Simpsons: Gay marriage shock

[unclehobart]

It was indeed Patty... to a local golf pro. I wonder if the LPGA wrote off a letter of protest.

 

[Lopan]

What would their argument be? Have you seen the LPGA tour I don't think they would have a leg to stand on.

 

[unclehobart]

It wouldn't stop a protest though. There is no such thing as bad publicity... no matter how true or damning it would be.

 

[Lopan]

Unless you are a hitherto unknown serial killer, then publicity might be counter productive.

I think if the LPGA protested though it wouldn't be that odd seems like everyone is protesting at the moment. I blame letting Soccer moms near the internet.

 

[HomeLAN]

I really struggle to understand whats so offensive about gay marriage. Marriage isn't even a christian idea.

I don't see how marriage between 2 people whatever their sexual preference can be anyone elses business.

Which totally fails to address Inky's point. Whether you understand why or not, some folks do find it offensive (FTR, not me, I truly don't give a shit). Why should this be allowed and other "offensive" material be blocked?

 

[ClaireBear]

Which totally fails to address Inky's point. Whether you understand why or not, some folks do find it offensive (FTR, not me, I truly don't give a shit). Why should this be allowed and other "offensive" material be blocked?

Because... showing a gay marriage, a mixed race marriage or an Asian family in a nonestreotypical way... promotes tolerance and understanding... not being "exposed" to such areas of society produces ignorance and therefore fear which breeds intolerance.

 

[HomeLAN]

Ah, OK. So, some folks' idea of "exposure to proper influences" should be stifled and other promoted?

Oops, sounds like we're back where we started.

 

[Lopan]

Which totally fails to address Inky's point. Whether you understand why or not, some folks do find it offensive (FTR, not me, I truly don't give a shit). Why should this be allowed and other "offensive" material be blocked?

They may find it offensive, but I was saying that it isn't their business. Surely it doesn't affect them that much.

 

[Professur]

They may find it offensive, but I was saying that it isn't their business. Surely it doesn't affect them that much.

That's an assumption about people living in another country. Care to retract?

 

[ClaireBear]

Ah, OK. So, some folks' idea of "exposure to proper influences" should be stifled and other promoted?

Oops, sounds like we're back where we started.

Thats what the "politically Correct" movement is all about... exposing everyone to what is "correct" and stopping the exposure of what "isn't"...

It has no religious or social connections... it is entirely non-culture biased...

I don't hold with it... but thats how it's supposed to work... well... thats how I interpret it....

So in the context of Gay marriage... objection is religiously based... Christian ethics... so... its not "PC"

 

[HomeLAN]

They may find it offensive, but I was saying that it isn't their business. Surely it doesn't affect them that much.

There you go. Jam that foot in deeper. Tasted your knee yet?

 

[Professur]

Too late.

 

[HomeLAN]

Thats what the "politically Correct" movement is all about... exposing everyone to what is "correct" and stopping the exposure of what "isn't"...

It has no religious or social connections... it is entirely non-culture biased...

I don't hold with it... but thats how it's supposed to work... well... thats how I interpret it

And yet, you just appeared to support Lopan's implication that opposition to gay marriage should be stifled.

 

[ClaireBear]

That's an assumption about people living in another country. Care to retract?

How does what Adam and Steve get up to effect anyone else but the individuals involved?



I simply don't get why people would object to exposing their children (all be it through a programme which isn't designed for them) to a fact of modern life!

 

[Lopan]

I'm not saying that those that oppose gay marriage should be stifled. I was wondering what justification there is for the intervention on their part. Who makes it their business to decide that two people can't get married?

 

[ClaireBear]

And yet, you just appeared to support Lopan's implication that opposition to gay marriage should be stifled.

I do support his opinion concerning gay rights and gay marriage in the media... I simply don't support all of the silliness which adherance to that which is PC 100% of the time causes!!!

 

[HomeLAN]

I'm not saying that those that oppose gay marriage should be stifled. I was wondering what justification there is for the intervention on their part. Who makes it their business to decide that two people can't get married?

The fact that gay couples have taken it to the courts has sort of opened the door, wouldn't you say? When you make noise to change existing public policy, don't whine when you're questioned about it.

CB, I sort of understand where you're coming from, but it's hard to see past the self-contradiction.

 

[Lopan]

The fact that gay couples have taken it to the courts has sort of opened the door, wouldn't you say? When you make noise to change existing public policy, don't whine when you're questioned about it.

What were they questioned on? Public policy dating from when and why did they have to take it to the courts?

 

[ClaireBear]

CB, I sort of understand where you're coming from, but it's hard to see past the self-contradiction.

No its not HL... you've just gotta tune into my crappy explanatory skills...

I mean that I am, mostly, a modern PC individual... I pick up on older people's sexist slurs (my Nanna's generation) racist slurs (my parent's generation) and homophobic slurs (sadly HL those in their 30's) and I am very much so offended by such attitudes especially if they are expressed in public...

I do however... not hold with the notion of everyone and everything following excessive PC rulings to the detriment of everything else... like the banning of Christmas Carols in schools with a large Muslim or Hindu student body... that kind of thing I find just taking it alll way too far!

 

[HomeLAN]

Fair question. Public policy in every state in the US and every municipality therof until 1999. The first well known court challenge was brought by a gay couple in 1971. Many followed, all completely unsuccessful until 1999 in Vermont. Take a read here:

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/6DF0766E-C4A3-4952-A542F5997196E8B5/118/304/190/ART/

The subsequent decisions in places like Massachusetts resulted in legal moves to have pro gay marriage decisions overturned.

Like I said, gay couples wanted to change existing policy, and are now screaming because some folks disagree and want to use the same court system to block them.

I can see points on both sides of the argument, but that's another thread.

My point was the hypocrisy in stating that anti gay marriage viewpoints are invalid, while pro gay mariage views are OK. While you've halfway backpedalled on that one, you're still not there.