Obergefell v. Hodges

[MediumTex]

there is also the ever present but seldom more than peripherally mentioned psychiatric and pharmaceutical medications connection..  this is the first and only confederate flag to mass shooting connection i have heard of [huge uproar].. the number of psychiatric and pharmaceutical medications connection to mass shootings.. many or most of them (all of them?? ).... [faint murmuring]

Oh yessssssssssss.

Every single school shooter since Columbine has been on some type of anti-depressant.

Anti-depressants help a lot of people (I guess), but in some people they set off this violent and destructive response to feelings of despair, and doctors never seem to talk to their patients about this risk.

I suspect that Robin Williams suicide had something to do with a recent change in his medication that occurred a couple of weeks before he killed himself.  My wife's cousin killed himself about a month after starting a new antidepressant medication.

I was watching this documentary about steroid abuse in teenage boys, and one of the activists whose son had committed suicide was passionate about how steroids had ruined his son's life, but it turned out that the boy's doctor had prescribed an anti-depressant to help the kid stay away from the steroids, and the kid committed suicide shortly after that.  It seemed to me that the anti-depressant was the more likely culprit in driving the kid to suicide than the steroids.  He had been taking steroids for years and it had ruined his health, but he had never attempted suicide before starting the anti-depressant.

[MachineGhost]

We're talking about a lot more than an unconstitutional law.  This is the finding that all of human history up until yesterday has been unconstitutional!

Aren't you being a bit dramatic?  Humanity does evolve.  "Marriage" hasn't meant the exact same thing throughout all of human history either.  Nor was granting licenses always a function of government, especially a secular one.

[MachineGhost]

I banned NWODurruti. IMO, he's trolling.

Am I missing something here?  I didn't get the impression he was trolling, just ultra liberal.  I also can't help but think you just did the exact same thing he was advocating...

[MachineGhost]

I believe that he is the third person to be banned in four years, and he has the other two beat by miles in terms of his efficiency.

And now the forum goes back to being an insular circle jerk.  We need new blood.  I'm as bummed out about NOWDurreti being banned as the decision to stop selling the General Lee.  Jeeze...

[craigr]

I believe that he is the third person to be banned in four years, and he has the other two beat by miles in terms of his efficiency.

And now the forum goes back to being an insular circle jerk.  We need new blood.  I'm as bummed out about NOWDurreti being banned as the decision to stop selling the General Lee.  Jeeze...

He wasn't new blood. He was a troll. There have only been something like four people the past many years banned. You have to work pretty hard to have it happen, but leftist trolling and personal attacks is definitely the expressway to do it.

[Pointedstick]

He was definitely trolling. He admitted that he had no interest in examining his beliefs and was deriving some sort of unknown pleasure from pointlessly arguing with people whose minds he was not interested in changing.

[Reub]

I will miss him. Every time that he opened his proverbial mouth he exposed liberalism aka progressivism for the tyrannical, gestapo like ideology that it really is. Please bring him back!

that's some mighty fine contrarian thinking there reub...

[Pointedstick]

I will miss him. Every time that he opened his proverbial mouth he exposed liberalism aka progressivism for the tyrannical, gestapo like ideology that it really is. Please bring him back!

[Reub]

I will miss him. Every time that he opened his proverbial mouth he exposed liberalism aka progressivism for the tyrannical, gestapo like ideology that it really is. Please bring him back!

  that's some mighty fine contrarian thinking there reub...

Take me instead.

[MediumTex]

He was definitely trolling. He admitted that he had no interest in examining his beliefs and was deriving some sort of unknown pleasure from pointlessly arguing with people whose minds he was not interested in changing.

When he wanted to argue about whether it was senseless to murder gay people, I got concerned.

It's also strange to come out swinging right after you join a forum.  Normally, people will lay back for a bit to get a feel for how things work.  You should get to know people before telling them they are ignorant and their beliefs are incorrect.

To MG's point, though, I would also like a greater diversity of perspectives here, but some people on the internet have no concept of decorum or collegiality, even if they are perfectly well behaved in real life, and I would rather spend my time here discussing things rather than repeatedly asking someone to chill out.

I remember when I was in college I ran with a kind of eclectic bunch, and it seemed like every night was a potential party, and I tried to always be ready.  So I was at a friend's place one night and a couple of buddies showed up with a homeless guy.  Oh cool, a homeless guy.  He will give us some new perspectives.  It will be great listening to him talk about his life, where he's been, what he's done, how Vietnam messed up his head, etc. 

My friends' instincts were correct and the homeless guy did regale us with stories of life on the streets, and he was sort of charming and interesting to listen to and we all laughed a lot.

And then he started to get drunk.  And when that dude started feeling the alcohol he turned into something like a feral human.  He got loud, obnoxious, incoherent, disoriented and just turned into a total asshole.  I left, but I got a call later from my friends who had stayed asking me what they should do because he was still there and they couldn't get him to leave.  I heard the guy in the background making grunting sounds and I told them I really didn't know.  I think that they eventually lured him out with the promise of some food and took him to a fast food place and bought him something and just left him there.  The whole experience was kind of like the college student equivalent of a little kid bringing in an injured bunny to nurse it back to health without appreciating what "wild" means in "wild animal."

I would love more perspectives, but I need things to stay cool.  If things are cool you can talk about anything, but when I start to feel that vibe of "Oh you disagree with me?  Well, that must mean you're an idiot", nothing good ever seems to happen after that.

[MediumTex]

I will miss him. Every time that he opened his proverbial mouth he exposed liberalism aka progressivism for the tyrannical, gestapo like ideology that it really is. Please bring him back!

Liberals rarely appreciate how arrogant their solutions are.  I used to be just like that and I didn't realize it myself for a long time.  I'm sure lots of you have gone through a similar evolution.

The trick is to realize that it is usually better to learn how to stay out of the way of the Big Machine rather than striving and struggling to get your 15 minutes at the controls.  When I lived in D.C. I was amazed at how hard people would work for a shot at steering the Big Machine in even a small way, but at that time I still kind of wanted to steer it myself.  It's very alluring.

When I visualize the Big Machine, I imagine a giant steamroller powered by one of those little dinosaur brains with a strange mutation that makes it think it is the most powerful brain that ever existed.

One of the unexpected satisfactions of practicing law has been that I feel like I help my clients stay out of the Big Machine's path, and I really enjoy that.

[Pointedstick]

I'm sure lots of you have gone through a similar evolution.

Indeed. It is very alluring. The trouble is, you never get good reactions from other people, and it never seems to actually work like you were hoping it would.

[moda0306]

Also, the fact that you put marriage in quotation makes it very hard for me to take you seriously.

Hang on, now.  In the history of civilization, many thousands of years, the idea of two people of the same sex being married to each other was a contradiction in terms.  The idea was invented what, 10, 20 years ago?  And now that position is so ridiculous that it can't be taken seriously?  To quote Justice Roberts again, "Who do [you] think [you] are?"

Actually for most of the history of marriage it was between one man and several women if he preferred it that way.  Also, for most of the history of marriage the woman was seen as property.  When did it become illegal to rape your wife?  The 1970's?

Are you saying that the longevity of a tradition is, in and of itself, a sufficient defense for its legitimacy/continuation?  Is slavery a legitimate business practice because it has been around for thousands of years?

This was his last post. If we are going to ban him (although I know he was new, and a bit brash about his opinions), then we've got a lot of banning to do, and I better be careful about what I say or how I say it.

Craig,

You went on a complete tirade about what completely manipulative and alternate-agenda goons liberals are (with straw men and ad hominems galore... And you do this often) and then banned a guy who was sorta brash and a bit rude for his first time here but actually did raise decent points.

I think we need to come to some level of consistency here. Calling someone "ignorant of the facts" because of certain conclusions they come to may be an ad hominem, but it certainly is directed at least at facts about history, so in my mind I wouldn't take it as one, but instead of me being incorrect in the premises I'm using to build my argument.

I mean this in all due respect to folks here, especially those that started this haven. But if we are going to ban folks for making things heated, perhaps we should try to use rational thought and logic as much as possible, and form our arguments accordingly, rather than openly embracing ad hominems and straw men towards "liberals" like they're free candy and then banning a liberal who gets a bit brash in his demeaning of conservatives.

A lot of us are a bit brash here. Gumby, me, Kshartle for the months before he got banned, Reub, Craig, doodle, MG, Benko... perhaps a few more... We come out with our blades sharpened quite often. if we are going to come up with a litmus test for banning folks, how about we just ban the most ridiculous and counter-productive logical fallacies and let the chips fall where they may.

We don't necessarily need "open mindedness."  We have people that are very solid in their positions here and aren't very open-minded on certain topics at all. What's important isn't that, but how well they stick to logic and reason to form their opinions rather than simply wanting to believe something because their dad believed it and they believed it yesterday. MG isn't very open-minded to my ideas on supplements. Why is that?  Because he could totally destroy me in any sort of supplement debate. He SHOULDN'T be open-minded to bad or under-informed ideas. Likewise, we don't have to be "open-minded" to incorrect ideas about historical fact. The Chinese revolution wasn't a capitalist revolution.  The confederacy wasn't built on non-imperial government. No need for a debate or discussion to dive into disrespect, but if one side is constantly trying to deny facts, it might veer into a little snarkitude for a bit.

Sorry to ramble on here. We do need more liberal voices here, IMO. We just banned one that didn't do anything uniquely offensive with regards to banter on this forum.  I think that betrays some conservative bias here.

Just my .02. Not trying to troll. Please don't ban me.

[Pointedstick]

It's a fact of life that this is a center-right forum. Accordingly, certain social customs are going to be valued over others. One major emotional difference between liberals and conservatives I've noticed is that conservatives will frequently take the opinion that one's place needs to be earned in a society before one is permitted to express controversial opinions, while liberals feel the opposite--they see this as a "silencing tactic" that drives them crazy. It's just a cultural difference, but it manifests itself in differing ways that rudeness is perceived. Conservative-leaning people find it rude when someone shows up and immediately "come out swinging" as MediumTex put it. But liberal-leaning people find it rude when they are expected to conform to an existing social structure before they can make arguments they feel passionately about. I think a lot of what happened was that NWODurriti didn't really bother to introduce himself or express any humility about his newness before engaging with the heavy topics. He came on very strong and, personally insulted one of the forum admins twice, and when this was pointed out, he didn't really seem to care. He knew that he was right and to him it seemed silly to build bridges before pointing out how other people's bridges were rotten. Again I keenly recognize this attitude because I used to hold it. It's very popular and common with young intelligent liberals who feel like their ideas are self-evidently superior and it's unfair that they aren't taken more seriously on account of their disinterest in participating humbly in existing social structures.

Reub can be rude and abrasive but he has 2,500 posts. In the world of conservatives, he's earned that right.

Finally, Craig owns the place and just didn't like NWODurruti for reasons that I can understand given their political differences. In his backyard, what he says goes.

[moda0306]

To add one more thing, how many times have we entertained in an anarcho-capitalist or even just conservative mind-set that any government we don't like is essentially some liberal pointing a gun at our heads trying to steal from us.

That mindset floats around conservative-thru-libertarian circles like crazy. And it's no different here. By no means am I offended, though addressing the inconsistencies in that mindset tends to be a chore sometimes.

We never blink an eye at that stuff.

But a liberal comes on and questions the racism of southerners and whether some folks think murder of gays is ok and we ban him for being too closed-minded?  Where were these "bans" when I was having a debate with 4-5 libertarians at once trying to show them that either liberals are NOT pointing guns at freedom-loving libertarians, or that we were ALL pointing guns at each other?  (I didn't really want bans of my opponents, mind you).

The level of accusation from "cop-haters" to "gun-pointers" to nanny-state, limousine liberals and the like is very high.  As I don't see myself as very liberal in most Minneapolis area circles, and I'm just numb to ad hominems, those phrases don't upset me.  But we can't get all high and mighty when a liberal comes in here and starts labeling certain ideas racist or homophobic, especially if those accusations are about as if not more nuanced then how we throw around the word (face palm) "cop-hater" around here without so much as a peep from admit about civility.



And I realize whose backyard I'm in. I've expressed gratitude for using it many times. I realize what Craig's opinions are. But this forum was also built on the philosophy of a guy who we ALL seemed to respect who valued truth over authority (Harry Browne).  HB's attitude has colored heavily how we approach topics. And the truth is we just banned a guy who wasn't nearly as abrasive as many others here (myself included), and we've never before shown a habit for kicking someone out of the backyard because we don't like his views, but rather how they are treating others.

His second personal attack on MT, IMO, was hardly personal. Just perhaps abrasively worded, and no-more so that tons of other posts by members here (myself included). Calling someone "ignorant of the facts" perhaps sounds sorta ad hominem and harsh, but it is at the very least addressing THE FACTS, and someone not having a firm grasp on them. There's so much room for rational discussion there it's not even worth taking offense. I would like to think I wouldn't. How many times do we essentially say as much to other posters in debates that stay civil enough?  Quite often.

[l82start]

learn, share, participate, integrate, contribute. all of these things are a part of what the regular posters are here to do, and have done.... and through doing so have earned the level of slack they get when debate gets warm or opinions are strongly held...

someone who is here to preach without listening who wants to create conflict with strangers who they don't know and don't care to know, who wants to raise the the blood pressure of the forum as their goal. not as an inadvertent result of a rough day posting (as many of us have done on occasion), is not worth protecting just because they are a liberal and we want more liberals to post..

...what they are doing is trolling .. it is not in anyway comparable or equal to what the rest of you do. or the effort you put in to make this place as special as it is.
 

[moda0306]

By all means, let's not make special rules for liberals. But NWO made some decent points. It wasn't pure aggression, sarcasm, outlandish claims, or ad hominems by any means.  Let's not make special rules for anyone, and try to apply forum rules consistently.

Yes he was posting early and often in pretty intense, melodramatic ways, but I didn't notice anything that uniquely ridiculous to it.  Like I mentioned, we've endured perhaps hundreds of posts of conservatives and libertarians asserting that certain functions of the government are theft at gunpoint and they liberals are advocates of such and should be argued with accordingly. How many times have we seen the term "cop-haters" thrown around to stifle to debate or perhaps just out of frustration?

I realize there's an element of coming hot out of the gates that can be especially worrisome with a poster,  so I can understand the apprehension with keeping him around.  I really can.  Perhaps my perspective is skewed cuz he took my side in the confederacy debate. But it just seems like we aren't applying things very consistently here.  The lamenting against liberals here goes almost un-commented on, and when it is, it's usually on very rational terms and no threats of banning get thrown around.

[Pointedstick]

I think you're focusing on the content instead of the tone and the attitude, Moda. The content was fine, I think. It's good to hear from intelligent, intellectual liberals. What's worrying is to hear from someone who admits he is made angry by simply coming into contact with other people's perspectives and who is positive he's right, just wanting to defend his viewpoints.

What's the point of discussing weighty matters with such a person? What's the point of discussing anything with such a person?

[moda0306]

PS,

This may sound insensitive to other folks here, but I don't debate you all for the mental stimulation of "changing someone else's mind," I debate you all for the mental stimulation of "either being more sure of my own positions, or changing my own mind."

To that end, whether someone is going to change their mind is of no relevance to me. Whether the topic at hand enflames some emotions is of only indirect relevance (it'll affect the debate most likely, and I don't like to hurt people's feelings unneccessarily).

What is of relevance is if someone makes good points, or helps me look at things from a perspective that I was blind to for some reason. They might not be 100% correct and might never change their mind and might get angry. But making good points and a good perspective are valuable to me. A malleable debate counterpart isn't, though it can be interesting to see someone's mind change on a topic on front of your eyes.

But overall I do see what you're saying. How he made his points were somewhat heated and brash. But I just didn't see them as that toxic to the environment compared to lots of banter in the past by plenty of the rest of us.

[moda0306]

I'm going to stop making my point here. I don't want to toxify the environment any further. I do see your points on NWO. That kind of rigidity and language can be annoying to work with if you're trying to disagree productively with it.

The best to y'all. My hitting on this one incident was not meant to express disrespect, especially to Craig & MT. I greatly respect the work done by them and others here. It's helped shape who I am. I shit you all not.

[Pointedstick]

As an aside, if you want more intellectual liberal perspectives, I would be happy to play an old role again. Let's get back to the topic at hand. Here goes:

Marriage is a concept that has been evolving constantly over the years; it's not some kind of static "one man loving one woman" thing that conservatives like to pretend. It's been a property contract, it's been a harem-building institution, and it's been an instrument of patriarchal social control. Even monogamous marriage is an institution designed to subsidize the least desirable males who would get no women under a polygamous marriage model. Change is eternal, and now it's changing to encompass monogamous gays and lesbians who love each other, which literally harms nobody. This is a great decision: it embodies the clear will of the people, and the lack of a major backlash shows that conservatives don't really care enough. It's high time.

I understand the objections that this is just an "ends justify the means" thing, but let's get real: the ends always justify the means. Isn't there even some influential Libertarian economist who said something to that effect? "If not the ends, then what else could justify the means?" Something like that. I'm not going to let conservatives get away with pretending they're faithful servants to the sanctity of the process. Where's all the outrage over the lack of due process in domestic wiretapping or assassinations of US citizens? Why are Republicans the ones who are falling all over themselves to give Obama special power to bypass congress on this abominable trade deal? Where's the love of process there? It's just a shield conservatives hide behind when they don't like the result.

If you don't like the decision, you have the opportunity to get more conservatives on the supreme court in the form of winning presidential elections. Hillary is old and ugly and a neocon warmonger who's in bed with Wall Street. Republicans have a chance of beating her if they could actually come up with any decent candidates.

it has been all of those things... but the only one that has, or needs to have anything to do with government is the bolded one.. if the conservatives or the religious or the liberal want to evolve or keep static their understanding of the rest of what marriage is or isn't... so be it.... its none of the governments business... lets just let contract law be equal under the law, stop calling it marriage or connecting it to the institution of marriage in any way and be done with it...

[stuper1]

Add me to the list of people who think NWO was banned a bit quick.  He was just a young, brash guy who needs to learn to argue a bit more productively, but he may never learn without some good interaction with people like the ones on this board.  IMHO the moderators here are a bit touchy at times.  It's not like he was making threatening remarks or using profanities for every other word.  Give people a little space, and a lot of things will blow over.  I don't think anyone wants a forum where everybody thinks the same about everything.  This is all just my humble opinion.  I could be wrong.  I've never been a moderator.  It's probably harder than I realize.  Also, this is not my forum, and of course the owners can run it however they want.

[Tyler]

I understand the objections that this is just an "ends justify the means" thing, but let's get real: the ends always justify the means.

My view on gay marriage has changed over the years.  I used to take the more religious conservative stance, but today I take the more libertarian stance.  I respect choice and free will regardless of my own personal beliefs. 

That said, both then and now, my primary personal objection to the gay marriage movement has always been about the ultimate ends. Specifically, getting a marriage license is not necessarily the end game.  It's the inevitable attacks on religious freedom using incremental legal challenges that rub me the wrong way, not how any couple chooses to live their own lives.  And I don't think I'm just being paranoid.  But I'd love to be proven wrong and have this moment be the end of the story, where gay couples and religious groups live in peace with mutual respect for individual liberty. 

[moda0306]

Tyler,

I think I'm with you currently.

I 100% support the right of same-sex couples to engage in the contract the state refers to as marriage.

But I don't like businesses being told how to hire, fire, promote, pay or serve folks. My liberal friends think I'm a fascist for this. So be it. :/

[Xan]

That's another area where a citizens' divedend could increase freedom.  It's a bit of a paradox that reliance on government could do that...  But by removing poverty from all these equations (hiring, firing, paying, etc), the laws on many of them could be relaxed or repealed.