Norman Spinard. The book presents an alternate history where Adolf Hitler immigrates to the US in 1919 and becomes a popular sci-fi/fantasy author instead of...you know...Hitler.

The novel is about a literary critique of Hitler's novel, a story within a story that is a fictionalized, self-aggrandizing mary sue account of what we know as Hitler's rise to power and the ultimate goals of the 3rd Reich, only with sci-fi adventure tropes.

Spinard intended the book as a parody, showing how closely the Hitler's narrative is mirrored by heroic fantasy tropes and themes (like, ever notice how the win condition for a lot of epic fantasy conflicts is to make the world LESS interesting). Of course, even though the author makes it clear under no uncertain terms what he was trying to say, nazi trogs still enjoy this book.

maglag · Post by **maglag** » Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:21 pm

Hiram McDaniels wrote: Spinard intended the book as a parody, showing how closely the Hitler's narrative is mirrored by heroic fantasy tropes and themes (like, ever notice how the win condition for a lot of epic fantasy conflicts is to make the world LESS interesting). Of course, even though the author makes it clear under no uncertain terms what he was trying to say, nazi trogs still enjoy this book.

Yathzee from Zero punctuation created the "PC master race" line/pic as a parody too, but many PC enthusiasts fully embraced it with pride.

More recently there's been the "Virgin walk vs Chad stride" meme, where the original was supposed to be a parody of supposed "virgin traits" that are actually relatively normal (plain looking clothes, looking down, hands in pockets, long steps) by contrasting it with a supposed "non-virgin Chad" that had completely opposite traits (wearing super shiny clothes, constant unblinking eye contact, arms flailing wildly, tiny steps), basically trying to parody how absurd it would be. But then the meme degenerated into the "virgin" having only bad traits (stupid, weak, unpopular, etc) in contrast to a "Chad" with only positive traits (strong, smart, popular, etc), completely missing the original point.

So yeah, be careful what you parody.