Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.

Subscribe to Twins Daily Email

Photo

Gay marriage bill passes in Minnesota

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
176 replies to this topic

#21 biggentleben

biggentleben

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,705 posts

Posted 14 May 2013 - 06:47 PM

Unfortunately that story was fake. It came from the Daily Currant, a satire news site.


Yes, I realize. I just enjoyed the satire of her being so butt-hurt that she'd leave. Yet, who would want her?!
Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

#22 Guest_USAFChief_*

Guest_USAFChief_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:02 AM

2012 was a landslide in the state house and senate for Minnesota Democrats. Trust me the push to kill it didn't matter. This is the sort of issue that had unstoppable momentum over the years. The moment it could pass it would and thats what happened.

As for Bachman the 6th district is a Republican district. If she had any flaws on the fiscal end you could defeat her in the primary process, but as nuts as she is on some issues theres just no way we can give her up. She's one of about 3 reps that I can count on to protect the tax payer and at this time in our history that goes a long ways.

She's leaving, right? Isn't that what she said? She's giving YOU up.

Can't say I blame her, what with the whole pillar of salt thing in play now.

#23 Hornhead

Hornhead

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:12 AM

How sad for the civil society, kids, and lexical definitions. The dictionary weeps with disgust. But since everything is living and breathing with language now, we can fittingly call this progress.


Can't tell if this is serious, but consider the argument is well underway that people should have a right to choose their gender. One can even be male at school/work and female at home. Gender will be considered a fluid concept. Is it awful to support a standard by which we define male and female? The reason I ask is that union of male and female is as fundamental to marriage as the union of oxygen and hydrogen atoms is to water. Speaking of threesomes, no reason polygamy should not also be a civil right now.

#24 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 11,573 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 05:11 AM

As for Bachman the 6th district is a Republican district. If she had any flaws on the fiscal end you could defeat her in the primary process, but as nuts as she is on some issues theres just no way we can give her up. She's one of about 3 reps that I can count on to protect the tax payer and at this time in our history that goes a long ways.


No, what Minnesota needs are a few politicians who haven't strapped themselves into the party of hypocrisy by yammering about personal responsibility while trying to remove every civic freedom with which they do not agree. It's that cognitive disconnect that bothers me most about the Tea Party. When you compare their various ideologies to one another, they don't make sense and are often in direct conflict with one another. Either you want personal responsibility and freedom or you don't; you can't pick and choose between the two because you'll look like a self-serving hypocrite to anyone with a brain.

To an extent, the Democrats are just as guilty of this but at least their rhetoric surrounding it isn't so distasteful to anyone with a conscience.

#25 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,429 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:36 AM

No, what Minnesota needs are a few politicians who haven't strapped themselves into the party of hypocrisy by yammering about personal responsibility while trying to remove every civic freedom with which they do not agree. It's that cognitive disconnect that bothers me most about the Tea Party. When you compare their various ideologies to one another, they don't make sense and are often in direct conflict with one another. Either you want personal responsibility and freedom or you don't; you can't pick and choose between the two because you'll look like a self-serving hypocrite to anyone with a brain.

To an extent, the Democrats are just as guilty of this but at least their rhetoric surrounding it isn't so distasteful to anyone with a conscience.


Brock, I think you've nailed the Republican party's biggest problem. However, I think that disconnect is more prevalent in the far-right religious conservatives than the Tea Party... which is actually an even more striking hypocrisy. The TP just gets all the media attention.

#26 Ultima Ratio

Ultima Ratio

    PMS jokes are the best, period.

  • Members
  • 1,832 posts
  • LocationHere

Posted 15 May 2013 - 09:44 AM

Can't tell if this is serious, but consider the argument is well underway that people should have a right to choose their gender. One can even be male at school/work and female at home. Gender will be considered a fluid concept. Is it awful to support a standard by which we define male and female? The reason I ask is that union of male and female is as fundamental to marriage as the union of oxygen and hydrogen atoms is to water. Speaking of threesomes, no reason polygamy should not also be a civil right now.


I'm serious and you are correct. Polygamy used to a reductio ad absurdum argument (the opposition wrongly tried to call it a slippery slope argument), but since attitudes of temporary politicians keep "evolving" (another bastardization of language), legal plural "marriage" [cringe]is on it's way too. And if proponents are serious (but probably just demagoguing) that the sufficient condition for marriage is love, then yes, plural marriage, marriage of brothers, sisters and so on will have to be recognized -- an if you're against that, then you don't have a conscience, but probably know the difference between inconsistency and hypocrisy. That last line is snark, to be clear.
Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

#27 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 11,573 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:00 AM

Brock, I think you've nailed the Republican party's biggest problem. However, I think that disconnect is more prevalent in the far-right religious conservatives than the Tea Party... which is actually an even more striking hypocrisy. The TP just gets all the media attention.


Very true, it's a problem with the GOP in general... They've spent half a decade silencing and/or removing moderates who refuse to radicalize. All you have to do is look at how the party went through such lengths to marginalize Jon Huntsman during the last convention season to see how the party treats people who prefer common sense over party rhetoric.

At some point, the party has to come back to the middle. How far they're going to continue heading toward CrazyTown is very much up for debate, though.

#28 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 11,573 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:05 AM

I'm serious and you are correct. Polygamy used to a reductio ad absurdum argument (the opposition wrongly tried to call it a slippery slope argument), but since attitudes of temporary politicians keep "evolving" (another bastardization of language), legal plural "marriage" [cringe]is on it's way too. And if proponents are serious (but probably just demagoguing) that the sufficient condition for marriage is love, then yes, plural marriage, marriage of brothers, sisters and so on will have to be recognized -- an if you're against that, then you don't have a conscience, but probably know the difference between inconsistency and hypocrisy. That last line is snark, to be clear.


There's a huge difference between polygamy and incestual relations, if only from a physical standpoint. One has medical reasoning to prevent legally... The other has a societal reason to prevent legally due to its past use to subjugate and oppress women, especially young girls (some of this can be applied to incestual marriage as well).

For the record, I have no problems with polygamy on its face; I have no business telling others what to do with their lives if it does not affect me. My only problem comes with its past (and in some circles, current) societal implementation and abuse of the system.

#29 Ultima Ratio

Ultima Ratio

    PMS jokes are the best, period.

  • Members
  • 1,832 posts
  • LocationHere

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:25 AM

Brock, I didn't say brother marrying sister, but brother marrying brother and sister marrying sister. Does society have an interest in not allowing these "marriages" where procreation is impossible, but the love is sincere and earnest?

Edited by Ultima Ratio, 15 May 2013 - 11:31 AM.

Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

#30 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 11,573 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:24 PM

Brock, I didn't say brother marrying sister, but brother marrying brother and sister marrying sister. Does society have an interest in not allowing these "marriages" where procreation is impossible, but the love is sincere and earnest?


I don't care, honestly. I also see it being such an insignificant problem that it isn't worth the time it takes to theorize over its morality or social impact.

Approximately 8-10% of the population is gay. Gay siblings who wish to marry each other is, what, .00001%?

#31 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,239 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 12:40 PM

Brock, I didn't say brother marrying sister, but brother marrying brother and sister marrying sister. Does society have an interest in not allowing these "marriages" where procreation is impossible, but the love is sincere and earnest?


We should probably make sure our liquor laws account for raging cases of Benjamin Button disease or just throw it all out.

#32 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 9,589 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:31 PM

Brock, I didn't say brother marrying sister, but brother marrying brother and sister marrying sister. Does society have an interest in not allowing these "marriages" where procreation is impossible, but the love is sincere and earnest?


Like infertile heterosexuals? I don't get the whole "marriage is about procreation" argument at all.

Marriage is about tax policy, adoption rights, medical decisions, all kinds of things that have nothing to do with either love or procreation. If society wants to say that only 2 people can be married to each other, and have these rights and responsibilities, isn't that what societal rules are for? For me, if 5 people want to live together and call themselves married, great. But society can say "you aren't married for the legal rights of 'married' people. Live together all you want, have kids all you want, but you won't have the same legal rights as others."

Oh, and that would be a choice, "marrying" more than 1 person. Unlike sexual orientation, which is pretty clearly not any more a choice than skin color.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :) Also, I am NOT trying to convince anyone I am correct, I'm just talking here, not arguing.


#33 PseudoSABR

PseudoSABR

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 2,164 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:36 PM

Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry our goats, cartoon characters, and figments of our imagination. And all such choices would affect me so very much, damn them!

#34 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 9,589 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:02 PM

Pretty soon, we'll be able to marry our goats, cartoon characters, and figments of our imagination. And all such choices would affect me so very much, damn them!



It's almost like your happiness does not effect my happiness---Stephen Colbert*

*approximate quote...

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :) Also, I am NOT trying to convince anyone I am correct, I'm just talking here, not arguing.


#35 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 7,239 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:18 PM

It's almost like your happiness does not effect my happiness---Stephen Colbert*

*approximate quote...


Pfft, your tune will change when our loving god nukes us for having naughty fun. That'll learn ya.

#36 Hornhead

Hornhead

    Member

  • Members
  • 34 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:46 PM

There's a huge difference between polygamy and incestual relations, if only from a physical standpoint. One has medical reasoning to prevent legally... The other has a societal reason to prevent legally due to its past use to subjugate and oppress women, especially young girls (some of this can be applied to incestual marriage as well).

For the record, I have no problems with polygamy on its face; I have no business telling others what to do with their lives if it does not affect me. My only problem comes with its past (and in some circles, current) societal implementation and abuse of the system.


Having a child later in life comes with increased medical risks too, but I don’t hear the outcry against that. And the historical share of subjugation, abuse, and incest found in traditional marriage cannot be ignored. More compelling arguments than these are required if further expansion of marriage is to be prevented.

#37 mike wants wins

mike wants wins

    Would Like to be More Positive

  • Members
  • 9,589 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:54 PM

Pfft, your tune will change when our loving god nukes us for having naughty fun. That'll learn ya.


It is true, if a loving god destroyed the earth in his wrath, my tune would definitely change.

What I just typed is probably an opinion, not a fact. I mean, I'm usually right, so you should maybe assume it is or will be a fact soon, but that's up to you. :) Also, I am NOT trying to convince anyone I am correct, I'm just talking here, not arguing.


#38 mikecgrimes

mikecgrimes

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 334 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:39 PM

No, what Minnesota needs are a few politicians who haven't strapped themselves into the party of hypocrisy by yammering about personal responsibility while trying to remove every civic freedom with which they do not agree. It's that cognitive disconnect that bothers me most about the Tea Party.


Thats Michele Bachmann not the tea party. The great thing about the tea party is our message attracts all kinds. If you think we should continue to increase spending beyond inflation fine but if you just happen to care about social issues which have nothing to do with the tea party worry about the individuals. Liberals don't get to define us.

#39 mikecgrimes

mikecgrimes

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 334 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:42 PM

Jon Huntsman? His campaign was so weak nobody had any clue what he even stood for. Tim Pawlenty ran a much stronger campaign and he was out a year early.

#40 Brock Beauchamp

Brock Beauchamp

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 11,573 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 04:00 PM

Thats Michele Bachmann not the tea party. The great thing about the tea party is our message attracts all kinds. If you think we should continue to increase spending beyond inflation fine but if you just happen to care about social issues which have nothing to do with the tea party worry about the individuals. Liberals don't get to define us.


It's not liberals. From the Tea Party website (pay particular attention to #15):

15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs

[FONT=Arvo]1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.
[/FONT][FONT=Arvo]
[/FONT]