|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The Kentucky legislature on Wednesday approved legislation that permits industrial hemp production in the state.
“This historic legislation puts Kentucky in position to be first in line if and when the federal government legalizes production of industrial hemp,” Agriculture Commissioner James Comer said in a statement. “By passing this bill, the General Assembly has signaled that Kentucky is serious about restoring industrial hemp production to the Commonwealth and doing it in the right way. That will give Kentucky’s congressional delegation more leverage when they seek a federal waiver allowing Kentucky farmers to grow hemp.”
Four members of Kentucky’s congressional delegation — U.S. Sens. Rand Paul (R) and Mitch McConnell (R), along with U.S. Reps. John Yarmuth (D) and Thomas Massie (D) — supported the bill, saying the cultivation of non-psychoactive variants of the marijuana plant would be an economic boon for the state.
Hemp can be used to make a number of products, but currently cultivating the lucrative crop is prohibited because the federal government and many states treat it as a Schedule I drug. Those hoping to use the plant in foods, fabrics, textiles, papers, bioplastics and biofuels are forced to import it.
Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) said he was unsure about the bill. The governor told The Courier Journal he plans to speak with law enforcement officials before signing or vetoing the legislation.
Source
|
On March 29 2013 03:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 02:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 29 2013 02:46 Trumpet wrote:
edit: Thinking about it, the only group with a "sufficient" political voice in the US is straight cis white men. Unfortunately it's way more than sufficient and I'd say pretty much everyone else's political voice is less than it should be as a result. Cause Romney totally won the election... Are you trying to say that Whites have have been discriminated against the same as gays etc.... Also not all white voters voted for Romney.
No. I will say that gays are not nearly so discriminated against in this modern American day as the left would claim though.
And the poster above said that only straight, white men had political voices. Romney was the candidate, by and large, of straight, white men.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 29 2013 03:42 mordek wrote:
I've only been catching bits about the DOMA stuff on NPR. I heard one of the justices ask if it's just about the "label". Are there legal distinctions between civil unions and married couples? Like estates, kids, taxes? What's the difference?
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
The current case with Edith Windsor is over her having to pay $363,000 in federal estate taxes after the death of her spouse because of DOMA. If her spouse was a man, she would have had to pay $0.
|
On March 29 2013 04:05 farvacola wrote:And Jonny, this conversation isn't over 
I'm fine using Hunter's answer to your question. That way I can avoid derping around wikipedia in order to refresh my memory.
On March 29 2013 04:43 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 03:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 29 2013 03:11 farvacola wrote:On March 29 2013 03:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 29 2013 03:05 farvacola wrote:On March 29 2013 03:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 29 2013 02:49 farvacola wrote:On March 29 2013 02:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 29 2013 02:33 HunterX11 wrote:On March 29 2013 02:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Don't they? In many states, your boss can legally fire you for being gay. If there were Federal ENDA legislation (or even just similar legislation in more than a slim majority of states), and being gay was considered a suspect classification, you might have a point. However, neither of those are true. So, no, they don't. So you only have enough, or a lot, or more of a political voice if you win? I wonder how many people asked MLK this as he marched through Birmingham in 1963. The Civil Rights Act was still a year away, and it was still perilously unclear as to how minority rights would fare as the nation became acquainted with the new president in LBJ. Blacks still were without a solid political leg to stand on outside of demonstration, and it was those very demonstrations that played a role in the expansion of the political recognition of minorities. The hoopla surrounding DOMA and Preposition 8 is similar. Once gays are not actively discriminated against by state, local, and federal authorities insofar as marriage is concerned, they will have garnered this "political power" you speak of. In the meantime, we simply disagree in terms of how fundamental this all is. You seem to be of the opinion that gay marriage is the sort of topic that is to be decided through normative representative democratic process, hence your insistence that national polling support amounts to actual political power. Following this line of reasoning, you'd likely be ok with gay marriage being considered illegal in a number of states, as long as the majority opinion is followed. I find this unacceptable. So yes, your argument is that you only have political power if you win outright. lol, in regards to a recognition as fundamental as this, yes. In a general sense, absolutely not. So if you really really really want to win, then you only have political power if you win. Did blacks have "political power" before 1964? I have no idea really - not a history buff. I'd bet that they had some. Whether or not they had a lot or a little I don't know. I'd have to do some research. Gotta run though, so take the last word  It doesn't take a history buff to know that a group doesn't have a lot of political power if they are denied the right to vote, and members of the group are systematically murdered for challenging their oppressors. Though granted, it's a lot better for gay people today than it was for African-Americans under Jim Crow. Also, interesting enough, the majority of public opinion was against interracial marriage even after the Supreme Court legalized it everywhere in Loving v. Virgina (though it had already been legal at the state level in the majority of states by then).
Also, I thought about my own question for a bit. This one here:
On March 29 2013 03:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 03:05 farvacola wrote:On March 29 2013 03:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 29 2013 02:49 farvacola wrote:On March 29 2013 02:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 29 2013 02:33 HunterX11 wrote:On March 29 2013 02:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 29 2013 01:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 28 2013 10:32 ziggurat wrote:On March 28 2013 04:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone needs to tell John Roberts to stop being such a douche as everything he says is public record and it would be wise to remember that when you write your book in 30-40 years in the attempt to cement your legacy. Like what? Read the transcripts from yesterday, he complains that gays already have enough/more voice in political discussion?! I mean really... Anyways.... Don't they? In many states, your boss can legally fire you for being gay. If there were Federal ENDA legislation (or even just similar legislation in more than a slim majority of states), and being gay was considered a suspect classification, you might have a point. However, neither of those are true. So, no, they don't. So you only have enough, or a lot, or more of a political voice if you win? I wonder how many people asked MLK this as he marched through Birmingham in 1963. The Civil Rights Act was still a year away, and it was still perilously unclear as to how minority rights would fare as the nation became acquainted with the new president in LBJ. Blacks still were without a solid political leg to stand on outside of demonstration, and it was those very demonstrations that played a role in the expansion of the political recognition of minorities. The hoopla surrounding DOMA and Preposition 8 is similar. Once gays are not actively discriminated against by state, local, and federal authorities insofar as marriage is concerned, they will have garnered this "political power" you speak of. In the meantime, we simply disagree in terms of how fundamental this all is. You seem to be of the opinion that gay marriage is the sort of topic that is to be decided through normative representative democratic process, hence your insistence that national polling support amounts to actual political power. Following this line of reasoning, you'd likely be ok with gay marriage being considered illegal in a number of states, as long as the majority opinion is followed. I find this unacceptable. So yes, your argument is that you only have political power if you win outright. lol, in regards to a recognition as fundamental as this, yes. In a general sense, absolutely not. So if you really really really want to win, then you only have political power if you win.
Why can't the answer to this be "yes"? Or was your tangent about blacks in 1964 getting to that?
|
On March 29 2013 04:09 mordek wrote:
Seems to me like trying to change a definition of a word that's been that way for as long as I can tell, without delving into some etymology. Does changing a definition change the way people feel about it? I can recognize people wanting to change a culture's "feelings" towards an issue but is altering a definition the way to do it?
It seems like the government treats them the same but society doesn't because they're different. A man and a woman are not the same as a man and a man/woman and a woman. It's a descriptor. If the benefits are the same under the law... /shrug.
Also, for the record, the laws (in Louisiana?) where you can be fired for being gay is wrong. I'm just trying to get to the heart of why this word is so important, not cases of discrimination.
The DOMA case, US v Windsor, is NOT just about changing a definition.
It's a discrimination case, the government is not treating them the same:
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits.
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-307
|
On March 29 2013 05:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 03:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 29 2013 02:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 29 2013 02:46 Trumpet wrote:
edit: Thinking about it, the only group with a "sufficient" political voice in the US is straight cis white men. Unfortunately it's way more than sufficient and I'd say pretty much everyone else's political voice is less than it should be as a result. Cause Romney totally won the election... Are you trying to say that Whites have have been discriminated against the same as gays etc.... Also not all white voters voted for Romney. No. I will say that gays are not nearly so discriminated against in this modern American day as the left would claim though. And the poster above said that only straight, white men had political voices. Romney was the candidate, by and large, of straight, white men.
Are you in their shoes? I can't believe you said this... I've seen the discrimination with my own eyes. People are murdered in this country because of their sexuality or gender identity. Now, I think that doing things like comparing it to what was going on with the civil rights movement, and comparing people's pain and suffering doesn't get us anywhere. I think those comparisons are useless, it's not about who had it worse off or who has it worse off now. The fact is that minorities are bad off and everyone should work towards being treated equally in the law, and hopefully eventually being treated equally by fellow citizens.
Anyways Trumpet is right. Even in the LGBTQetc movement, the ones with the most political voice, are Cis White Gay Men. They are just one step away from the straight men, which is why same sex marriage, is such a hot topic, it's whats on the political agenda for cis white gay men.. There are other just as important issues that are not on the political agenda, and in the spotlight right now, because it's not what these political voices, want or need. Hopefully same sex marriage leads to other things though, and it is very important of course. For those involved in these movements, there is divisions within the movements themselves including oppression. 
Just because Romney lost the election doesn't mean anything. First of all there are more than just 1 elected office in this country, and second, we are forgetting about other kinds of power, like voices in local communities, appointed positions, having the ear of those in office..
|
On March 29 2013 10:40 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 05:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 29 2013 03:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 29 2013 02:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 29 2013 02:46 Trumpet wrote:
edit: Thinking about it, the only group with a "sufficient" political voice in the US is straight cis white men. Unfortunately it's way more than sufficient and I'd say pretty much everyone else's political voice is less than it should be as a result. Cause Romney totally won the election... Are you trying to say that Whites have have been discriminated against the same as gays etc.... Also not all white voters voted for Romney. No. I will say that gays are not nearly so discriminated against in this modern American day as the left would claim though. And the poster above said that only straight, white men had political voices. Romney was the candidate, by and large, of straight, white men. Are you in their shoes? I can't believe you said this... I've seen the discrimination with my own eyes. People are murdered in this country because of their sexuality or gender identity. Now, I think that doing things like comparing it to what was going on with the civil rights movement, and comparing people's pain and suffering doesn't get us anywhere. I think those comparisons are useless, it's not about who had it worse off or who has it worse off now. The fact is that minorities are bad off and everyone should work towards being treated equally in the law, and hopefully eventually being treated equally by fellow citizens. Anyways Trumpet is right. Even in the LGBTQetc movement, the ones with the most political voice, are Cis White Gay Men. They are just one step away from the straight men, which is why same sex marriage, is such a hot topic, it's whats on the political agenda for cis white gay men.. There are other just as important issues that are not on the political agenda, and in the spotlight right now, because it's not what these political voices, want or need. Hopefully same sex marriage leads to other things though, and it is very important of course. For those involved in these movements, there is divisions within the movements themselves including oppression. Just because Romney lost the election doesn't mean anything. First of all there are more than just 1 elected office in this country, and second, we are forgetting about other kinds of power, like voices in local communities, appointed positions, having the ear of those in office..
The comparison with the Civil Rights Movement was not intended as a means of judging who had it worse; that pursuit is indeed utterly stupid. Instead, I meant it more as an illustration of how the idea of "political power" becomes more complicated when discussing particular, fundamental rights, especially from the perspective of a historically maligned minority. The very notion that a gay couple has to "fight" for the right to marry each other when a straight couple has never had to do such a thing implies a marked difference in political power in very much the same way black Americans suffered without the explicit baseline governmental acknowledgment imparted via the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Consider "normal" standing in the eyes of the government. In both scenarios, those of race rights and gender/sexual rights, the minority group is forced to argue from a fundamentally politically disadvantaged position; the status quo, the Southern Democrats and the "keep marriage sacred" folk, is an effective negation of a particular aspect of standing in the eyes of the government, for whatever reason.
(The last bit is more at Jonny than you, BlueBird )
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
addressing the roberts quote without reading the subsequent discussion, it's bad because it confuses gay issues being represented in political discourse with having power. gay rights are still not being fully protected by the law (made by political process).
it's like a southern judge saying to MLK that, their march was famous and everyone's talking about it, so they already have political representation etc. that's kind of rich
|
It's not just Democrats and liberals who are the reason for the shift on gay marriage.
Beneath the broad support from liberal-leaning demographic groups, is the fact that some of the biggest shifts in favor of gay marriage since 2004 have been from some more unlikely, conservative-leaning blocs -- blue-collar workers, older voters, and Southerners, according to NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls over the last decade.
And, even though Democrats are markedly more in favor of gay marriage than independents or Republicans, the vast majority of whom remain against it, all three have moved at almost exactly the same rate.
Blue-collar workers’ views on gay marriage have actually shifted more than any other group since 2004. Eight months before George W. Bush was re-elected, just 18 percent said they were in favor of same-sex marriage, and 80 percent were opposed.
Source
|
On March 29 2013 10:40 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 05:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 29 2013 03:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 29 2013 02:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 29 2013 02:46 Trumpet wrote:
edit: Thinking about it, the only group with a "sufficient" political voice in the US is straight cis white men. Unfortunately it's way more than sufficient and I'd say pretty much everyone else's political voice is less than it should be as a result. Cause Romney totally won the election... Are you trying to say that Whites have have been discriminated against the same as gays etc.... Also not all white voters voted for Romney. No. I will say that gays are not nearly so discriminated against in this modern American day as the left would claim though. And the poster above said that only straight, white men had political voices. Romney was the candidate, by and large, of straight, white men. Are you in their shoes? I can't believe you said this... I've seen the discrimination with my own eyes. People are murdered in this country because of their sexuality or gender identity. Now, I think that doing things like comparing it to what was going on with the civil rights movement, and comparing people's pain and suffering doesn't get us anywhere. I think those comparisons are useless, it's not about who had it worse off or who has it worse off now. The fact is that minorities are bad off and everyone should work towards being treated equally in the law, and hopefully eventually being treated equally by fellow citizens. Anyways Trumpet is right. Even in the LGBTQetc movement, the ones with the most political voice, are Cis White Gay Men. They are just one step away from the straight men, which is why same sex marriage, is such a hot topic, it's whats on the political agenda for cis white gay men.. There are other just as important issues that are not on the political agenda, and in the spotlight right now, because it's not what these political voices, want or need. Hopefully same sex marriage leads to other things though, and it is very important of course. For those involved in these movements, there is divisions within the movements themselves including oppression. Just because Romney lost the election doesn't mean anything. First of all there are more than just 1 elected office in this country, and second, we are forgetting about other kinds of power, like voices in local communities, appointed positions, having the ear of those in office..
People are murdered for a lot of reasons. And as much as it may disgust, horrify, and enrage me that people are hurt or killed for their sexuality, that isn't a case of institutionalized discrimination. It's a case of fucking horrible people being fucking horrible. Minorities in America are suffering, but so are majorities. And just because I recognize the suffering doesn't mean I agree with you or others on why they are suffering. Being treated equally by the law does not, in my opinion, entail changing the definition of a long-standing tradition to give everyone new rights, which is what is being suggested.
I want you, or someone else, to show me evidence that blacks, women, Hispanics, Asians, Native-Americans, etc. are seeing institutionalized discrimination; and show evidence also that they lack a political voice, not by choices they've made, but by a lack of ability to exercise that political voice. Romney losing the election, when he was the preferred candidate of most white, straight men is good evidence that white, straight men are not the only ones who can and do exercise political power. The gains the Democrats made in the House, and the lack of gains the Republicans made in the Senate are more indications. It is not enough to call out discrimination and disenfranchisement without showing indications of them. Otherwise you're just engaging in class warfare.
|
On March 29 2013 10:40 BlueBird. wrote:Even in the LGBTQetc movement, the ones with the most political voice, are Cis White Gay Men. They are just one step away from the straight men, which is why same sex marriage, is such a hot topic, it's whats on the political agenda for cis white gay men.. There are other just as important issues that are not on the political agenda, and in the spotlight right now, because it's not what these political voices, want or need. Hopefully same sex marriage leads to other things though, and it is very important of course. For those involved in these movements, there is divisions within the movements themselves including oppression.
Citation needed.
Everything seems to indicate that the push for marriage equality is a joint effort from all LGBTs, rather than cis white gay men in particular.
|
On March 29 2013 12:22 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 10:40 BlueBird. wrote:Even in the LGBTQetc movement, the ones with the most political voice, are Cis White Gay Men. They are just one step away from the straight men, which is why same sex marriage, is such a hot topic, it's whats on the political agenda for cis white gay men.. There are other just as important issues that are not on the political agenda, and in the spotlight right now, because it's not what these political voices, want or need. Hopefully same sex marriage leads to other things though, and it is very important of course. For those involved in these movements, there is divisions within the movements themselves including oppression. Citation needed. Everything seems to indicate that the push for marriage equality is a joint effort from all LGBTs, rather than cis white gay men in particular.
Hmm hard to cite my queer friends etc, this is anecdotal. None of them are against marriage equality, just that is not what they would want first, many openly gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual people I know are young and are worried about other things like the right to work, not getting married.. I know many that are part of this movement, and they can speak for themselves, if you want a good example of a cis white gay man who is pushing his agenda and is a large voice for the movement, look at Dan Savage, who is a very public figure, yet he is openly biphobic.
|
On March 29 2013 12:22 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 10:40 BlueBird. wrote:Even in the LGBTQetc movement, the ones with the most political voice, are Cis White Gay Men. They are just one step away from the straight men, which is why same sex marriage, is such a hot topic, it's whats on the political agenda for cis white gay men.. There are other just as important issues that are not on the political agenda, and in the spotlight right now, because it's not what these political voices, want or need. Hopefully same sex marriage leads to other things though, and it is very important of course. For those involved in these movements, there is divisions within the movements themselves including oppression. Citation needed. Everything seems to indicate that the push for marriage equality is a joint effort from all LGBTs, rather than cis white gay men in particular.
I had no idea that regarding cis white gay men as the LGBT subgroup with the most political voice was somehow contested in the first place. I see an expansion of what marriage means as being a joint effort, but the biggest backers and loudest voices have come from gay men, and the biggest group there is the cis white gay men. If this wasn't extremely apparent in society from the Gay Liberation Front circa 1970 until today, then I am seriously shocked.
Transgendered causes in the media? Hardly reported on, hardly visible as impacting the development of any legislation or regulation. Transgendered lobby is weak compared to the predominantly white cis gay lobby. I never found it hard to identify the big player in current LGBTQ agenda, and neither its second biggest support.
|
On March 29 2013 15:33 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 12:22 sunprince wrote:On March 29 2013 10:40 BlueBird. wrote:Even in the LGBTQetc movement, the ones with the most political voice, are Cis White Gay Men. They are just one step away from the straight men, which is why same sex marriage, is such a hot topic, it's whats on the political agenda for cis white gay men.. There are other just as important issues that are not on the political agenda, and in the spotlight right now, because it's not what these political voices, want or need. Hopefully same sex marriage leads to other things though, and it is very important of course. For those involved in these movements, there is divisions within the movements themselves including oppression. Citation needed. Everything seems to indicate that the push for marriage equality is a joint effort from all LGBTs, rather than cis white gay men in particular. Hmm hard to cite my queer friends etc, this is anecdotal. None of them are against marriage equality, just that is not what they would want first.
Then I would argue that your anecdotal experience is merely that. To substantiate the notion that cis white gay men are the most powerful political voice in the LGBT movement would require substantially better than one person's anecdotal experience.
My own anecdotal evidence does not suggest such a thing, as none of my LGBT friends who are politically active/interested have ever expressed this. From the general sentiments you have expressed in this thread, I would actually infer that perhaps you feel this way because your queer friends are, like you, of a social justice warrior bent (who are more likely to take such a view).
Out of curiosity, what would your queer friends want first, if not marriage equality?
|
On March 29 2013 15:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 12:22 sunprince wrote:On March 29 2013 10:40 BlueBird. wrote:Even in the LGBTQetc movement, the ones with the most political voice, are Cis White Gay Men. They are just one step away from the straight men, which is why same sex marriage, is such a hot topic, it's whats on the political agenda for cis white gay men.. There are other just as important issues that are not on the political agenda, and in the spotlight right now, because it's not what these political voices, want or need. Hopefully same sex marriage leads to other things though, and it is very important of course. For those involved in these movements, there is divisions within the movements themselves including oppression. Citation needed. Everything seems to indicate that the push for marriage equality is a joint effort from all LGBTs, rather than cis white gay men in particular. I had no idea that regarding cis white gay men as the LGBT subgroup with the most political voice was somehow contested in the first place. I see an expansion of what marriage means as being a joint effort, but the biggest backers and loudest voices have come from gay men, and the biggest group there is the cis white gay men. If this wasn't extremely apparent in society from the Gay Liberation Front circa 1970 until today, then I am seriously shocked. Transgendered causes in the media? Hardly reported on, hardly visible as impacting the development of any legislation or regulation. Transgendered lobby is weak compared to the predominantly white cis gay lobby. I never found it hard to identify the big player in current LGBTQ agenda, and neither its second biggest support.
I would argue that lesbians are the biggest players (if not the loudest), due at least partly to support from the powerful feminist lobby. Heck, the plaintiffs in United States v. Windsor are a lesbian couple, not a gay couple.
I do agree that transgendered causes are weak politically. However, I do not agree that marriage equality is on the political agenda because that's what cis white gay men have dictated. The whole identity politics classification of people according to different levels of oppression is a ridiculous oversimplification here.
|
On March 29 2013 15:50 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 15:33 BlueBird. wrote:On March 29 2013 12:22 sunprince wrote:On March 29 2013 10:40 BlueBird. wrote:Even in the LGBTQetc movement, the ones with the most political voice, are Cis White Gay Men. They are just one step away from the straight men, which is why same sex marriage, is such a hot topic, it's whats on the political agenda for cis white gay men.. There are other just as important issues that are not on the political agenda, and in the spotlight right now, because it's not what these political voices, want or need. Hopefully same sex marriage leads to other things though, and it is very important of course. For those involved in these movements, there is divisions within the movements themselves including oppression. Citation needed. Everything seems to indicate that the push for marriage equality is a joint effort from all LGBTs, rather than cis white gay men in particular. Hmm hard to cite my queer friends etc, this is anecdotal. None of them are against marriage equality, just that is not what they would want first. Then I would argue that your anecdotal experience is merely that. To substantiate the notion that cis white gay men are the most powerful political voice in the LGBT movement would require substantially better than one person's anecdotal experience. My own anecdotal evidence does not suggest such a thing, as none of my LGBT friends who are politically active/interested have ever expressed this. From the general sentiments you have expressed in this thread, I would actually infer that perhaps you feel this way because your queer friends are, like you, of a social justice warrior bent (who are more likely to take such a view). Out of curiosity, what would your queer friends want first, if not marriage equality?
general safety, housing guarantees(you can get evicted because of your sexuality/gender), job security(again, sexuality/gender), various other countless issues, I'm not too up to date on all of them. Marriage equality is important, but it's being almost portrayed in the media sometimes as if this is the most important thing ever, which is pretty strange.
Social justice warrior , love it.
|
On March 29 2013 10:25 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 04:09 mordek wrote:
Seems to me like trying to change a definition of a word that's been that way for as long as I can tell, without delving into some etymology. Does changing a definition change the way people feel about it? I can recognize people wanting to change a culture's "feelings" towards an issue but is altering a definition the way to do it?
It seems like the government treats them the same but society doesn't because they're different. A man and a woman are not the same as a man and a man/woman and a woman. It's a descriptor. If the benefits are the same under the law... /shrug.
Also, for the record, the laws (in Louisiana?) where you can be fired for being gay is wrong. I'm just trying to get to the heart of why this word is so important, not cases of discrimination. The DOMA case, US v Windsor, is NOT just about changing a definition. It's a discrimination case, the government is not treating them the same: Show nested quote +Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits.
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-307
I can get behind this being wrong, no doubt. Thanks!
Also, I've googled "cis" and I still have no idea what you guys are talking about -.-
|
On March 29 2013 21:59 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 10:25 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 29 2013 04:09 mordek wrote:
Seems to me like trying to change a definition of a word that's been that way for as long as I can tell, without delving into some etymology. Does changing a definition change the way people feel about it? I can recognize people wanting to change a culture's "feelings" towards an issue but is altering a definition the way to do it?
It seems like the government treats them the same but society doesn't because they're different. A man and a woman are not the same as a man and a man/woman and a woman. It's a descriptor. If the benefits are the same under the law... /shrug.
Also, for the record, the laws (in Louisiana?) where you can be fired for being gay is wrong. I'm just trying to get to the heart of why this word is so important, not cases of discrimination. The DOMA case, US v Windsor, is NOT just about changing a definition. It's a discrimination case, the government is not treating them the same: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits.
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-307 I can get behind this being wrong, no doubt. Thanks! Also, I've googled "cis" and I still have no idea what you guys are talking about -.-
It means you were born with the same sex of body that your gender is, basically not trans.
|
WASHINGTON — The nation’s top business and labor groups are nearing agreement on a guest worker program for low-skilled immigrants, a final sticking point that had stalled negotiations late last week on a broad immigration overhaul, and are closing in on a deal that could come as early as Friday, according to officials involved in the talks.
An agreement between the labor and business communities would clear one of the last hurdles for an overall deal on immigration legislation in the Senate, which the bipartisan group hopes to introduce early next month.
“We are very close, closer than we’ve ever been,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of a bipartisan group of senators working on comprehensive immigration legislation. “We are very optimistic, but there are a few issues remaining.”
Source
|
On March 29 2013 21:59 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2013 10:25 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 29 2013 04:09 mordek wrote:
Seems to me like trying to change a definition of a word that's been that way for as long as I can tell, without delving into some etymology. Does changing a definition change the way people feel about it? I can recognize people wanting to change a culture's "feelings" towards an issue but is altering a definition the way to do it?
It seems like the government treats them the same but society doesn't because they're different. A man and a woman are not the same as a man and a man/woman and a woman. It's a descriptor. If the benefits are the same under the law... /shrug.
Also, for the record, the laws (in Louisiana?) where you can be fired for being gay is wrong. I'm just trying to get to the heart of why this word is so important, not cases of discrimination. The DOMA case, US v Windsor, is NOT just about changing a definition. It's a discrimination case, the government is not treating them the same: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits.
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-307 I can get behind this being wrong, no doubt. Thanks! Also, I've googled "cis" and I still have no idea what you guys are talking about -.-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cissexual
In theory, it simply refers to non-trans individuals, as calling these people "normal" would imply that trans individuals are "abnormal".
In practice, however, it's commonly used as a pseudo-pejorative term to label non-trans people as belonging to an "oppressor class" with supposed privilege. E.g. "you're a cis white straight male, check your privilege", "die cis scum", or "open mic off limits to cis-gendered men (we all know you talk enough)".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
