The Gay Fray

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The vast majority of the time, the word faith is used to mean belief in something with very little or no evidence. Often it seems to be belief in something because there is no evidence. It would be clearer to refer to the other as trust. Dogs have been consistently kind, "faithful" and affectionate for 14 years then changed, sometimes suddenly & sometimes slowly. Same as people. Other dogs, of course, have been such all their lives with little or no change. Same as some people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On Dogs and Humans

I protest, as dogs have done nothing in general to deserve that kind of denigration.

The one part of dogs that is similar to humans is that such degradation can occur if the brain is sick.

To the other, humans can change for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

Do you know how a dog betrays you? It watches you, learns your habits, and uses this information to calculate how to steal food.

There's a reason why a guilty dog is so damn cute to some people; the dog knows it's guilty.

But unlike a human, a dog isn't going to betray you just for the thrill of it. And, frankly, between comparative betrayals, you know, like a smack on the mouth or bruises on your throat? Yeah, the dog can steal as many Beggin' Strips as it wants. Well, okay, Beggin' Strips aren't the best example. But, yeah. Steal my fuckin' cheeseburger and look all cute and innocent. Fine with me, just leave the fries, please.

The dog loves you. It knows how to experience that feeling. (Yes, really.)

The human? Well, people tell each other all about how much they love. And statistically this is a risk that no sane person would actually accept.

So please don't insult dogs like that. The dog isn't going to rape your child. It isn't going to bang your best friend or his wife. Well, okay, it can be conditioned to do so, but in that case the problem wouldn't be the dog.

Randy, Bella, Champ, Mercury; the list goes on. Some of the dogs I've had the honor of knowing are among the finest people I've ever had the honor of calling friend. (And remember, I'm a "cat person".)

Generally speaking, the human species at its finest also includes some of the lowest, most dangerous creatures I have ever been so unfortunate to be aware of.

Between C. lupus and H. sapien, I know which species morally deserves to survive the Apocalypse. And the world itself will be in better condition if Canis lupis remains after we humans have abandoned the living endeavor.

Ever see someone try to teach their dog to sit by commanding, "Sit!" and then pushing down on its hindquarters? There's actually an easier way. Command sit, and then sit down. If you do this enough, and affectionately, the dog will learn to empathize, eventually sympathize, and join you in common behavior.

The problem with the dogs who turn on people is that if they're not actually sick with some pathogen that results in belligerently defensive behavior, the dog isn't really turning on anyone. The dogs who turn on people like that learn how to do so from their owners. In those cases, the problem is only the dog because of the immediate threat; the larger threat is the dog's human companion.

Those who wish to risk a "rescue dog"? I will not object. I will even praise. But if that dog ever "turns on you", the problem isn't the dog. It's either the former human companion who created the need for rescue, or you. Dogs and people as a simile is a denigration of dogs.
____________________

Notes:

United States Food and Drug Administration. "FDA Continues to Caution Dog Owners About Chicken Jerky Products". November 18, 2011. FDA.gov. August 19, 2014. http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/NewsEvents/CVMUpdates/ucm280586.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Having spent years raising wolves, caring and rescuing injured wolves and retraining/releasing them back into the wild, living with dogs as well as living wild around many different types of animals... I would have to agree wholeheartedly with this.

 

Same way people betray you, although that is generally learned during childhood.

If it's taught that way, yes. A feral dog will take your food and then take your hand off if you try to stop him - and will not feel an ounce of guilt. It's all in what they learn.

 

You can protest facts all you want & it will not change them. I did not denigrate or insult dogs or humans.

Deserve has nothing to do with it.

Sometimes that works & sometimes it doesn't. It should be the 1st method tried.

I did not say humans & dogs are exactly the same thus insulting dogs in your denigrating view of humans. I pointed out something which can & does happen with dogs & pointed out that can & does happen with humans also. There are many causes of changes in behavior, sometimes 1 & sometimes 2 or more together.

Character & behavior of dogs & humans tho are determined by their nature, their physical make-up, their training, their experiences & their environment. Neither dogs nor humans are self-made.

 

On Paths to the Future: Old-School or Fabulous?

Would you agree, then, with the proposition that the only reason your dog doesn't actually, literally stab you in the back is that it doesn't have opposable thumbs?

Are the pitbull incidents the result of careful strategic planning by the dog?

When was the last time a shih-tzu took out a contract?

Sometimes I think this is a primary source of our disagreement on several issues. It's not that I don't see your point, but, rather, it stopped being useful to me when the last train departed Clarksville.

To wit, please note the line about the dog banging your best friend. The underlying point still holds. Yes, I see your point, but even such, the problem still wouldn't be the dog.

I find our neighbor's dog analogy incorrect; any pretense of useful application only makes the situation worse. And, to the one, it's true; we don't call women bitches because it is an inappropriate way to treat another person. I would not contest that.

But, at the same time, someone has to speak up for the dogs. The analogy only works as far as, say, Monopoly and chess being the same because they're both board games.

Funny thing is, if people really believed in such simplistic comparisons, the species would be better off. But we don't, and as a result chess and Monopoly can be the same thing because they're a board game, but a human being and a human being can't be the same because of skin color, the difference between penis and vagina, and all sorts of other details that, when there is no human authority over another at stake, suddenly become irrelevant. Then again, as a matter of psychology, there really isn't anything surprising about that inherent duplicity.

This thread has run for ten years. While I am slightly disturbed at the turn the topic has taken of late, it's true that the discussion has wandered all over the place. But the thing about free speech is that if the right to say something is, in fact, its only merit in being said, well, sure, we'll respect that right, but not the dishonest message, and it is also our right to adjust our assessment of the messenger accordingly.

Thus, our neighbors are free to rant on about what is or isn't Kosher, or repeat that ill-conceived, viciously intended sleight about how the only purpose of religion is authoritarianism—after all, what does that say about humanity in terms of the religious tendency being an evolutionary adaptation that has not yet selected out of the species?—and all manner of mildly amusing juvinilia. And the rest of us? Well, yeah. We perceive the sickness about our neighbors, and will adjust our assessments accordingly.

And let me remind that we just had a revolution in these United States. Not a warring Revolution, but a proper social revolution. It rose by will of the oppressors a little under a quarter-century ago, and progressed with what, for the slow wheels of justice, constitutes blinding speed. And my side won, which, trust me, I am just as unaccustomed to as you are.

But it's also true that everyone has obligations to be decent and civil toward one another; so while many will criticize such uneducated, superstitious, self-gratifying attitudes, the truth of the matter is that basic decency forbids us from telling you the truth about what such people really are.

Honestly, when these hatemongering closet cases get upset at the criticism they face for the cruelty they show their fellow human beings, they're actually complaining about being handled with kid gloves. One can only imagine how loudly they would bawl if they were treated according to the magnitude of their offenses.

The next frontier for the gay community is daylight itself. Our time underground has helped foster a number of unhealthy practices and outlooks, with the result that our domestic and intimate violence rates are above the already unacceptable norms for the rest of society. This is something we need to figure out. And one will not need to be gay to participate and contribute, but we will be kicking this sort of bablutive to the curb; it has no place at that or any other table.

The old rules are over. People are still free to make whatever stupid analogies and arguments they want, but we're no longer obliged to pretend they have any sort of legitimate point.

We don't have to put up with this shit, anymore.

And we won't.

 

Nope.

Same old Tiassa.

 

Man sues after homosexuality listed as 'chronic' problem on medical records

By Jenn Gidman ·Published August 15, 2014

Matthew Moore wasn't pleased to find his status as a gay man described as a "chronic condition" on his medical records after a routine checkup in 2013.

But even more offensive to the LA man is the fact that the health organization he's now suing didn't keep its promise to scrub the designation from his files, reports NBC Los Angeles.

The 46-year-old is suing the doctor and the health care network, not only for the "defamatory" classification, but also for the "pattern of deceit and medical record doctoring." Even though the 302.0 "homosexual behavior" code was wiped from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1973, Moore said his doctor defended the designation in his records last year by explaining that the "medical community goes 'back and forth'" on the issue.

Moore complained to the Torrance Memorial Health Association and received an apology and a promise that his record would be corrected. But when he checked again in May 2014, his "homosexual behavior" was still listed, though now as a "chronic problem" instead of a "chronic condition," reports the Washington Post.

In a statement, the medical network blames its "highly complex software" for the problem. Even so, Moore says he will proceed with the suit.

 

What "Person" Gets That Right?

I always adore that corporate excuse that, "We bear no responsibility for the decisions we made!"

I can't wait until real people are equally protected according to what corporate people get. Can you imagine the chaos?

In a way, though, the religious prudes will be proven correct. Moral relativism will destroy society, since the richest "people" in our society have no legal obligation to ethics or morality.

Still, though, it is enlightening to watch these complaining zealots support the rise of the moral relativism they denounce.

Spoiler

[video=youtube;SPPCtXdcCN0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPPCtXdcCN0[/video]

 

People have stupidly blamed computers for their crap for over 30 years tho they didn't claim complexity back then & they said computer problem rather than software problem.

I am certainly not excusing anything but I don't think prudes & hypocrites realize they are prudes & hypocrites. Tho it is difficult sometimes to believe they actually believe what they claim to.

Somehow I thought doctors in the US were past homosexual bigotry by now. Or at least acted like it on the job.

 

Six and Three is Nine

Sweet Home Chicago

Do we really need any more of a sign that this one is over?

Federal appeals judges bristled on Tuesday at arguments defending gay marriage bans in Indiana and Wisconsin, with one Republican appointee comparing them to now-defunct laws that once outlawed weddings between blacks and whites.

(Associated Press)​

The AP report of the legal brawl in the Seventh Circuit is absolutely brutal. "While judges often play devil's advocate during oral arguments", the article narrates, and things only go downhill from there. Reagan-appointed Judge Richard Posner rejected "tradition" as an argument in favor of these laws. "It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry — a tradition that got swept away", Posner explained, and the marriage bans before the court are the descendants of "a tradition of hate ... and savage discrimination".

Posner, who has a reputation for making lawyers before him squirm, frequently cut off Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, just moments into his presentation and chided him to answer his questions.

At one point, Posner ran through a list of psychological strains of unmarried same-sex couples, including their children having to struggle to grasp why their schoolmates' parents were married and theirs weren't.

"What horrible stuff," Posner said. What benefits to society in barring gay marriage, he asked, outweighs that kind of harm to children?

"All this is a reflection of biology," Fisher answered. "Men and women make babies, same-sex couples do not... we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism."

[Wisconsin Asst. Atty. General Timothy] Samuelson echoed that, telling the hearing that regulating marriage — including by encouraging men and women to marry — was part of a concerted Wisconsin policy to reduce numbers of children born out of wedlock.

"I assume you know how that has been working out in practice?" Judge David Hamilton responded, citing figures that births to single women from 1990 to 2009 rose 53 percent in Wisconsin and 68 percent in Indiana.​

One interesting difference is that the court did not seem to be taking a wholly one-sided approach. Judge David Hamilton, appointed by President Obama, inquired of the ACLU about arguments in favor of polygamy; attorney Kenneth Falk replied with the obvious rejection of a slippery slope argument: "If you have two people, it's going to look like a marriage. If you have three or four, it doesn't."

What seems to have changed is not that the court has abandoned its canons, but, rather, that the situation has changed so dramatically that the burdens of overcoming presupposition have shifted. While traditionalists might gnash and wail at the treatment they seem to have received in the Chicago courtroom, there are plenty on the other side who are only noticing because, for once, it's not their advocates who face the uphill battle; that is something the gay community is not yet accustomed to. Indeed, most identifiable classes outside the white, Christian male are generally unaccustomed to witnessing such turning of screws from this side of the process.

This is how badly it went for traditionalists:

Despite the seriousness of the hearing, there was some levity.

At one point, visibly uncomfortable Samuelson struggled to offer a specific reason for how gay marriage bans benefit society. He then noted a yellow courtroom light was on signaling his allotted time was up.

"It won't save you," Judge Ann Claire Williams, a Bill Clinton appointee, told him, prompting laughter in court.

Samuleson smiled, and said: "It was worth a try."​

____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Judges Blast Indiana, Wisconsin Gay Marriage Bans". The Huffington Post. August 26, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. August 26, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/26/gay-marriage-bans_n_5718423.html

 

The Billvon Shuffle

So you're betraying your own argument in order to pop a wisecrack, that in turn will help you avoid addressing the issues? After all, you said, "Same way people betray you". Whatsamatta, Bill, can't back up your middling fake centrist farce?

Same old Billvon, trying so hard to con us into believing he's something he's not.

I mean, it's one thing if you want to pick a stupid fight like that, and quite another thing when you run from it. If you're not willing to answer for yourself, then think thrice about whether you should be saying anything at all.

 

Family's hateful reaction to a teen's coming out as gay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1df_i26wh-w

 

Louisiana Justice Poetry in Motion

Louisiana: When Justice Comes
Article IV, Amendment XIV prevail

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

The lede from Chris Geidner of Buzzfeed frames the narrative perfectly:

Less than 20 days after a federal judge found Louisiana’s ban on same-sex couples’ marriages to be constitutional, a state court judge in Lafayette Parish disagreed in a 23-page opinion that recognized the marriage of two women who married in California — and ordered officials to allow other, unmarried same-sex couples to marry in the state.​

And Judge Edward D. Rubin's decision is unequivocal:

The court grants the Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment and denies the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. It hereby declares that La. Const. Article XII, Section 15 (the Defense of Marriage Act/DOMA) and La. Civil Code Articles 86, 89, and 3520(B) are unconstitutional because they violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article IV, Section 1, the Full faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Louisiana[s Reveunue Bulletin No. 13-024 (9/13/13) is likewise declared unconstitutional as it violates the petitioners' rights guaranteed by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, Tim Barfield in his official capacity as the Secretary of the State of Louisiana Department of Revenue, is hereby ordered to act in accordance with this court's ruling and allow the peititioners to file their state tax returns as a couple whose marriage is valid and recognized in Louisiana. The court hereby enjoins the state from enforcing the above referenced laws to the extent that these lws prohibit a person from marrying another person of the same sex. Additionally, having ruled that the petitioners' marriage shall be recognized by the state of Louisiana, it follows that Angela Marie Costanza has satisfied the requirement of stepparent under the provisions of La. Ch. C. article 1243, which allows for intrafamily adoption. The court reaffirms its previous decision in Adoption of (__) which declared Angela Costanza's adoption of (__) to be in the child's best interest. The minor child, (__), is declared, for all purposes to be the child of petitioner, Angela Marie Costanza to the same extent as if (__) had been born to Angela Costanza in marriage. As such, the court further orders Devin George in his official capcity of the State's Registrar of Vital Records, to issue a new birth certificate naming Angela Costanza as (__)'s mother.

The State of Louisiana is hereby ordered to recognize the Petitioners' marriage validly contracted in California as lawful in this state, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit guaranteed by Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.​

It's a state court, but it's a towering victory. Sometimes, you know, it's just the little things. Indeed, Justice Ginsburg comes to mind:

People seeking clues about how soon the Supreme Court might weigh in on states' gay marriage bans should pay close attention to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Minnesota audience Tuesday.

Ginsburg said cases pending before the circuit covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee would probably play a role in the high court's timing. She said "there will be some urgency" if that appeals court allows same-sex marriage bans to stand. Such a decision would run contrary to a legal trend favoring gay marriage and force the Supreme Court to step in sooner, she predicted.

She said if the appeals panel falls in line with other rulings there is "no need for us to rush."

Ginsburg didn't get into the merits of any particular case or any state's gay marriage ban, but she marveled at the "remarkable" shift in public perception of same-sex marriage that she attributes to gays and lesbians being more open about their relationships. Same-sex couples can legally wed in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Bans that have been overturned in some other states continue to make their way through the courts.

"Having people close to us who say who they are — that made the attitude change in this country," Ginsburg said at the University of Minnesota Law School.

(Bakst)​

The Fringed One offered her insights only weeks after a federal court upheld Louisiana's same-sex marriage ban:

A federal judge here upheld the state’s ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, going against what had been a unanimous trend of federal court decisions striking down such bans since the Supreme Court ruled on the matter last year.

In his ruling, Judge Martin L. C. Feldman of Federal District Court said that the regulation of marriage was left up to the states and the democratic process; that no fundamental right was being violated by the ban; and that Louisiana had a "legitimate interest ... whether obsolete in the opinion of some, or not, in the opinion of others ... in linking children to an intact family formed by their two biological parents."

That this ruling ran counter to a wave of other federal decisions across the country in recent months was immediately noted by opponents of the ban.

(Robertson)​

It should be noted that the Supreme Law of the Land trumps the state's legitimate interest, and while we might anticipate arguments that Rubin outstreched his reach, it is in truth nothing more than a series of logical consequences. Article IV prevails, and all else follows.

Even Louisiana, for all we might complain, has its moments. Congratulations.
____________________

Notes:

Geidner, Chris. "Louisiana Judge Rules Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional, Clashing With Federal Court". BuzzFeed. September 22, 2014. BuzzFeed.com. September 23, 2014. http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/louisiana-judge-rules-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional

Rubin, J. Edward D. "Minute Entry Ruling". Costanza and Brewer v. Caldwell et al.. 15th Judicial District Court. September 22, 2014. Scribd.com. September 23, 2014. http://www.scribd.com/doc/240717486/Judge-Rubin-Louisiana-Marriage-Ruling

Bakst, Brian. "Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Watch 6th Circuit For SCOTUS' Next Move On Gay Marriage". The Huffington Post. September 16, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. September 23, 2014. www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/ruth-bader-ginsburg-gay-marriage_n_5833090.html

Robertson, Campbell. "Federal Judge, Bucking Trend, Affirms Ban on Same-Sex Marriages in Louisiana". The New York Times. September 3, 2014. NYTimes.com. September 23, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/us/louisiana-gay-marriage-ban-upheld-by-federal-judge.html

 

Sparkle and Shine

And all the adopting parents putting it on the line for their kids, too.

Actually, I did think of you while writing that post; it has to do with an obscure bit about a judge who got pissed off because a court clerk told the family of a wrongly convicted man what was wrong with their petition for a new trial. I was incensed; you made a very good point about judges and attitudes that I generally only reserve for cops and prosecutors. But that's the thing; when a cop does his job correctly, it's often hard to see. A prosecutor? Well, right. But judges performing their jobs properly are just as visible, front and center, as judges who don't. And there's a damn lot of them who do their jobs. Where my opinion of law enforcement is rather quite unflattering and presumes widespread corruption, what a judge just did in Louisiana—his job, the right thing, &c.—is exactly why I adore the judiciary.

And given that it's Louisiana, it is very hard to overlook the recent federal decision, and wonder if Judge Rubin to some degree made the point in order to drive a nail. Both at Sciforums and in the echo chamber of real punditry it has been apparent in recent years that some people rely on what is otherwise common erroneous human behavior. That is to say, in a number of recent issues, I've heard affiliated clusters of advocates making absurd arguments that don't make any sense. At one point, the House of Representatives tried arguing that gay marriage should be outlawed because heterosexual couples can reproduce accidentally; the idea is that all arguments are somehow equal, regardless of the facts, and the winning argument ought to be the one with the best sales pitch, regardless of fact.

I mention this because all the federal court did in upholding Louisiana's gay marriage ban earlier this month was arbitrarily choose that an opinion held sway as fact. Judge Rubin, in reiterating the importance of Article IV, not only drove a nail but, I might hope, also took satisfaction in a particularly stereotypical way, that no federal activist judge is gonna come into his state and tell good Lou'siana folk what parts of the Constitution to ignore.

I don't know. In little things, I've seen it. And we see it in larger issues, too. There was a King County judge I watched read a defendant the riot act about deferred prosecution, and then granted the motion, anyway; and in that case, it was as much a tacit message to the lawyer: You and I both know this is a bad idea ....

I've also seen a Snohomish County judge pro tempore pitch a categorical hissyfit, but any self-respecting lawyer should have stood up for his client.

And we've all heard about the judges who screw up various criminal cases for stupid political reasons. And then, of course, there is what is happening on our Supreme Court, with four conservative justices trying to remove fact from argument.

But what Judge Rubin did was exactly the reason the judiciary is the last bastion of the People; not only did he settle the issue before him, but he forced the outstanding corrolary to the head of the class, and then settled that question, too. Many judges simply won't extend that far beyond the case at hand, but Judge Rubin simply ran the logical thread to its conclusion, and in doing so reminded the federal judiciary just what it means to uphold the law.

It is almost shameful to admit this one brought me to tears. That is to say, this war is over, as I have been insisting for months. And, yes, there is mopup and paperwork to finish, but if we really need a superficial talking point, let's go with: "Louisiana JD-15: Helping build family values ... and families."

Chintzy, to be certain, but it's still a hell of a slogan.

I would say Judge Rubin should polish his gavel over this one, but that just sounds nasty.

Sparkle and shine. But I still can't get the image of Palin and Idle in lingerie, doing the old "Judges" sketch—in a photo from earlier this year—out of my mind.

Bang m'gavel, indeed.
____________________

Notes:

Woodward, Clair. "Monty Python Live (Mostly) review: Timelessly daft comedy that hasn't aged". July 6, 2014. Express.com. September 24, 2014. http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/theatre/486928/Monty-Python-Live-Mostly-at-the-O2-review

 

KA-CHING!

"The Supreme Court turned away appeals this week that effectively raised the number of states allowing the practice from 19 to 30. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court rejected bans in Idaho and Nevada, which would become the 31st and 32nd states with same-sex marriage if the ruling is not put on hold for the Supreme Court to consider."