Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:31 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Yeah, so of course what is it?
A topic for another thread
  #52  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:33 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Of course gay people should be allowed to get married. They are human beings, and are thereby entitled to human rights.

The issue is "what is marriage?"
This is a question you posed in this thread, not another one.
  #53  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:41 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
It was a statement. The question was rhetorical in order to state the issue.
  #54  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:44 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,246
The issue is rhetorical. Gotcha.
  #55  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:46 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Of course gay people should be allowed to get married. They are human beings, and are thereby entitled to human rights.
Then what is your objection to Booker's line of questioning? Surely, we don't want to seat justices who are opposed to human rights?

Quote:
The issue is "what is marriage?"
What do you mean by that?
  #56  
Old 02-07-2019, 09:52 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,036
I love when people are completely transparent but believe they're pulling off some kind of trick...
  #57  
Old 02-07-2019, 10:28 PM
Bayaker Bayaker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: A town on Galveston Bay
Posts: 2,511
Well, this gay man happens to be a practicing Catholic, and all sex outside marriage is a sin. That is marriage as a Sacrament of the Church. Civil marriage is a completely different thing. People in common-law marriages are living in a state of sin according to most(all?) denominations but that doesn't make them bad people, and no one expects them to be discriminated against in a court of law. Civil marriage for gay couples(or any couple) is a good thing for lots of legal and financial reasons but that does not preclude it being sinful. Am I prejudiced against myself because I think the piece of paper/legal designation from the county doesn't constitute a real, sacramental, marriage?
Suppose Senator Booker had asked if eating meat on Good Friday was a sin and Neomi Rao had replied in the affirmative - would that mean no one would believe she was capable of applying the law fairly to someone who does not fast and abstain?
  #58  
Old 02-07-2019, 10:36 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Believing that gay sex is immoral is not prejudice against gay people.
Cite?
  #59  
Old 02-08-2019, 12:34 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,433
One Party has implied over and over ad nauseam that it's all about religion. We even learn from the WH PressSec that Trump, the most immoral man ever to even fantasize about becoming President, was chosen by God. Was it Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham's son who said just a few days ago that Trump is the greatest President since George Washington?

Then a Democratic Senator uses a word like "morality."

The right-wing babbles about "Intelligent design", "Christian values," "homosexuality is forbidden by Leviticus," et cetera et cetera.

Then a Democratic Senator dares to use a word like "morality."

Now the self-same Intelligent-design nuts, homophobes, global-warming-is-god's-will hypocrites want to babble about ... about what? About the First Amendment Right to be immoral?

Right-wing American political opinion today most resembles a sequence of badly-written Monty Python skits.
  #60  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:07 AM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayaker View Post
Well, this gay man happens to be a practicing Catholic, and all sex outside marriage is a sin. That is marriage as a Sacrament of the Church. Civil marriage is a completely different thing. People in common-law marriages are living in a state of sin according to most(all?) denominations but that doesn't make them bad people, and no one expects them to be discriminated against in a court of law.
Of course not. Because most of those couples are heterosexual.

Quote:
Civil marriage for gay couples(or any couple) is a good thing...
I believe the official stance of your church disagrees, does it not? How much did the Catholic church pour into the Prop 8 campaign in California again?

Look, my family is Irish Catholic. My mom goes to mass three times a week. She's also pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and an ardent feminist. I'm not saying that Catholics are automatically homophobes: I get that most American Catholics are significantly more moral than the Church they attend. But when someone's up for a position where they'll have significant influence over the rights of a large number of citizens, the fact that they profess a faith that is actively fighting against our rights is a significant concern - doubly so when her political association teaches exactly the same thing. Booker is absolutely right to question her on this issue.
  #61  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:39 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayaker View Post
Suppose Senator Booker had asked if eating meat on Good Friday was a sin and Neomi Rao had replied in the affirmative - would that mean no one would believe she was capable of applying the law fairly to someone who does not fast and abstain?
There is a difference between that which you consider wrong for yourself and that you consider wrong for others. When someone asks if you think eating meat is wrong, they usually mean "for yourself." I would not assume that someone who said that "yes, eating meat on Good Friday is wrong" to mean "it is wrong even for people who don't adhere to my religion." If they did think so, then I would be concerned. (Fortunately, this is not a big issue, so they could probably still be a relatively unbiased judge, as long as they recuse themselves from meat cases.)

On the other hand, everything about the claim that gay marriage is a sin is about other people, outside of your religion. It's all about controlling those people. As such, if someone says they don't think gay marriage is a sin, then I'm pretty sure they mean "I believe gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry."

And that latter belief is a problem. Sure, you can enforce the law regardless of your beliefs. But that's not automatic. It is a bias, and one that should be scrutinized heavily. Even if you will enforce the law, your beliefs still inform what you do, and so thinking SSM is wrong can lead to you siding against it in gray area cases.

It could, for instance, lead to allowing religious exceptions to anti-discrimination laws about gay people--something that the "gay marriage is sinful" people seem to be trying for. It's why they are trying to make it where cake-makers can refuse to make cakes for gay weddings, even if that cake is identical to one they would make for a straight wedding.

We want judges who are biased towards the law. The law says that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage. So we want people who are biased towards thinking that gay marriage is the same as straight marriage morally. Those have the best chance of enforcing the law fairly.

The thing about prejudice is that it prevents people from making the rational choice, without knowing that's what they are doing. That's why assuming judges can just put aside their biases is a bad idea. People largely don't know when their bias is kicking in.

Last edited by BigT; 02-08-2019 at 01:40 AM.
  #62  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:41 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Of course gay people should be allowed to get married. They are human beings, and are thereby entitled to human rights.
Then you've just said you don't think gay marriage is a sin. Good for you.

Still, it's good to check that a prospective judge agrees.

Last edited by BigT; 02-08-2019 at 01:42 AM.
  #63  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:46 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It absolutely could be. Many sects of Christianity believe that homosexuality is immoral. You cannot game the system that way. You might as well say that any Muslim can hold political office so long as he eats pork or believes that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel.
You cannot dodge the basic requirement to be a decent human being by appealing to your religion. If a basic, common-sense moral litmus test like "do you think gay people deserve equal rights" disqualifies everyone from your religion... Good. Your religion is fucking awful and doesn't deserve to be seated in the halls of power until its morality joins us in the 21st century. Your religion cannot be a shield for your immorality. Full stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Just speculation of course, but I wonder what the Senate's reaction would have been if the nominee had stated "yes, I believe that gay sex is immoral".

What should the Senate's reaction be to an answer like that?
"Awesome, that's all we need to know, thanks for your time, NEXT!"

What, should we entertain that kind of bigotry? Why? I wouldn't want someone like that as a friend, acquaintance, or business partner. Why the fuck would I want someone like that in a position of serious power over me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Right. It is an unusual and irrelevant question. If I am a judge, my job is to apply the law and apply precedent faithfully. If Alabama passes a gay marriage license fee of $500, but it is only $50 for a heterosexual couple, I have to look at Obergefell and strike that law down regardless of my own personal belief in the morality of gay sex or gay marriage.

It seems that Booker and his ilk believe that law is exactly that: judges applying personal preferences to cases.
Look, Regardless of the illusion that originalists and textualists like to put forward, the reality is that a lot, and I mean a lot, of higher court cases come down to competing statutes, competing interpretations of the law, and competing interests. If it was an easy case, chances are good it wouldn't have made it to the district court in the first place. And with those competing interpretations, statutes, and interests, you're left with a lot of wiggle room to find the interpretation you prefer. (Often in ways that are downright farcical.) Given that reality, the biases and beliefs of those on the courts absolutely matter. That's why this question matters. It's not a religious thing, any more than the question, "Do you believe we should be able to own people as property" is a religious thing - I hope you would join me in soundly rejecting any judge who pines for the days of slavery, as allowed in the bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Adhering to a moral code ≠ having a personal prejudice.
That is a distinction without a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You have created a religious test. Hundreds of followers of traditional Christian sects are barred from government service. Newspeak has arrived.
Oh for cryin' out loud.

Imagine there's a major religion that advocates chattel slavery. The owning of people as property.

Imagine then, that a senator, perhaps a black senator, asks someone of that religion, "Do you believe humans should be kept as slaves?"

Is that a religious test? Or is there some other possible reason why we might not want a judge who advocates for slavery?

If your religious beliefs are grossly immoral, you do not get to hide behind the fact that they are religious beliefs.

---

Also, a gay marriage litmus test is not the most interesting part of this hearing.

This is.

https://twitter.com/HowardMortman/st...35802332217344

Quote:
Cory Booker: "Have you ever had an LGBTQ law clerk?" Neomi Rao: "I've not been a judge, so I don't have any law clerks."
This is a nominee to the DC court of appeals, a pretty high position, and she has never worked as a judge. That's fuckin' weird, right?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 02-08-2019 at 02:49 AM.
  #64  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:13 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Then you've just said you don't think gay marriage is a sin.
I'm not so sure. Some people think that homosexuals should be allowed to get married, but only to someone of the opposite sex.
  #65  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:21 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,381
We really need a good Doctor of the Church right about now, someone who would realize that a gay man marrying a woman would not be a sacramentally valid marriage, by the traditional standards of sacramental marriage, but that two gay men marrying each other would be.
  #66  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:26 AM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,609
Elena Kagan had not been a judge before joining the Supreme Court so it does happen but it's not common. She was a law professor and dean of Harvard law school. The other 8 were judges before joining the court.
  #67  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:40 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Imagine there's a major religion that advocates chattel slavery. The owning of people as property.
Worth pointing out that it's not only "major" religions that get protection: religious minorities do, too.

And there is a minor religion--the World Church of the Creator, who I mentioned before--that advocates literal genocide of all non-white humans.

The "NO RELIGIOUS TEST!" principle that UltraVires raises would appear to mean that, if a WCotC asshole were nominated for, say, Secretary of Defense, it'd be inappropriate to ask whether our new secretary of defense wanted to murder all nonwhite people. A Town Council hiring a new Chief of Police couldn't consider that idea in their interviews.

That's some bonkers bullshit.

A reasonable "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" rule means that you can't ask about the origin of a belief. A person who believes that gay sex is a bad idea can't be asked whether their belief is rooted in a belief in an intolerant Catholic God, or a belief in Cooties, or a belief in Jordan Peterson's idiotic blatherings.

But of course the beliefs themselves may be evaluated for their suitability in a public officer.
  #68  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:08 AM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,632
A: I believe homosexuality is wrong and that homosexuals are somewhat less than human.

B: Well then obviously we can't put you in a position of power where those beliefs might come into conflict with the law.

A: But it's a religious belief.

B: Sorry. You can't get through the back door what you aren't permitted to get through the front.
  #69  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:14 AM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
...A reasonable "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" rule means that you can't ask about the origin of a belief. A person who believes that gay sex is a bad idea can't be asked whether their belief is rooted in a belief in an intolerant Catholic God, or a belief in Cooties, or a belief in Jordan Peterson's idiotic blatherings...
Just to play devil's advocate for the moment, I wonder if it makes a bit of difference that Booker used the word "sin." That takes it away from strictly a moral question and makes it explicitly about religious belief, IME. Not a specific religion, but it definitely is asking about religiously-originated morality.

Which, to remain clear, is not in any way violating the Constitution.
.

Last edited by andros; 02-08-2019 at 09:15 AM.
  #70  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:31 AM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
A: I believe homosexuality is wrong and that homosexuals are somewhat less than human.
[bolding mine] Whoa whoa whoa...what?
  #71  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:32 AM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
We really need a good Doctor of the Church right about now, someone who would realize that a gay man marrying a woman would not be a sacramentally valid marriage, by the traditional standards of sacramental marriage, but that two gay men marrying each other would be.
I believe you just nominated yourself Chronos.
  #72  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:35 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
[bolding mine] Whoa whoa whoa...what?
Just re-read his post, fer crying out loud.

Hey, let's say someone is nominated to the bench who has written on further expansion of marriage laws, and the hearing goes like this:

Senator: Mr. Nominee, do you support expansion of laws to allow a man to marry his dog?

Nominee: How dare you question me on my religious beliefs!


That's all cool, right?
  #73  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:37 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Elena Kagan had not been a judge before joining the Supreme Court so it does happen but it's not common. She was a law professor and dean of Harvard law school. The other 8 were judges before joining the court.
She was also Solicitor General of the United States. It doesn't seem that Ms. Rao has any experience at all inside a courtroom, other than being a clerk for a couple judges.
  #74  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:42 AM
steronz steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You have created a religious test. Hundreds of followers of traditional Christian sects are barred from government service. Newspeak has arrived.
Certainly what you're saying could happen. For instance, Cory Booker might suddenly claim to object to people entering the country from certain other countries on safety grounds. And if it came out that he spent years railing against Muslims, and wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the country, and these "certain other countries" happen to be mostly full of Muslims, we might question his sincerity about his objections being grounded in safety instead of religious hatred.

But in this case, do we have any reason to believe that Cory Booker's question is grounded in a hatred of Christianity? Or is it more reasonable to assume that he has a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of the LGBTQ community?

Last edited by steronz; 02-08-2019 at 09:43 AM.
  #75  
Old 02-08-2019, 09:46 AM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
But in this case, do we have any reason to believe that Cory Booker's question is grounded in a hatred of Christianity? Or is it more reasonable to assume that he has a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of the LGBTQ community?
I know you weren't asking me, but I think Booker's only "legitimate interest" is his own.
  #76  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:16 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
I know you weren't asking me, but I think Booker's only "legitimate interest" is his own.
I think your only interest in this subject is a political ax to grind against Democrats.
  #77  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:18 AM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
What you are saying is that you can belong to any religion or sect that you want so long as you disavow what is part of what that sect believes is an important part of its faith.
Well, yes. We let people worship Quetzalcoatl, but they have to forego the whole "offering of still-beating hearts" angle.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #78  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:25 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Right. It is an unusual and irrelevant question. If I am a judge, my job is to apply the law and apply precedent faithfully. If Alabama passes a gay marriage license fee of $500, but it is only $50 for a heterosexual couple, I have to look at Obergefell and strike that law down regardless of my own personal belief in the morality of gay sex or gay marriage.

It seems that Booker and his ilk believe that law is exactly that: judges applying personal preferences to cases.
I'm not sure how your conclusion follows. To me it seems that Booker and his ilk believe that the law requires that judges not be applying personal preferences to cases, and the line of questioning was germane to establishing that this candidate would not do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
A: I believe homosexuality is wrong and that homosexuals are somewhat less than human.

B: Well then obviously we can't put you in a position of power where those beliefs might come into conflict with the law.

A: But it's a religious belief.

B: Sorry. You can't get through the back door what you aren't permitted to get through the front.
[bolding mine]

Don't think for an instant we don't recognize a smutty feedline when we see one.
  #79  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:27 AM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I think your only interest in this subject is a political ax to grind against Democrats.
No, just Booker.
  #80  
Old 02-08-2019, 10:44 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But this is bootstrapping. You have created a religious test.

It is no different than those in the Jim Crow south saying that blacks are PERFECTLY allowed to vote, so long as their grandfathers were eligible to vote. See, it isn't a racial test, it is a grandfather vote test!

You are getting in the backdoor what you cannot get in the front.
You honestly think this is a relevant analogy?

Denying blacks the vote because their grandfathers were ineligible to vote was depriving them of a basic citizenship right due to something over which they had zero control.

Denying a devout Christian a judicial post because she believes her Christianity obliges them to view homosexuality as immoral is
  1. not denying her a basic right of citizenship, and
  2. an action based on a belief she can change, if she wishes to
I thought someone would slap this bullshit down sooner in the thread, but maybe it was just too easy.
  #81  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:27 AM
elucidator elucidator is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,545
Mr. Booker has reviewed history as it applies to humble, self-effacing politicians who avoid the spotlight. He has reached the obvious conclusion, and acts accordingly. Persons of modest decorum. such as myself and the OP, are naturally suspicious.
  #82  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:53 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
No, just Booker.
No, I think it's against Democrats, not just Booker.
  #83  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:56 AM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
No, I think it's against Democrats, not just Booker.
Okay. Well you're certainly right that I have no special affinity for Democrats.
  #84  
Old 02-08-2019, 12:33 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
No, I think it's against Democrats, not just Booker.
I think it's more than just "democrats."
  #85  
Old 02-08-2019, 12:38 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Don't think for an instant we don't recognize a smutty feedline when we see one.
Tell it to this guy...

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You are getting in the backdoor what you cannot get in the front.
  #86  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:45 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
I think it's more than just "democrats."
Correct. Republicans play the same childish games.
  #87  
Old 02-08-2019, 01:52 PM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,414
How have we got this far without someone saying "Nobody expects the Booker Inquisition!"?

Last edited by Gyrate; 02-08-2019 at 01:53 PM.
  #88  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:07 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
How have we got this far without someone saying "Nobody expects the Booker Inquisition!"?
"Cardinal Harris ... bring out -- The Comfy Chair!"

Music sting!

__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #89  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:10 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,381
Myself, I've been waiting for a Zork reference.
  #90  
Old 02-08-2019, 02:18 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Myself, I've been waiting for a Zork reference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nigRT2KmCE

You are welcome.
  #91  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:29 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,058
Curious why folks who scold Booker won't touch the World Church of the Creator question. Do you think it's irrelevant how religious minorities are handled? Do you think somehow the reprehensible beliefs of one religious sect aren't analogous to the reprehensible beliefs of another religious sect? Or does it give you pause that your version of "no religious test" would require Congress to ignore genocidal advocacy if it's religiously motivated?
  #92  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:49 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Curious why folks who scold Booker won't touch the World Church of the Creator question. Do you think it's irrelevant how religious minorities are handled? Do you think somehow the reprehensible beliefs of one religious sect aren't analogous to the reprehensible beliefs of another religious sect? Or does it give you pause that your version of "no religious test" would require Congress to ignore genocidal advocacy if it's religiously motivated?
It's because their religion is the only one that should matter, and their bigotries are the only ones that should be accommodated.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 02-08-2019 at 03:50 PM.
  #93  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:50 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
What's disturbing is that merely believing that gay sex is immoral is considered a "reprehensible belief" by those in power, especially considering that nearly everybody in the Christianized world believed that until roughly yesterday.
  #94  
Old 02-08-2019, 03:54 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,501
Well I'm disturbed that people that you've never met are considered immoral by you just because of who they choose to love.

The Bible teaches us to love. I don't remember what passages it was where Jesus told us who to hate. Where was that again?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #95  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:01 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,501
Would you want someone in power over you that believes that people named Mike (I assume that's your name from your username) are immoral and should not be allowed to love whoever they want. If this anti-Mikes nominee was up for a powerful appointment and your Senator asked them about this belief about Mikes, would you think that was out of bounds? What if they said that they belong to a sect of Christianity that does not recognize Mikes as legitimate. Would you be ok with them having power over you?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #96  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:08 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Well I'm disturbed that people that you've never met are considered immoral by you
Gay sex is an action, not a person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
just because of who they choose to love.
I don't believe that it is appropriate or moral to have sex with everyone you love.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
The Bible teaches us to love. I don't remember what passages it was where Jesus told us who to hate. Where was that again?
I agree with this, and don't see what it has to do with the conversation at hand. Describing an act as immoral is not love or hate. It is making a moral judgment.
  #97  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:09 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Would you want someone in power over you that believes that people named Mike (I assume that's your name from your username) are immoral and should not be allowed to love whoever they want. If this anti-Mikes nominee was up for a powerful appointment and your Senator asked them about this belief about Mikes, would you think that was out of bounds? What if they said that they belong to a sect of Christianity that does not recognize Mikes as legitimate. Would you be ok with them having power over you?
There is no equivalence here.
  #98  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:14 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
There is no equivalence here.
Explain why?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #99  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:16 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Gay sex is an action, not a person.



I don't believe that it is appropriate or moral to have sex with everyone you love.



I agree with this, and don't see what it has to do with the conversation at hand. Describing an act as immoral is not love or hate. It is making a moral judgment.
I don't believe its appropriate or moral to judge others. Another thing the bible teaches.

It has to do with the fact that you aren't even following the book you claim to believe in.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #100  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:17 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Explain why?
Really?

Okay. A name is an inherited immutable characteristic.

Sexual intercourse is a voluntary action (excepting cases of coercion).
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017