The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Search
TEN SECOND BUZZ
- From The Baltimore Banner: Ex-athletic director arrested for framing principal with AI-generated voiceApril 25, 2024No Comments
- From Variety: Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 Rape Conviction Overturned by New York Appeals CourtApril 25, 202425 Comments
- The FTC has banned (nearly all) non-compete agreementsApril 23, 202418 Comments
- More Campus Palestine Protests, More Arrests, More Viral VideoApril 23, 202417 Comments
- Open Mic for the week of 4/22/2024April 22, 202443 Comments
Features
Hot Posts
A Message From Devcat
We have been experiencing some system resource issues. We believe the problem may be resolved, but if it is not please bear with us.
Recent Comments
- Chip Daniels in reply to North on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassIsn't the Jewish tradition of reciting their slavery and exodus a "land acknowledgement"? Isn't the…
- John Puccio in reply to Russell Michaels on The Month in Theaters March 2024According to Wikipedia, not only did JD Salinger threaten to sue if they used his name as a characte…
- North in reply to Chip Daniels on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassI think, for your open question to have value, it would need to be more specific. The term "colonize…
- Chip Daniels in reply to Chris on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass"They" is whoever is calling the shots in Gaza and the West Bank. And I'm willing to believe that th…
- North in reply to Chip Daniels on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassThat's some really weak tea if that's all you're referring to. Land acknowledgements, after all, are…
- North in reply to Daniel Buss on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassI think your understanding of the Jewish settlers in the West Bank, especially the ones out there ca…
- DavidTC in reply to Dark Matter on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassThis would be a lot more comforting if we didn’t have a huge number of dead bodies, most of them civ…
- Pinky in reply to DavidTC on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassIt was not my intention to express anything but mocking contempt.
- Dark Matter in reply to Chris on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassWhere are the goal posts for "ending the oppression"? If it's two states, then we have somewhere to…
- Kazzy in reply to Jaybird on Free Speech, But No Freedom to HarassMy students? Not by me. I think maybe someone opened up a staff meeting in 2020 or 2021 with one, bu…
Comics
-
April 24, 2024
-
April 23, 2024
-
Friend Husband At The Ballpark
April 22, 2024
-
Good Morning! Are You An Amateur?
April 21, 2024
More Comments
- DavidTC in reply to Pinky on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Dark Matter in reply to DavidTC on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Jaybird in reply to Kazzy on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- DavidTC in reply to LeeEsq on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Jaybird on Open Mic for the week of 4/22/2024
- DavidTC in reply to Chip Daniels on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- DavidTC in reply to Dark Matter on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Kazzy in reply to Jaybird on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Jaybird in reply to Chris on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Jaybird in reply to Kazzy on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- InMD in reply to Chip Daniels on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- Chris in reply to Chip Daniels on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
- DavidTC in reply to Dark Matter on Free Speech, But No Freedom to Harass
On “knowing when to get out of the way”
I think we should stop playing whack-a-mole with Ed. He has changed arguments, brought up irrelevancies and in general acted troll-like.
JMHO, but I'm bowing out, to go work on getting the ERA passed. That'll shut him up good.
"
Sorry, but the SS benefits should read:
SS Survivor or Disabilty benefits for spouse or children
"
Jake:
I’m unmoved by your repeated use of the phrase “separate but equal” because I don’t believe the comparison to Brown is apt, and in fact, many people would find it insulting.
you are either being willfully ignorant or fail to read for comprehension. Civil unions do not automatically provide for:
Equal IRS treatment for inheritances.
Equal standing for child rearing vis a vis schools.
Automatic consideration by hospitals as the next of kin in the even of sickness and death.
Automatic abilty to direct medical care for minor child
Name changes.
SS Survivor benefits for children
SS Disability benefits for children
JTWROS for bank accounts (as an automatic thing)
Presumption of nontestifyability of husband or wife (wrong words, I'm not a lawyer)
Ability to take children out of the country without a MAJOR hassle, sometimes not doable at all
Ability to assign Life insurance benefits to spouse without major hassle
these and hundreds of other little common issues are AUTOMATIC when you get "married" but not when you have been through a "civil union" .
The biggest one? Non-portability: just because i am in a civil union in one state does not allow me to have ANY rights in another. Further, ALL the things we've mentioned are subject to beaurocratic revision at any time.
THAT"S the difference.
"
Ed, please give me a cite to prove what you're saying. Otherwise, looking back at non-european histories (South American, Eastern) will demonstrate that it is NOT procreation that marriage provides for, but MONEY, ie property rights and care for the elderly.
And you have completely missed my argument, as well as several others': since marriage is NOT primarily religious in nature, it MUST be allowed to all. If it WERE primarily religious, that would be a different story. The OBJECTIONS to SSM are almost entirely religious in nature, even if they are couched, as yours are, in more clouded terms.
Elle, I was saying that there is not absolute consensus among the GBLT community (not even among the researchers) about the use/non-use of gender vs sex. My daughter, who is engaged, talks about SSM as "gender-neutral marriage". Her choice, the English language is ambiguous.
"
Ed,
I am completely confused by your argument. Is marriage the same in every culture? Clearly not. Is it religious in some cultures? Clearly. Are the ideals of marriage the same in every religious OR non-religious culture? Again, clearly not.
So what does procreation have to do with it? The one commonality across all cultures that I have seen is FAMILY, not procreation. In this regard, all marriages that provide for family should be treated equally. This remains true whether there are natural children, adopted children or only parents and extended family (or not!)
Therefore, all marriages should be recognized by the state.
Further, we don't distinguish about death, do we? We distinguish about funerals. My take is that we should treat marriage the same way. In fact, most communities require that the a marriage license be issued prior to a ceremony taking place.
Elle, nice try, but unfortunately, the discussion about sex vs gender is more culturally confused than even you have pointed out. Many of my gay friends would be horribly upset with the characterization you pointed out, while others would be right behind you. Oh Well.
"
"Equality under the law shall not be abridged on account of gender."
That's a start.
"
It was the "hurried, messy legalistic" approach that started the civil rights successes. Until then it didn't matter a hill of beans what anyone else thought, as far as actually being allowed to participate in society as a whole human being.
Now, do I think that passing a law will end the problem? No. There's much social work to be done after that. But FIRST we protect rights, and then we change attitudes, as far as I'm concerned.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.