California's Prop 8 ruling

Posted by: MacBozo

California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 01:57 PM

Unconstitutional!

Breaking now: Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 02:22 PM

That is good news. However, we all know this is just the beginning.
Posted by: DLC

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 02:35 PM

Don't ya just hate those activist judges !! whistle

oh Sarah's next talking points !! aye- yî -yî !! crazy
"Lucy- you got a lot o' splainin' to do !!
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 02:48 PM

Sorry for the snarky post--snark seems to be in the air.

Congratulations to Californians everywhere!
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 02:56 PM

Snarks! Wasn't that in a Jimmy Buffet song?
Posted by: garyW

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 03:17 PM

next will be the Supreme Court ruling on this ... can we expect the Roberts court to do anything but overturn this by 5-4?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 03:20 PM

No I think today's finding was based upon a misunderstanding of the Constitution.

km
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 03:26 PM

Posted by: garyW

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 03:27 PM

I believe the court says otherwise that Prop 8 was in violation of the Constitution. All Americans must receive ‘equal protection of the laws'. Our Constitution is not defined by your personal bias. Please go back to defending British Petroleum.

grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 03:32 PM

British Petroleum? Don't you mean BP?
Posted by: garyW

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 03:39 PM

Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 04:07 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
No I think today's finding was based upon a misunderstanding of the Constitution.

km

I'm curious.
Just exactly what did the judge misunderstand?
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 04:12 PM

km's understanding, of course.

wink
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 04:14 PM

Of course.
But I am still wondering how he will word it.
Posted by: Clark

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 04:17 PM

.
"we all know this is just the beginning"

Yep, it will take two years for the appeal to make it to the US Supreme Court.
DOMA is still in effect.
Big name politicians still haven't come out in favor of same-sex marriage.
Gay marriage is legal in only 6 states; Connecticut, DC, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
Same-sex marriage is recognized in California, New York, Maryland, and Rhode Island.
And gay marriage is legal in our neighboring country to the north.
There are so many political agendas right now that same-sex marriage is on the back burner.
Long time until...
.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 04:18 PM

Quite simple really - constitutional rights pertain to the individual not to groups... so Prop 8 did not "single out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license".

wink
km
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 04:24 PM

So, you're against corporations being treated as individuals too?

Also, one person marrying another is not a group.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 04:28 PM

A person's sexuality is not a criterion of marriage.

km
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 04:32 PM

Nor should it be a criterion for denial of marriage.
Posted by: garyW

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 04:33 PM

... so straight people (a group) marrying is unconstitutional too? Jewish or Christian people too? black, hispanic, asian? Marriage of redheads (a group) or short people (a group) are unconstitutional?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 04:35 PM

It's not... anyone who wants to get married, can.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 04:36 PM

Groups are irrelevant.

km
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 04:37 PM

I rest my case.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 04:40 PM

Yeah well it's not a very strong one.

grin
km
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 05:07 PM

Quote:
It's not... anyone who wants to get married, can.


You made my case.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 05:22 PM

I suspect there's a spanner in the works. Couldn't be a Spaniard or an Argentine, of course.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 05:26 PM

I'll be interested in Scalia's argument when it gets to that stage. To what extent will he distinguish the constitutional issue from his jesuitical education and his fervent religious beliefs? Of course I'm assuming that he'll argue against same-sex marriages, but I'd be happy to be surprised.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 05:27 PM

Not really... marriage in the United States is the union of one man and one woman.

cry
km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 05:42 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Not really... marriage in the United States is the union of one man and one woman.

cry
km

Not in every state.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 05:45 PM

Quote:
or short people

Steve might have little something to say about that. grin
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 05:49 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
It's not... anyone who wants to get married, can.

km



Posted by: garyW

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 05:52 PM

Today the court decided that our Constitution does not recognize groups (men or women) but all citizens equal protection under the law. (of which you agree). No matter how you might interpret the US Constitution, the court ruling does not specify qualifications to be a Citizen as being a member of a specific sexuality, religion or group. Unless of course your's is the final word on who is a United States Ciitizen .... which excludes gay and lesbians.

Hilarious, yet pitiful.

laugh
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 05:57 PM

But the music is that off key spooky kind.

laugh
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 06:19 PM

RM has read some of the language of the decision. It's a real stunner, folks. It finds as a matter of fact, not of law, many many things that are to me self-evident but that form the basis for denying the rights of gays and lesbians.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 06:39 PM

You can read the ruling here.

From p. 72: Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’ assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.

From p. 74: Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.

From p. 76: California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.

From p. 77: Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same- sex or opposite-sex.

From p. 80: Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.

From p. 83: Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages.

From p. 84: The children of same-sex couples benefit when their parents can marry.

From p. 93: Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.

From p. 95: The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s
adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.

From p. 98: Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes.

From p. 101: Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

From p. 108: The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships.

And these are all in the section of the decision that defines facts.

I love it.
Posted by: DLC

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 06:55 PM

WHY did you go and do that YoYo ?


Confusing him with FACTS again !!

wink

that's exactly it . .

course our SC will reverse the whole thing . . .

another reason NOT to elect conservative Presidents...

unless you want a theocracy. eek
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 06:58 PM

The evidence adduced in support of the facts is spectacular too smile
Posted by: newkojak

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/04/10 10:45 PM

I think Scalia will do what he always does: he'll start by thinking about what a real a-hole in a position of power would do, then he somehow finds that the a formalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution totally mandates that he be an a-hole. Then he goes on a hunting trip with lobbyists.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 01:23 AM

No I don't find that reasoning very cogent. It proceeds on the false assumption that same-sex persons are barred from marriage when in fact no such inquiry is made. It fails to recognise the ways in which same-sex attraction is unnatural and potentially deleterious, and should therefor be discouraged, and is so wide in its ambit as to legitimise other forms of union for which there's little or no appetite. In effect, that way of thinking is like saying that the exclusion of same-sex pairings from the Wimbledon mixed doubles discriminates against gays and lesbians since they can't enter the competition as a team. In fact, Wimbledon doesn't inquire into a person's sexuality - it simply says that pairings must be of the opposite sex. Somehow I don't think the Lawn Tennis Association is about to change its rules on account of the kind of 'reasoning' coming out of your courts so that the term 'mixed doubles' is all of a sudden given to mean that any team can enter.

grin
km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 01:30 AM

Facts? Which ones? What you've got there is mixed fact and fiction.

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 03:55 AM

Basically it comes down to "you can't discrimninate against an individual based on his/her sexual preference" . . goes along with race, ethnicity, sex, nationality, etc.

I don't know why they don't treat it in 2 fashions:
1. legal - civil unions - legal contracts and declarations
2. religious - marriage.

all gays want is #1 ! They're tired of being penalized (legally) because the don't conform to the traditional definition of "marriage".

It's not that hard to see the inequality under the law - except for religious pinheads who are biased.
Posted by: steveg

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 04:27 AM

Better a beginning than and end. YAY!!! smile
Posted by: steveg

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 04:33 AM

Did he say something funny? More to the point, is their anything funny about homophobia? I'm guessing both answers are "no". But you had to figure he'd be all over this topic. Rabbits and all.
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 06:29 AM

Originally Posted By: DLC
Basically it comes down to "you can't discrimninate against an individual based on his/her sexual preference" . . goes along with race, ethnicity, sex, nationality, etc.

I don't know why they don't treat it in 2 fashions:
1. legal - civil unions - legal contracts and declarations
2. religious - marriage.

all gays want is #1 ! They're tired of being penalized (legally) because the don't conform to the traditional definition of "marriage".

It's not that hard to see the inequality under the law - except for religious pinheads who are biased.



I'm right with you on this - government should not be involved in marriage (religious), only in legally upheld contracts.

Though as far as I am aware, aside the word marriage and an officially recognised ceremony, California law supports almost everything else - partner health coverage, visitation in hospital, etc. In fact in the case of hospital visitation/decisions I believe that a person should be able to nominate anybody as their proxy. Heck my family (aside from wifey) live over 4000miles away, it's totally impractical for a hospital to consult my nearest relative if both my wife and I are incapacitated.

I do wonder how this ruling stands as a precident. The last time CA voted to outlaw gay marriage, it was only a law that a judge overturned. This time it's part of the CA constitution - does that set a precident that a judge may overturn any part of a state constitution as "unconstitutional"??
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 06:35 AM

Quote:
Basically it comes down to "you can't discrimninate against an individual based on his/her sexual preference"

The claim that there's discrimination over marriage is false. I've given examples of homosexuals who got married without trying to change its meaning and could give others. By the same token the analogy made with race is also false as with other forms of real discrimination.

Quote:
all gays want is #1 ! They're tired of being penalized (legally) because the don't conform to the traditional definition of "marriage"

Tax discrimination in favour of marriage is intentional. Those who think the policy is wrong should campaign for equal treatment of taxpayers rather than try to change the definition of marriage.

Quote:
It's not that hard to see the inequality under the law - except for religious pinheads who are biased.

No I can't see it - but I agree that religious pinheads harm the case for the preservation of marriage rather than assist it.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 06:46 AM

Quote:
More to the point, is their anything funny about homophobia?

I don't call that much of an apology.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 07:43 AM

If you stop with the "natural," I won't restore my aardvark.
Posted by: newkojak

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 07:48 AM

The United States Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. So if a judge finds a conflict between a state's constitution and the U.S. Constitution, the latter takes precedence.

If it were any other way, the Bill of Rights would be totally unenforceable.
Posted by: DLC

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 08:04 AM

1. If the state doesn't recognize the legal union, it's useless. That's the problem - most states don't recognize same sex unions legally. They see them as 2 individuals, not a legal partnership.

2. It's NOT just taxation- it's things like inheritance, it's legal issues like power of attorney, medical issues like being able to be considered "family" if someone is critically injured or hospitalized, there are tons of legal issues besides taxation. Different sex couples have them - same sex couples don't. Why? boils down to the individuals characteristics, and the way laws are tailored around religious beliefs.

[/discussion]
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 08:57 AM

Quote:
1. If the state doesn't recognize the legal union, it's useless.

It's supposed to be useless i.e. for anyone falling outside the rules.

Quote:
most states don't recognize same sex unions legally. They see them as 2 individuals, not a tlegal partnership.

That's because they are two individuals. Marriage doesn't mean "any union" but the union of one man and one woman. Like the tennis "mixed doubles": teams are made up of two individuals of the opposite sex. Presumably you would scrap any such competition on grounds that it discriminates against gay partners?

Quote:
It's NOT just taxation- it's things like inheritance, it's legal issues like power of attorney, medical issues like being able to be considered "family" if someone is critically injured or hospitalized, there are tons of legal issues besides taxation.

Agreed - I was using taxation as a metaphor for all examples of unequal treatment.

Quote:
Different sex couples have them - same sex couples don't. Why?

Essentially because homosexuality is an affliction affecting a small minority of persons rather than an equal and alternative sexuality. Instead of patronising those affected with the pretence that their proclivity is as natural as the wind and rain it's necessary to speak the truth so that legislators can turn their attention to what really counts - equality of all persons as individuals. Changing the meaning of marriage would equalise rights for gays but not for other singles so it would itself be discriminatory.

Quote:
boils down to the individuals characteristics, and the way laws are tailored around religious beliefs.

No I don't agree with that... unnatural unions should be discouraged because they're potentially harmful - if religious persons happen to make that case on other grounds they're simply arriving at the right result for the wrong reasons.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 09:40 AM

Quote:
By the same token the analogy made with race is also false as with other forms of real discrimination.


So there is real discrimination and false discrimination.
Wow, I learn something new everyday.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 10:28 AM

Quote:
same-sex attraction is unnatural and potentially deleterious.

It is only unnatural if it is unnatural to the individual.
All things have the potential to be deleterious.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 10:44 AM

Just to by-pass 40 more pages of nonsense: http://forums.applecentral.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/483782/1
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 10:50 AM

Well there's real discrimination which may or may not be justified and false claims of discrimination.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 10:50 AM

Thanks, I needed that.
It is amazing how ridiculous it becomes.
Posted by: steveg

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 01:34 PM

To better focus that concept: There's the real world, and km's world.

But you already knew that.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 01:38 PM

My world is the great big world you tend to overlook.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 01:45 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
My world is the great big world you tend to overlook.

km


Quote:
There's the real world, and km's world.


Posted by: Jim_

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 04:27 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Essentially because homosexuality is an affliction affecting a small minority of persons rather than an equal and alternative sexuality.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 04:43 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Well there's real discrimination which may or may not be justified and false claims of discrimination.

km


Many situations/circumstances/conditions etc.etc. may or may not be justified.
There are false claims of many situations/circumstances/conditions etc. etc.

Your argument rating:
Posted by: steveg

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 05:50 PM

An "affliction"? Spoken like a card-carrying homophobe. But we all know that.
Posted by: steveg

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 05:55 PM

Well, when one's mind is that small, one's world probably looks huge by comparison. So I can see where he gets his distorted sense of proportion.
Posted by: garyW

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 06:33 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker

Essentially because homosexuality is an affliction affecting a small minority of persons rather than an equal and alternative sexuality.



Dr. Freud would like to award you a special cake he baked to honor your insight & wisdom. Brilliant!

May be NSFW.

>>click<<



Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 09:29 PM

Quote:
Essentially because homosexuality is an affliction affecting a small minority of persons rather than an equal and alternative sexuality.

Whoa, missed that one.
Just exactly what is an equal and alternative sexuality?
Can hardly wait.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 09:31 PM

Originally Posted By: steveg
An "affliction"? Spoken like a card-carrying homophobe. But we all know that.

The last person to know they are a nerd is the nerd.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/05/10 10:40 PM

Homophobe? You mean like President Obama? You have zero credibility on the homophobia front, mate, whether you changed your mind or not... and I would remind you that your own twisted and disgusting homophobia is up, hand-crafted, mounted and polished on the forum for all to see - unfortunately for you.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 04:41 AM

I was experiencing a little numbness in my legs. The doc said I needed to use them a little more rigorously. "Ass kicking", he said, "would be a suitable measure. Know any asses worth kicking?"

"Matter of fact, I do." says I.

So, Slick. I'm baaaaaaaaaaack! Better put a piece of plywood in the back of your BVDs, because your latest, undeniable (except for you) display of blatant, malicious, bigoted homophobia is a good place to start.

You've consistently shown your chops as an open, practicing homophobe, and this thread may have set an all time record for you. Oh yes, and you really need to get your head screwed on straight (after you've pulled it out of your butt, that is). I can't be a homophobe and a heterophobe at the same time. Make up your mind. And come out of the closet.

See? Be careful what you ask for. This "diehard" has come out of "exile" to remind you that this forum is not your private toilet wherein you can crap on anything that doesn't jive with your sanctimonious, sphincter-activated world view without having it rammed right back down your elongated throat.

Ain't you glad I'm back, Honey? Didja miss me?
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 05:31 AM

"Essentially because homosexuality is an affliction affecting a small minority of persons rather than an equal and alternative sexuality."

Left-handedness used to have a very similar description. Heck the percentage of people "afflicted" by it is even around the same number. And it was discriminated against. There are still a number of arguments that could be made for suppressing left-handedness. It still is suppressed in some places. I have little doubt you would have been among those who argued against it and punished accordingly. Unless of course you were left-handed, then you might see their side of things.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 09:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
Quote:
Essentially because homosexuality is an affliction affecting a small minority of persons rather than an equal and alternative sexuality.

Whoa, missed that one.
Just exactly what is an equal and alternative sexuality?
Can hardly wait.


Still waiting.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 02:26 PM

Yeah left-handedness was mischaracterised as an affliction because the left hand is just as useful as the right... no afflictions are more to do with deviations from the norm incurring disbenefits, like allergies, epilepsy, stammering, haemophilia, homosexuality... things like that.

km


Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 02:33 PM

There is literature on the disbenefits (is this a word? anyway it's meaning is clear enough I guess) of left-handedness. And even the predominant theory of how left-handedness develops sounds like an affliction:

"Exposure to higher rates of testosterone before birth can lead to a left-handed child.[5] This is the Geschwind theory, named after the neurologist who proposed it, Norman Geschwind. It suggests that variations in levels of testosterone during pregnancy shape the development of the fetal brain. Testosterone suppresses the growth of the left cerebral hemisphere and so more neurons migrate to the right hemisphere. The highly developed right hemisphere is now better suited to function as the center of language and handedness. The fetus is more likely to become left-handed, since the right hemisphere controls the left half of the body. The theory goes on to tie the exposure to higher levels of testosterone and the resultant right-hemisphere dominance to auto-immune disorders, learning disorders, dyslexia, and stuttering, as well as increased spatial ability."
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 02:43 PM

Welcome back.

Quote:
You've consistently shown your chops as an open, practicing homophobe

Homophobe? Whereabouts?

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 03:04 PM

Quote:
Essentially because homosexuality is an affliction affecting a small minority of persons rather than an equal and alternative sexuality.


Just exactly what is an equal and alternative sexuality?

Please answer so I don't have to keep asking. Thanks
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 03:05 PM

Maybe he prefers sheep.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 03:08 PM

Quote:
Just exactly what is an equal and alternative sexuality? Please answer...

There isn't one... heterosexuality is the one and only norm.

km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 03:17 PM

You're the one who said it - sheesh.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 03:31 PM

"There isn't one... heterosexuality is the one and only norm."

You seem to disagree with the label homophobe. How about this one?

Russian sexologist M.Beilkin proposes to use the term "homonegativity" only for intellectual disapproval of homosexuality, leaving the term "homophobia" for description of emotions and feelings towards homosexuality, such as fear, hatred, aversion.

Man, I love wiki.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 03:51 PM

Said what?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 03:59 PM

No that's misleading because it implies a role for value judgments where none exists. Do I disapprove of stammerers? No. As a matter of fact Michael Palin is a well-known inveterate stammerer and I respect him very much.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 04:01 PM

Nah, I am starting to see Leslie's point:

"There isn't one... heterosexuality is the one and only norm."

If this is your unadulterated opinion, further debate is truly pointless isn't it? Back to pension whining for me methinks.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 04:02 PM

Quote:
Nah, I am starting to see Leslie's point:

Glad someone does... what is it?

Quote:
"heterosexuality is the one and only norm"... further debate is truly pointless isn't it?

Not really... I've expressed my opinion - what's yours?

km
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 04:04 PM

I heard today that SS should not go broke until 2037. I'll be 87 near the end of that year. Something to look forward to I guess.

wink
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 04:10 PM

Good, we're talking about something else.

I just saw an interview with Michael Palin a few months ago. He was never a stammerer except when he played one. He got his particular stammering proficiency b/c his father had a bad stammer, and he emulated that. I respect him as well, and I would even if he actually had a stammer.

A. Or maybe you meant that Palin only acts like a stammerer just as homosexuals are only acting.
B. Or maybe Palin's father was also named Michael.
C. Or maybe you are just misinformed.

Anyone for C?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 04:24 PM

You're right - his interest in the cause is because his father was a stammer rather than himself - although it doesn't alter my point, of course.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 04:27 PM

laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 04:34 PM

Quote:
I can't be a homophobe and a heterophobe at the same time.

I didn't make the accusations at the same time... what you believe changes from one day to the next.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 05:06 PM

Your attempts to transfer your obvious flaws onto others is hilarious. Oh how I've missed your comedic endeavors. And which of my beliefs change from one day to the next, pray-tell? I'm pretty consistent in my belief that you're a bigot and a homophobe. Something that's gained a fair amount of traction hereabouts as a matter of fact, Mr. Affliction.
Posted by: steveg

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 05:07 PM

From your toes right up to the tippy-top of your pointy little head, Bubelah.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 05:08 PM

You seem to be an intellectual stammerer. I won't hold it against you though and I would respect you if you started a cause for intellectual stammerers; though not as their spokes-stammerer please.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 07:00 PM

You know, the more I read Km, the more he reminds me of Chris Cooper's character in American Beauty: Colonel Frank Fitts, USMC.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 07:10 PM

Saw that guy first in American Beauty and was struck by his talent, and I have been impressed with everything else I have seen him in. I remember Kevin Spacey saying that his own performance was boosted after he experienced Cooper's acting talent in "the hug" scene in the garage, because he saw that he had to step up and really try for a knockout performance to compete with Cooper's.

edit: I remember that I watched that movie again after a few years and realized that Cooper's wife in that movie, that living Norman Bates' mother on the couch, went on to become CJ from West Wing!
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 08:55 PM

Cooper is, as far as I'm concerned, one of contemporary America's finest actors. He takes even bit roles and makes 'em huge. Very versatile and something of an "everyman." Because he doesn't have leading man looks it actually frees him up to do all sorts of things. Really enjoyed him in Peter Berg's explosive "The Kingdom." Great casting in that flick in general.

And yeah, Allison Janney rocks, too. Great comic timing with that one. Solid instincts.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/06/10 11:44 PM

For example, President Obama is homophobic, then all of a sudden he's not... BP badly need a pump at Deepwater Horizon, then they don't... even whether to face the music here at the forum - one day you're here, next day you run away, then you come back again, then you run away again... then you come back - holy smoke, can't you see how cotton-pickin' indecisive you are?

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 03:47 AM

Bubelah, the only cotton that needs pickin' is the fuzz btwn your ears. It's causing a major short circuit in them thar synapses, and wreaking havoc with your logic path and grip on reality.

Oh wait... you live in that big wide world where you get to concoct your own reality — like that people here actually take you seriously. What was I thinking?

Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 04:03 AM

Nah, let's talk more about Chris Cooper. Last thing I saw him in was Adaptation with Cage and Streep. He blew me away again with the character he played. It was also the first movie I have liked Cage in in a while. Looked it up, it's from 2002! Man, I can get out of date over here.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 04:49 AM

Also great in The Horse Whisperer and the Bourne series.

I also like Philip Seymour Hoffman for the same thing... not having leading man looks.. yet able to rise to the top in Hollywood through his actual talent.
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 05:17 AM

Keymaker is a putz in the first degree. Welcome back steve
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 05:20 AM

I guess you are more perfect than Jesus.Never wrong
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 07:17 AM

Hoffman - agreed definitely. Let's go back further - Gene Hackman - not bad looking but no looker, but definitely a great actor. And even further back, Karl Malden - he blew me away in Streetcar Named Desire - though all the other beautiful people in it did also. The list for actors who have really gotten a lot of recognition is too short though. It really does help to be talented AND beautiful.
Posted by: Lea

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 08:38 AM


william macy [the cooler, door 2 door, a civil action ~ long list

bill paxton [streets of fire, tombstone, frailty ~ ditto list]


if jim dumps me over my broken arm, i'll get even and date both bills. they are both ver hot in my book. oh, and they're top notch actors, too.
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 10:11 AM

(km)I didn't make the accusations at the same time...(/km)

Crikey, hope you don't ever plan on using that as a legal argument.

Apologies for piling on. No pun intended. (insertwinkyhere)

Chris
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 10:42 AM

Quote:
I guess you are more perfect than Jesus.Never wrong...

Jesus? As a relative newbie you won't recall the thread in which I said that Blair was at fault over Iraq only for DLC to point out that if he was mad he couldn't have been at fault... so no, it's not correct to say I've never been wrong.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 10:42 AM

I heard he offered his legal services to BP. They declined. Wonder why... confused
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 10:49 AM

Well no, legal arguments never involve personal factors.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 02:27 PM

yeah I like Macy a lot too.

"bill paxton [streets of fire, tombstone, frailty ~ ditto list]"

Can't believe you didn't mention Big Love! (though of course it's not really a movie).
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 04:18 PM

Macy is another exceptional character actor. Gotta love those types. Paxton I'm less taken with, although I did admire his iconic performances in Aliens and A Simple Plan.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 04:29 PM

Yeah, I never found Paxton so "taking" but Big Love kind of put me over the edge. I only saw Aliens once, yonks ago, but his performance in A Simple Plan has stayed with me, as was Billy Bob's, another great actor who is no looker.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 04:38 PM

Billy Bob as a person is one strange creature but his acting chops are certainly golden. His debut role in Sling blade stands the test of time, and yeah - his similar role in A Simple Plan was also well delivered. Even lighter fare like Pushing Tin works.

Check out Aliens again, all the same... his lines are the best. The best! Total pop culture at its finest.
Posted by: ChrisN

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 04:54 PM

Two words - Macy, Fargo.

Speaking of Fargo, Steve Buscemi would also fit the category of great actors without the looks. Especially Buscemi, considering both his looks and his talent. Fargo, Sopranos, many more...

Chris
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 05:14 PM

I guess there's more than a few when you start thinking about it. Though Buscemi certainly has "a look" even if it isn't what you would call handsome.
Posted by: Lea

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 07:53 PM


i've always been more attracted to interesting faces ~ they're usually attached to interesting men.

j depp and k russell are the only pretty boys on my crush list.

this is an interesting conversation to have with a bunch of guys.

wink
Posted by: G4Dualie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/07/10 10:10 PM

Oh hell yeah! They should have given Buscemi the Oscar for his role in Mr. Deeds.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/08/10 01:12 AM

I want to dislike J Depp, cuz he is just too talented and handsome. But he is such a self-made man, and a family man with a very quiet demeanor off screen. You gotta respect that.

When I go home my sister made me watch those Grindhouse Tarantino/Rodriguez movies and I saw Kurt Russell in Death Proof. He was pretty memorable in that and still looks so damn young!
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/08/10 01:19 AM

Had to look up how old Russell is, he was born in 1951. Also had to click the link to Escape from New York, the first movie I remember seeing him in (he will always be "Snake" to me). That movie (released 1981) is supposed to have taken place in 1997. New York has yet to become a walled off cesspool full of people who never get back out again - has it? (:
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/08/10 05:02 AM

You missed one great actor Humphrey Bogart. A wonderful actor especially in Casablanca and African Queen.He will always be remembered in his acting roles as a classic. J
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/08/10 06:24 AM

No doubt, there are plenty of guys with chops but not the classic 'leading man' looks. Although I've long thought Hollywood tends to be lamentably conservative about their definitions of beauty anyway - both male and female.

Agreed that Depp has it all - a strong mix of looks, chops, and a refreshing ability to not be a public buffoon in his private life.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/08/10 06:31 AM

Maybe it's because Depp is an introvert? I saw him doing an interview once and all of his mannerisms indicated that he is an introvert. He was very uncomfortable being himself unscripted.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/08/10 06:38 AM

That might well be true. For whatever reason, he is a very private man outside of the film world. Not unlike Paul Newman, or a handful of actors who just don't need to feed the Hollywood beast - nor their egos.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/08/10 08:00 AM

Indeed, I would call Depp a textbook introvert.
Yep Bogart is another great of course. I only knew Casablanca and the hard-boiled detective stuff (not that they aren't great) until I saw him in African Queen. He could do plain and sensitive too.
Posted by: Lea

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/08/10 08:02 AM


newman ~ excellent example of a pretty boy + supremely talented actor [without malice] ++ supremely respectable private life +++ killer taste in women. only bogie and bacall can compare tp newman and woodward, and both ladies have all the +++'s of their husbands.

@lan ~ k russell lite and entertaining ~ captn ron or overboard. russell on my crush list ~ tombstone, also the thing. he and goldie belong on that +++ list, too.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/08/10 09:15 AM

Kurt Russell also is not afraid to tackle cheesy roles, which makes me admire him all the more - playing Snake Plissken or his character in Big Trouble In Little China... it's kitschy stuff but he runs with it.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/08/10 02:21 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
It's not... anyone who wants to get married, can.

km


“There is no discrimination, Gays can marry anyone they choose… of the opposite sex.”

Fact:

This assertion uses the same illogical “separate but equal” rationale that was used to justify racial bias and miscegenation laws. The argument prior to Loving vs. Virginia was that there was no discrimination in applying miscegenation laws as the whites and blacks were equally punished under those laws. The Supreme Court dismissed this idea that an immutable characteristic of an individual, the color of one’s skin, could be used as a legitimate state interest in discrimination. Similarly, to limit an individual’s marital choice based on an immutable characteristic of that individual’s being, where the state has no rational basis to discriminate against that characteristic is unconstitutional.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/08/10 02:23 PM

Oops, I see this thread has taken a turn. Oh well, I've already hit enter. smile
Posted by: keymaker

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/08/10 03:46 PM

Still trying to make the analogy? It falls down I'm afraid... unlike men and women who are different blacks and whites are the same. In the US when you had those crazy racial restrictions people demanded the same rights everyone else enjoyed in the great big wide world to marry a bride or groom of their choosing within existing customs and the prevailing meaning of the word. Those old rules depended on ascertaining a person's race and then applying the discrimination. By contrast since there's never been any inquiry into a person's sexuality it can't put forward as a basis of discrimination. That's right, gays and lesbians aren't complaining that they're not allowed to marry because they are - they're complaining that they can't change the meaning of the word. Same sex 'marriage' however would be like same sex "mixed doubles' at Wimbledon - utterly preposterous.

km
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/08/10 04:42 PM

Sorry, for the word salad interruption above. Anyway..

Big Trouble in Little China seemed to be in almost continuous loop on HBO at one point several years (decades?) ago. It looked interesting, but I don't think I ever got thru the whole thing.

The guy who played Lo Pan in that movie, James Hong must be the "go to" Chinese (or on occasion Japanese) guy for American movies. It is a little sad that there are so few Asian actors or so few roles for them in the US that it always has to come out like this. And the roles they are given tend to be so limited. James Hong was born in Minneapolis! I wonder if he really speaks like he does or if it is an affectation he is expected to have in his movies. I can't help but think of "The Hangover" when I think of depictions that bother me. Writers are sitting around thinking, we need one thing to make the show just that much funnier. I know, let's have a completely naked Chinese man jump out of the back of a car and jump around making stereotypical kung fu sounds...
Posted by: lanovami

Re: California's Prop 8 ruling - 08/10/10 07:22 AM

Reigniting? This guy's conservative defense is perty damn good.



a more complete version is here. I like the compliment Wallace gives him at the end. He deserves it.