Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Obamessiah

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: The Obamessiah
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Newsweek cover is literally a picture of President Obama with a rainbow colored halo. The first time I saw the image I thought it was a parody, but apparently this was considered serious journalism by someone.

ABCNews

The magazine has also labeled Obama the "first gay president." I guess since President Clinton was the "first black president" this makes sense in a newspeak way.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's got to be a joke... Someone is yanking their chain and they fell for it. Right?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lol
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I found Sullivan's story interesting.

I had two interesting conversations as well, yesterday. One from an agonistic African-American who has at least 4 pictures of Obama in his house ... expressing his disappointment in the president and his astonishment at finding that he might end up voting against Obama in the reelection. The second conversation was from a gay employee at my favorite Thai restaurant (the guy who got me hooked on Rachel Maddow) who expressed his bewilderment at being expected to celebrate that same-sex couples are being bullied into an institution that was custom-built for heterosexual couples, rather than being encouraged to build their own legitimate institutions.

If anyone's headed to Vegas, I can bring either or both of these gentlemen to lunch and we can all have a chat. (Tosses the ball to Tom Davidson).

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know enough about the guy's position to expand on why he feels bullied? Interesting position I hadn't seen before. Did he offer an alternative or did he just feel that society was pressuring couples into a "normal" lifestyle?

[ May 15, 2012, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He felt that pushing gay couples into calling themselves "married" made it like one was the husband and one was the wife. That's how Gay couples are portrayed on a lot of popular shows, e.g. desperate housewives, the remake of Stepford Wives, etc.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know another gay couple locally that have been together 23 years, that say the same thing re marriage.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That part I get. It's the bullied I didn't. We talking people who want to certify and/or sanctify their monogamous relationship who don't like the terms associated with marriage or people who aren't interested in the institution?

I mean are they worried about their family pestering them with, "Why aren't you settled down and married?" kind of bullying that heterosexuals put up with and they thought they had dodged? [Smile]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sullivan's piece was very well-written, and he's very credible considering his history of principled conservative positions. Its worth reading just to get an idea of the impact of the President's statement, which is getting poo-pahed in the media as cynical gamesmanship. That tends to obscure how transformational it is for a sitting president to finally depart from the two-party line and express direct support for ssm. This is a big milestone for gay rights, and civil rights in general.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
That part I get. It's the bullied I didn't. We talking people who want to certify and/or sanctify their monogamous relationship who don't like the terms associated with marriage or people who aren't interested in the institution?

I mean are they worried about their family pestering them with, "Why aren't you settled down and married?" kind of bullying that heterosexuals put up with and they thought they had dodged? [Smile]

No. Had another chat with that friend, mentioned your question, and he said that it's more about the implication that in order for the relationship to be treated with legitimacy, that it has to be patterned after marriage, which is something designed for and associated with the man and woman relationship. Note however that he loathes Romney and isn't about to vote against Obama over the issue. But why filter his views through me -- drop in on me in Vegas and we can all go to dinner, and I'll have the pleasure of kicking back and watching others debate SSM while I stay out of it.

I wish Richard Dey was here; he put it even more poignantly, explaing how the Goodridge model is a mockery of the gay community. I've brought him in on a few internet discussions on other forums, and he almost sent the ssm hardliners into cardiac arrest. [Big Grin] [LOL]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
Sullivan's piece was very well-written, and he's very credible considering his history of principled conservative positions. Its worth reading just to get an idea of the impact of the President's statement, which is getting poo-pahed in the media as cynical gamesmanship.

The statement itself seems almost honest; it's the timing, and the statements that came before which seem cynical beyond belief, and that prostitute his proclaimed religion in order to obfuscate his political positions on this and other cultural issues.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete-While I can understand his position there are many, many in the Gay community that would like to be able to get married if only to formalize their long term relationships. While there are plenty who are moving away or rejecting the traditional idea that marriage should be the natural outcome of a committed monogamous relationship a recognition of that right is as Adam states a Civil Rights issue.

I find your friend's attitude pretty self-centered. He and his partner can choose to live how they like but it sounds like he feels uncomfortable with others having the same rights. There are plenty of heterosexual men and women who chose not to get married because they don't want to follow societies model for their lives.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mynnion -- I shared a case with initial vs initial ... I think one was TF, or something like that ... one of the progeny cases of the Goodridge atrocity, showing that same-sex couples were facing legal penalties and losing out on remedies that they previously had at law, based on their failure to jump through the marriage hoop. Unfortunately I no longer have a Lexis account and cannot locate it. It was basically, haha, no child support for you, because we gave you the opportunity to get married and you didn't. Let this serve as a lesson to to other lesbians who don't toe the party line. Get on your designated reservation or else.

[ May 16, 2012, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He felt that pushing gay couples into calling themselves "married" made it like one was the husband and one was the wife.
Isn't that precisely the only form of same-sex marriage that you'd support?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The legal piece is always where things get complicated. Individual state law makes it even more complicated. Ultimately protection laws may have to occur at a national level if only to standardize treatment.

Interestingly my company currently provides support for unmarried gay couples but not for unmarried heterosexual couples since they can get married.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
He felt that pushing gay couples into calling themselves "married" made it like one was the husband and one was the wife.
Isn't that precisely the only form of same-sex marriage that you'd support?
You are wrong. By the way that many people on and off this forum define "same-sex marriage," same-sex unions and same-sex partnerships are a form of same-sex marriage. I remember when England passed same-sex partnership laws, some ssm advocates on this forum and elsewhere proclaimed that England had enacted "same-sex marriage."
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Interestingly my company currently provides support for unmarried gay couples but not for unmarried heterosexual couples since they can get married.

Since formal unions designed for gay couples have yet to evolve on a broad cultural basis, I strongly support what your company does. We want to pressure hetero couples towards marriage, since such couples have the potential of producing unintentional offspring, and a marriage that occurs prior to pregnancy is the best system that we know of for preparing a hetero couple for such a scenario. Same-sex couples won't accidentally produce offspring together, so no need to pressure them towards a system that clearly wasn't designed with their needs in mind!
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
Pete-While I can understand his position there are many, many in the Gay community that would like to be able to get married if only to formalize their long term relationships.

Yes, this is important to note. There were Black Americans who opposed the end of segregation, sometimes for understandable reasons, but that hardly constituted a valid reason for perpetuating an unjust system.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
By the way that many people on and off this forum define "same-sex marriage," same-sex unions and same-sex partnerships are a form of same-sex marriage.
But that's not the definition you use. By the definition of same-sex marriage you use, the only form of same-sex marriage you would support is one that forced one partner to be a "wife" and the other to be a "husband."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
By the way that many people on and off this forum define "same-sex marriage," same-sex unions and same-sex partnerships are a form of same-sex marriage.
But that's not the definition you use. By the definition of same-sex marriage you use, the only form of same-sex marriage you would support is one that forced one partner to be a "wife" and the other to be a "husband."
I recall this conversation, where Pete said what you are referring to here.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
By the way that many people on and off this forum define "same-sex marriage," same-sex unions and same-sex partnerships are a form of same-sex marriage.
But that's not the definition you use. By the definition of same-sex marriage you use, the only form of same-sex marriage you would support is one that forced one partner to be a "wife" and the other to be a "husband."
I recall this conversation, where Pete said what you are referring to here.
If you actually read it, you might note I said there is that I would accept that form of ssm, not that it was the ONLY form that I'd accept. [Cool]

Another form of ssm which I'd accept is a distinct same-sex union, which as several folks have noted is a form of same-sex marriage. You may remember the phrase "a rose by any other name."

The form of ssm that I've advocated as the BEST form of SSM is a distinct MM institution (mmm) and a distinct FF institution (ffm) , since the reproductive possibilities and other rule-affecting facts would make an MM institution as different from a FF institution as much as either is different from actual marriage.

The only form of ssm which I've said that I'd reject is neutered marriage, aka gender neutral marriage (gnm) .

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Another form of ssm which I'd accept is a distinct same-sex union, which as several folks have noted is a form of same-sex marriage.
But would you call it marriage, Pete?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I'd call it a form of same-sex marriage. We've been through this thirty times, Tom. The last time was two posts up:

quote:
The form of ssm that I've advocated as the BEST form of SSM is a distinct MM institution (mmm) and a distinct FF institution (ffm) , since the reproductive possibilities and other rule-affecting facts would make an MM institution as different from a FF institution as much as either is different from actual marriage.

The only form of ssm which I've said that I'd reject is neutered marriage, aka gender neutral marriage (gnm) .

emphasis added.

[ May 16, 2012, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
There were Black Americans who opposed the end of segregation, sometimes for understandable reasons, but that hardly constituted a valid reason for perpetuating an unjust system.

Some Black Americans still do support and enable segregation, so what you said as true as it is a mind-numbingly bad analogy to the gnm issue.

[ May 16, 2012, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I found Sullivan's story interesting.

I had two interesting conversations as well, yesterday. One from an agonistic African-American who has at least 4 pictures of Obama in his house ... expressing his disappointment in the president and his astonishment at finding that he might end up voting against Obama in the reelection. The second conversation was from a gay employee at my favorite Thai restaurant (the guy who got me hooked on Rachel Maddow) who expressed his bewilderment at being expected to celebrate that same-sex couples are being bullied into an institution that was custom-built for heterosexual couples, rather than being encouraged to build their own legitimate institutions.

If anyone's headed to Vegas, I can bring either or both of these gentlemen to lunch and we can all have a chat. (Tosses the ball to Tom Davidson).

The first guy, who Jordan met by telephone as Jordan helped us put my legal website together, is snoring in my living room right now as I take a break from the project from hell to do this work. Probably the most intelligent man I've met in my life ... I'll try to recruit him to Ornery. But there are lots of interesting folks I'd love to introduce visiting Ornerians to. JimSkatr met my wife and kids, and Carlotta met my wife. Unfortunately they are gone now. [Frown] And I'm really much more polite in person, unless you happen to be chasing me on Halloween night with a switchblade.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1