If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Third Republican senator comes out   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 85
    More: Hero, Republican senators, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican, Matthew Shepard, senator, Mark Kirk  
•       •       •

5423 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jun 2013 at 2:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-19 10:24:00 AM
Let's see how long it takes for her to flip to Democrat now.
 
2013-06-19 10:26:15 AM
NTTAWWT
 
2013-06-19 10:33:24 AM
Note to self: never piss off an Alaskan woman.

// between Palin and Merk Murck Murkou the current senior Senator from AK, seems like acrimony is the official state sport
// though I guess Lisa M has always been a moderate
 
2013-06-19 01:10:35 PM

Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

img.fark.net
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 01:16:29 PM
This is the lady that was primaried out of the party and had to run a write-in campaign. And won. Yet for some reason she still calls herself a Republican
 
2013-06-19 01:17:13 PM
I'm honestly surprised to not see Collins on that list.  Guess she isn't THAT much of a RINO...
 
2013-06-19 01:17:45 PM
Mutation: it is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to evolve from a single-celled organism into the dominant species on the planet. This process is slow, and normally taking thousands and thousands of years. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward.

If these GOPers don't watch themselves, they're going to be labeled X-Republicans!

Regardless, I applaud their "evolution" on the issue.
 
2013-06-19 01:17:47 PM
Wonder how much of this is a fark you to the Tea party asshats who tried and failed to primary her out of office.
 
2013-06-19 01:22:02 PM

Lost Thought 00: Yet for some reason she still calls herself a Republican


Perhaps because she caucuses with the Republican Senate Caucus?
 
2013-06-19 01:28:59 PM

abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]


Interesting that there's a dip in the numbers from the 40s and the 50s folks. I wonder what accounts for that?
 
2013-06-19 01:31:02 PM
Well isn't that just special.
 
2013-06-19 01:34:20 PM
"This is a hard issue," she admitted

No. It's an easy issue.
It's gender discrimination plain and simple.
People are being denied the right to marry because of their gender, not because of their sexual orientation.
 
2013-06-19 01:44:24 PM

xanadian: I'm honestly surprised to not see Collins on that list.  Guess she isn't THAT much of a RINO...


Collins will be the next Republican to come out in support. Collins has dodged questions about her views, and I expect her to announce her support for gay marriage sometime either during the primary or just after the primary is over.

She also would likely vote against a filibuster, even if she disagreed with gay marriage.
 
2013-06-19 01:44:43 PM
Is it sad that my first thought on seeing the headline was "which family member just came out to her?"

Glad to see that her motivation was not so self-serving.
 
2013-06-19 01:45:40 PM
Good for her.

Welcome aboard the sane train.

Glad to see you got off the GOP crazy train and joined modern civilization.
 
2013-06-19 01:47:00 PM
Good.  This is but one issue that we're wasting our time on and killing the party.  Sun Tzu said not to fight a battle you can't win, and this one was lost in Ft. Collins, CO, in 1998.
 
2013-06-19 01:50:11 PM

make me some tea: abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]

Interesting that there's a dip in the numbers from the 40s and the 50s folks. I wonder what accounts for that?


Bunch of young people dying in WWII, resulting in more crotchety old people as a percentage?
 
2013-06-19 02:10:12 PM
But they still vote against repealing things like DOMA and DADT like Scott Brown did. They say it for votes but when they have to vote they vote with the most conservative members still.
 
2013-06-19 02:10:50 PM
Ok republicans are coming out.
 
2013-06-19 02:11:53 PM
"First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes. I believe that, as Americans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission? If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans - our true north - it is less government and more freedom. We don't want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don't need it in our families"

Why can't more so called "conservatives" think this way?
 
2013-06-19 02:12:41 PM
Somebody better warn Facebook that there's gonna be a word salad assault on the English language of titanic proportion spewing from a Wasilla Phoenix-area eMachine any minute now, you betcha!
 
2013-06-19 02:13:02 PM

SilentStrider: Wonder how much of this is a fark you to the Tea party asshats who tried and failed to primary her out of office.


It might simply a flip-o-teh-bird to Palin.
Seriously.  Those 2 HATE each other.
 
2013-06-19 02:16:10 PM

vernonFL: "First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes. I believe that, as Americans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission? If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans - our true north - it is less government and more freedom. We don't want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don't need it in our families"

Why can't more so called "conservatives" think this way?


We do.  Except now they insist on calling us democrats.

(no really.  I'm a registered republican...and no one believes me anymore, I'm just another libby lib libtard democrat.  My views have not changed.  At all.  The party sure has though)
 
2013-06-19 02:16:41 PM

vernonFL: "First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes. I believe that, as Americans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission? If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans - our true north - it is less government and more freedom. We don't want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don't need it in our families"

Why can't more so called "conservatives" think this way?


Because they are vilified as libertarians?
 
2013-06-19 02:16:42 PM
Murkowski says ANYTHING she thinks will get her corrupt ass elected again.  She's worse than farking Romney that way.  Two separate phone calls to two people on the opposite sides of the same issue and she'll give support to both sides.  She just knows which way the wind is blowing.
 
2013-06-19 02:17:13 PM
Why any woman would be a GOPer is beyond me.

"HURR why single issue there is much to the GOP than a single issue DERR"

Really, derper?

1) Against equal pay
2) Against reproductive rights
     a) birth control
     b) abortion
3) Against universal healthcare (well, now they are)
4) Not very delicate when it comes to rape
5) Seem to think that gender roles are written into the Bible and therefore law
 
2013-06-19 02:17:45 PM
She doesn't deserve the "Hero" tag for doing what any decent, moral human being should.
 
2013-06-19 02:17:57 PM

gadian: Murkowski says ANYTHING she thinks will get her corrupt ass elected again.  She's worse than farking Romney that way.  Two separate phone calls to two people on the opposite sides of the same issue and she'll give support to both sides.  She just knows which way the wind is blowing.


But does she know a hawk from a handsaw?
 
2013-06-19 02:20:16 PM

abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]


You know, I see that posted in all of these threads, and I really do want to believe it is true.  There are so, so many things that could occur to upend that whole chart though.  And just because those born in the 70's, 80's, and 90's feel that way, doesn't mean as they age, they will continue to feel the same way.  Popular opinion also doesn't write the laws of the land, a few well funded individuals with a zealous following can overturn popular support.

Those of us that support marriage equality must continue to fight, even if it looks like the demographics will turn in our favor in the future.
 
2013-06-19 02:20:55 PM
site needs more pop up ques to sign up with/like/etc
 
2013-06-19 02:23:08 PM

Ricardo Klement: Good.  This is but one issue that we're wasting our time on and killing the party.  Sun Tzu said not to fight a battle you can't win, and this one was lost in Ft. Collins, CO, in 1998.


To what are you referring?
 
2013-06-19 02:23:09 PM
Perhaps, and I sure hope, Roberts will read these changes as a bit of cover to let him do the right thing and end up with a legacy more Loving and less Plessy.

Ok, I will stop dreaming now
 
2013-06-19 02:24:22 PM
img.fark.net
don't make me talk about quitting this gig to un-seat you!...
....squirrel...

 
2013-06-19 02:29:22 PM

abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]


Every time I see that cohort graph I think, "Cool, we just need to wait for some old folks to do off." And then I feel bad because my mom is a senior. And then I feel better because she supports marriage equality. And then I think about what a cool mom I have.

/she also wants to legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution
 
2013-06-19 02:31:39 PM

Theaetetus: make me some tea: abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]

Interesting that there's a dip in the numbers from the 40s and the 50s folks. I wonder what accounts for that?

Bunch of young people dying in WWII, resulting in more crotchety old people as a percentage?


The chart is a percentage of population, so I'm pretty sure that's not it.
 
2013-06-19 02:32:02 PM

vernonFL: "First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes. I believe that, as Americans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission? If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans - our true north - it is less government and more freedom. We don't want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don't need it in our families"

Why can't more so called "conservatives" think this way?


They do. They are called the Democrats. If it's Republicans you are thinking about, they are (a) not conservative, and (b) not interested in anything involving love, compassion, or basic human decency.
 
2013-06-19 02:33:49 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-06-19 02:34:35 PM

Theaetetus: make me some tea: abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]

Interesting that there's a dip in the numbers from the 40s and the 50s folks. I wonder what accounts for that?

Bunch of young people dying in WWII, resulting in more crotchety old people as a percentage?


The Religious right's first great enemy was communism. It was a natural villain for both its economic values (the religious right has always been ultra capitalist) and the prevalence of atheism in communist states. After McCarthyism imploded, the leaders of the religious right needed a more credible boogie man. The horrors of Jim Crow were not palatable on the national level, so blacks were out. Homosexuals were unorganized, presumptively corrupt, and largely anonymous. The religious right began a relentless campaign to personify the resentment of national post-war social changes into religiously sanctioned fear and hatred of homosexuals. Before the 50s homosexuality was presumed to be unacceptable, but homosexuals were not looked at as a threat.
 
2013-06-19 02:34:47 PM

Lost Thought 00: This is the lady that was primaried out of the party and had to run a write-in campaign. And won. Yet for some reason she still calls herself a Republican


I think it's the exactsame reason Lincoln Chafee called himself a Republican for ten years or so after ceasing to act like one-daddy was one and she now has his Senate seat.

/to be fair, Chafee's dad died before he got the Senate seat-Murkowski's dad was governor and appointed her to his old seat
 
2013-06-19 02:36:54 PM

vernonFL: "First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes. I believe that, as Americans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission? If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans - our true north - it is less government and more freedom. We don't want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don't need it in our families"

Why can't more so called "conservatives" think this way?


Because Jesus and/or gays are icky and/or they are closeted, self-hating gays that don't want other gays to have happiness.
 
2013-06-19 02:37:53 PM

tnpir: Ricardo Klement: Good.  This is but one issue that we're wasting our time on and killing the party.  Sun Tzu said not to fight a battle you can't win, and this one was lost in Ft. Collins, CO, in 1998.

To what are you referring?


Matthew Shepard died in the hospital at Ft. Collins.
 
2013-06-19 02:46:17 PM

Lost Thought 00: This is the lady that was primaried out of the party and had to run a write-in campaign. And won. Yet for some reason she still calls herself a Republican


Alaskians have a very, very strong 'mind your own business' streak.

Even La Sarah was forced to sign a domestic partner benefits law.
 
2013-06-19 02:46:26 PM

salvador.hardin: The Religious right's first great enemy was communism. It was a natural villain for both its economic values (the religious right has always been ultra capitalist) and the prevalence of atheism in communist states. After McCarthyism imploded, the leaders of the religious right needed a more credible boogie man. The horrors of Jim Crow were not palatable on the national level, so blacks were out. Homosexuals were unorganized, presumptively corrupt, and largely anonymous. The religious right began a relentless campaign to personify the resentment of national post-war social changes into religiously sanctioned fear and hatred of homosexuals. Before the 50s homosexuality was presumed to be unacceptable, but homosexuals were not looked at as a threat.


Interesting...
 
2013-06-19 02:52:42 PM

Lost Thought 00: This is the lady that was primaried out of the party and had to run a write-in campaign. And won. Yet for some reason she still calls herself a Republican


You mean, someone whose political ideas skew in one direction but doesn't tow the party line?  When you had Zell Miller as a Democrat, you sort of get a wake up call about that.
 
2013-06-19 02:56:36 PM

coeyagi: Why any woman would be a GOPer is beyond me.

"HURR why single issue there is much to the GOP than a single issue DERR"

Really, derper?

1) Against equal pay
2) Against reproductive rights
     a) birth control
     b) abortion
3) Against universal healthcare (well, now they are)
4) Not very delicate when it comes to rape
5) Seem to think that gender roles are written into the Bible and therefore law


Republicans (for the most part) are guilty of "Ivory Tower-itis"; that is, unless it affects them directly (i.e. Rush and Oxycontin, Cheney and his daughter), the default stance is "herr 'X' is duh debil n' must be eleminated!"
 
2013-06-19 03:06:11 PM

nmrsnr: Is it sad that my first thought on seeing the headline was "which family member just came out to her?"

Glad to see that her motivation was not so self-serving.


So she needs to be on the right side of history for the right reasons.

/nice
 
2013-06-19 03:11:15 PM
Good for her. Also good for the Republican civil war.
 
2013-06-19 03:18:10 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: vernonFL: "First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes. I believe that, as Americans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission? If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans - our true north - it is less government and more freedom. We don't want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don't need it in our families"

Why can't more so called "conservatives" think this way?

We do.  Except now they insist on calling us democrats.

(no really.  I'm a registered republican...and no one believes me anymore, I'm just another libby lib libtard democrat.  My views have not changed.  At all.  The party sure has though)


...'twas better to reign in hell  (at the expense of extorting one's self to the socially authoritarian religious camp) than serve in heaven.
 
2013-06-19 03:29:23 PM

Serpentile6: Good for her. Also good for the Republican civil war.


Republican party in Alaska has been in a civil war for about a decade now

Started when Frank appointed his daughter to the Senate
 
2013-06-19 03:33:34 PM

Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: Satan's Bunny Slippers: vernonFL: "First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes. I believe that, as Americans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission? If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans - our true north - it is less government and more freedom. We don't want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don't need it in our families"

Why can't more so called "conservatives" think this way?

We do.  Except now they insist on calling us democrats.

(no really.  I'm a registered republican...and no one believes me anymore, I'm just another libby lib libtard democrat.  My views have not changed.  At all.  The party sure has though)

...'twas better to reign in hell  (at the expense of extorting one's self to the socially authoritarian religious camp) than serve in heaven.


I pretty much just cower in the corner now as the shrapnel flies.  And try to keep people at work and some relatives from discovering I've voted democrat the last three elections.  And yes, I'm sorry about voting for Bush II the first time.  I was wrong.  I'm sorry.
 
2013-06-19 03:36:07 PM
Opportunism.
 
2013-06-19 03:36:44 PM

abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]


Thanks for posting the updated GSS chart.

Also, thanks to Senator Murkowski for supporting the freedom to marry.
 
2013-06-19 03:45:56 PM

salvador.hardin: The Religious right's first great enemy was communism. It was a natural villain for both its economic values (the religious right has always been ultra capitalist) and the prevalence of atheism in communist states. After McCarthyism imploded, the leaders of the religious right needed a more credible boogie man. The horrors of Jim Crow were not palatable on the national level, so blacks were out. Homosexuals were unorganized, presumptively corrupt, and largely anonymous. The religious right began a relentless campaign to personify the resentment of national post-war social changes into religiously sanctioned fear and hatred of homosexuals. Before the 50s homosexuality was presumed to be unacceptable, but homosexuals were not looked at as a threat.


The answer is much simpler. It's not some arbitrary need for a "boogieman", where any candidate will do. The religious right sees homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, because, well, according to the tenants of all of the Judeo-Christian faith, it is.

However, two trends have begun to intersect: The first is that from the 50s forward, strict adherence to religious orthodoxy among the mainstream has been waning with even "religious" people choosing to simply ignore certain aspects of their religion from birth control, to pre-marital sex, to abortion, to marriage, to divorce, to homosexuality. The supplemental trend of more and more mainstream Americans simply foregoing churchgoing at all meant that social mores and society standards are very different today than they were even 50 years ago.

The second trend is that there has been a significant societal shift toward sexual liberation in all aspects and an emerging acceptance among the mainstream for previously "deviant" behavior whether it be homosexuality, bisexuality, multiple partners, general promiscuity or even just "being adventurous". The conservative religious right has attempted and failed to stop this progression at every stage, from Elvis' gyrating hips to bikinis to pornography to Will & Grace. And each time, the general public has re-enforced an acceptance of loosened mores. This acceptance has emboldened gays and other members of the broader LGBT community to be more open and "come out of the closet".

So at the same time that the religious right is becoming more of a minority view, and fewer and fewer young people are joining their view, they are seeing the continuing trend as more and more unacceptable, making them more and more strident and hard-line.

No one was "looking" for a boogie-man. From their perspective, the boogie-man has become unavoidable. No longer relegated to the fringe and the shadows, homosexuals have taken the spotlight and "operate in plain sight". If you earnestly believe, as many do, that homosexuality is a corrupting, sinful thing, then they have a duty to try to stop it.

/not arguing that their viewpoint is right, only that the objection stems from a genuine difference in worldview, and not some disingenuous desire to screw people over or fabricate some "enemy".
 
2013-06-19 03:57:00 PM
Progress marches on.
 
2013-06-19 04:02:13 PM

BojanglesPaladin: salvador.hardin: The Religious right's first great enemy was communism. It was a natural villain for both its economic values (the religious right has always been ultra capitalist) and the prevalence of atheism in communist states. After McCarthyism imploded, the leaders of the religious right needed a more credible boogie man. The horrors of Jim Crow were not palatable on the national level, so blacks were out. Homosexuals were unorganized, presumptively corrupt, and largely anonymous. The religious right began a relentless campaign to personify the resentment of national post-war social changes into religiously sanctioned fear and hatred of homosexuals. Before the 50s homosexuality was presumed to be unacceptable, but homosexuals were not looked at as a threat.


The answer is much simpler. It's not some arbitrary need for a "boogieman", where any candidate will do. The religious right sees homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, because, well, according to the tenants of all of the Judeo-Christian faith, it is.

However, two trends have begun to intersect: The first is that from the 50s forward, strict adherence to religious orthodoxy among the mainstream has been waning with even "religious" people choosing to simply ignore certain aspects of their religion from birth control, to pre-marital sex, to abortion, to marriage, to divorce, to homosexuality. The supplemental trend of more and more mainstream Americans simply foregoing churchgoing at all meant that social mores and society standards are very different today than they were even 50 years ago.

The second trend is that there has been a significant societal shift toward sexual liberation in all aspects and an emerging acceptance among the mainstream for previously "deviant" behavior whether it be homosexuality, bisexuality, multiple partners, general promiscuity or even just "being adventurous". The conservative religious right has attempted and failed to stop this progression at every stage, from Elvis' gyrating hips to bikinis to pornography to Will & Grace. And each time, the general public has re-enforced an acceptance of loosened mores. This acceptance has emboldened gays and other members of the broader LGBT community to be more open and "come out of the closet".

So at the same time that the religious right is becoming more of a minority view, and fewer and fewer young people are joining their view, they are seeing the continuing trend as more and more unacceptable, making them more and more strident and hard-line.

No one was "looking" for a boogie-man. From their perspective, the boogie-man has become unavoidable. No longer relegated to the fringe and the shadows, homosexuals have taken the spotlight and "operate in plain sight". If you earnestly believe, as many do, that homosexuality is a corrupting, sinful thing, then they have a duty to try to stop it.

/not arguing that their viewpoint is right, only that the objection stems from a genuine difference in worldview, and not some disingenuous desire to screw people over or fabricate some "enemy".


1) This is not necessarily true. A lot of Christian churches and sects do not view homosexuality as sinful, and the less orthodox branches of Judaism similarly see homosexuality the same way. There's a pretty large faith-based movement towards legalizing marriages between same-sex couples.

2) I'd fully agree that sexual mores are changing, but we are not a society where anything goes. I think the big change is that consent has turned into the lynchpin of what is sexually acceptable and what isn't. In a lot of ways, accepting consent as the benchmark is a sexual liberation. But consent does have some clear limits. Carrying out a sexual act on an animal that cannot provide consent is unacceptable. Having sex with a child is unacceptable. Cheating on a significant other is  unacceptable (9 out of 10 Americans polled by Gallup think so, more than anything else they asked about).
 
2013-06-19 04:14:28 PM
"Third Republican Senator Comes Out"

Of a coma?
 
2013-06-19 04:17:15 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: And yes, I'm sorry about voting for Bush II the first time. I was wrong. I'm sorry.


that part i can certainly relate to. as for my co-workers i talk politics with those i agree with and ignore the others. our conversation there tend to devolve into "you dumb shiat" on both sides.
 
2013-06-19 04:21:08 PM
www.cartoonmovement.com

at least the smart ones are starting to head that way....
 
2013-06-19 04:21:30 PM

bullwrinkle: So she needs to be on the right side of history for the right reasons./nice


I said (and implied) no such thing. I merely said that it generally seems to me to be the case that Republicans switch to supporting marriage equality because it personally affects them, when they were okay denying it when it didn't, and that I am glad that Murkowski made the decision on the merits that people deserve to be treated equally, as opposed to because it personally affected her life.
 
2013-06-19 04:26:13 PM
This morning I took a dump and had the decency to wipe my ass.  Can I have a "Hero" tag, too?
 
2013-06-19 04:27:53 PM

Serious Black: A lot of Christian churches and sects do not view homosexuality as sinful,


Remember we are talking about the religious right here, not the religious left.

While not every Christian church goes for "abomination before the Lord", and many go with "Love the Sinner, hate the sin", the overwhelming Christian stance is that homosexuality is a sin, because it is a sin of lust and fornication, same as adultery. Some may put it in the same bucket of sin as masturbating, and some may put it in the same bucket as adultery. And I suppose some just don't consider it a sin at all, but that means ignoring part of the doctrines, which I know happens.

I guess we could ALSO say there has been a trend in "new" Christian Churches and non-denominational which allow for a much broader spectrum of "pick and choose" doctrine. Or maybe I should have specified that I meant major denomination churches.

Anywho, in 1945 you would have a very hard time finding any Church in America advocating that homosexuality is not a sin. Today, the Episcopalians are ordaining openly gay priests. And I doubt many of the religious right are still going to mass with an openly gay priest. In fact, I know they are not because the Episcopal Church is facing schism over this very issue.

Serious Black: 2) I'd fully agree that sexual mores are changing, but we are not a society where anything goes.


Nor did I suggest that we were. I'm not really sure where you are going with the "but we still don't like pedophilia or bestiality!" line....
 
2013-06-19 04:38:12 PM

make me some tea: Let's see how long it takes for her to flip to Democrat now.


Or at least leaving the GOP. I don't necessarily rate as being a Democrat as being "pro gay" but anyone who does not see being a Republican as being anti-gay is fooling themselves.
 
2013-06-19 04:47:49 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Remember we are talking about the religious right here, not the religious left.


Yes, but you can't say "The religious right sees homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, because, well, according to the tenants tenets of all of the Judeo-Christian faith, it is." and then ignore the fact that many, many Christian churches do NOT see homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, and certainly not The Worst Sin Evar the way the religious right plays it. I know many, many Christians who support marriage equality. I even know a few Catholics who support it. So you simply cannot say that all of the Judeo-Christian tenets believe homosexuality is immoral and corrupt.
 
2013-06-19 04:49:17 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: A lot of Christian churches and sects do not view homosexuality as sinful,

Remember we are talking about the religious right here, not the religious left.

While not every Christian church goes for "abomination before the Lord", and many go with "Love the Sinner, hate the sin", the overwhelming Christian stance is that homosexuality is a sin, because it is a sin of lust and fornication, same as adultery. Some may put it in the same bucket of sin as masturbating, and some may put it in the same bucket as adultery. And I suppose some just don't consider it a sin at all, but that means ignoring part of the doctrines, which I know happens.

I guess we could ALSO say there has been a trend in "new" Christian Churches and non-denominational which allow for a much broader spectrum of "pick and choose" doctrine. Or maybe I should have specified that I meant major denomination churches.

Anywho, in 1945 you would have a very hard time finding any Church in America advocating that homosexuality is not a sin. Today, the Episcopalians are ordaining openly gay priests. And I doubt many of the religious right are still going to mass with an openly gay priest. In fact, I know they are not because the Episcopal Church is facing schism over this very issue.


Sure, acceptance of homosexuality is a pretty novel concept. Of course, homosexuality itself is a pretty novel concept historically given that the word homosexuality was not coined until the late 19th century. And every sect of Judaism and Christianity engages in some level of picking and choosing today. As an example, there were a number of religious leaders who openly advocated for slavery being just and referenced parts of the Bible to defend owning people. I believe it was something along the lines of civilizing the heathen. But I very rarely, if ever, hear Jews or Christians defend slavery as an acceptable practice today, let alone a good one.

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: 2) I'd fully agree that sexual mores are changing, but we are not a society where anything goes.

Nor did I suggest that we were. I'm not really sure where you are going with the "but we still don't like pedophilia or bestiality!" line....


You just said "Remember we are talking about the religious right here." Pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and polygamy are among the many things that the religious right say will have to be legally recognized if the government legally recognizes marriages between same-sex couples. Yet none of the people who are currently advocating for letting same-sex couples get married are advocating for morally or legally accepting any of the other practices I mentioned.
 
2013-06-19 04:52:21 PM
Mike Chewbacca:Judeo-Christian tenets believe homosexuality is immoral and corrupt.
 
2013-06-19 04:55:39 PM

Serious Black: Cheating on a significant other is  unacceptable (9 out of 10 Americans polled by Gallup think so, more than anything else they asked about).


and those 1 out of 10 who think it's acceptable are the ones cheating.
 
2013-06-19 05:00:48 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Yes, but you can't say "The religious right sees homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, because, well, according to the tenants tenets of all of the Judeo-Christian faith, it is." and then ignore the fact that many, many Christian churches do NOT see homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, and certainly not The Worst Sin Evar the way the religious right plays it. I know many, many Christians who support marriage equality. I even know a few Catholics who support it. So you simply cannot say that all of the Judeo-Christian tenets believe homosexuality is immoral and corrupt.


What I CAN say is that while in the last few decades some Christian churches have opted to de-emphasize or ignore completely the exhortations in Christian scripture against homosexuality, that is a recent development, and for about a thousand years there was perfect unanimity in the Christian Church that homosexuality (like all "sins of the flesh") is a sin.

This is not something that the religious right took it upon themselves to add, or something where they took a weird interpretation in order to create a "boogeyman" as was implied above.

And since homosexuality is specifically addressed and identified as being sinful, both as a sin of fornication (along with everything from masturbation to adultery) and male homosexuality is explicitly forbidden in Christian scripture, it is absurd to argue that it is NOT a tenant of Christianity. (Of course, as with so many things, different denominations pick and choose).

/again, I am not advocating the Christian viewpoint, but I am comfortable identifying it for what it is, not what we might wish it was.
 
2013-06-19 05:16:49 PM

The Name: This morning I took a dump and had the decency to wipe my ass.  Can I have a "Hero" tag, too?


Dr. Hawking, is that you?
 
2013-06-19 05:20:56 PM

Serious Black: And every sect of Judaism and Christianity engages in some level of picking and choosing today.


Yeah. Not an argument I am making. I am not interested in going down the well-worn path about who us "right" in their interpretation of scripture, only observing that the religious right clings to an interpretation that has been universal for a millennium. Lots of things that were universally accepted for a long time are not any longer. Doesn't change that they do.

Serious Black: Of course, homosexuality itself is a pretty novel concept historically given that the word homosexuality was not coined until the late 19th century.


Tomato, tomahto. Catamites, Sodomites, Pederasts, Queers, Fairies, fudge pirates, etc. No one was confused about what homosexual was. Speaking of Christian Scripture and Sodomites... where does that word come from? Ah yes. When God himself destroyed a whole city for having all the buttsecks and fornication and whatnot. Again, some churches can choose to ignore it, but you can't pretend that the scriptural stance on teh ghey is ambiguous. At least man on man. The scriptures allow more wiggle room for polygamy and adultery than they do for man-love.

Serious Black: Pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and polygamy are among the many things that the religious right say will have to be legally recognized if the government legally recognizes marriages between same-sex couples. Yet none of the people who are currently advocating for letting same-sex couples get married are advocating for morally or legally accepting any of the other practices I mentioned.


Ah. So that's where you were going. I get your point, but I don't know that the same people who insisted that unless it was stopped, Rock-n-Roll would lead to a sexual revolution, or that Will and Grace would lead to rampant and open homosexuality are likely to be convinced that the slippery slope of damnation is going to stop at same-sex marriage.

And even if you COULD convince them, for many people that already takes the country to the level of Sodom and Gamhorra, and for them, the Bible is pretty clear about what god thinks of all the orgies and buttsecks.
 
2013-06-19 05:35:06 PM
I'm sure her decision in no way was to try and get on the right side of history since the DOMA and Prop 8 decisions will be coming out either tomorrow or on Monday.

/Call me a cynic
 
2013-06-19 05:42:05 PM

strapp3r: don't make me talk about quitting this gig to un-seat you!...
....squirrel...


...Jesus Spice wept.
 
2013-06-19 05:43:54 PM

abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]


That graph should give me hope, but it a way it depresses me - less than half of people born between 1990 and 1994 "strongly support" equal marriage? What the hell? I would've imagined essentially everyone in that age group strongly supported it...
 
2013-06-19 06:10:12 PM

Lord Dimwit: That graph should give me hope, but it a way it depresses me


What is the provenance of that graph? I find it hard to believe that there was any widespread surveying of the general public regarding same-sex couples in 1920.

/tee-hee.
 
2013-06-19 06:30:08 PM
This isn't going over well in Crazy Base Land (Alaska), I can tell you...
 
2013-06-19 06:36:43 PM

Corvus: But they still vote against repealing things like DOMA and DADT like Scott Brown did. They say it for votes but when they have to vote they vote with the most conservative members still.


FWIW, Brown voted to repeal DADT.
 
2013-06-19 08:03:25 PM

MFAWG: Lost Thought 00: This is the lady that was primaried out of the party and had to run a write-in campaign. And won. Yet for some reason she still calls herself a Republican

Alaskians have a very, very strong 'mind your own business' streak.

Even La Sarah was forced to sign a domestic partner benefits law.


I'm so gonna mention that next time some teabagger talks about how she's the greatest thing because she sticks it to the RINOs.

/She capitulated to teh liebruls?!?!??!??111!!??  RINO!!!!!!
 
2013-06-19 08:43:55 PM
In an interview with KTUU, the Anchorage NBC affiliate, Murkowski said she experienced a change of heart after spending time with a same-sex couple raising four adopted children.

I know, yay for finally being on the non-stupid side of history briefly, good for her, but... if you're so lacking in basic empathy and analytical thought that you can't conceive of two or more people raising children without being a man/woman pair in a sexual relationship without actually meeting them first, you're not really someone I want making major decisions about where shared national resources will be used.  You don't get points for this, in fact I think you lose extra points for being on the right side for a reason so stupid it almost makes it the wrong side by association.

//When we get a GOPer that says "I carefully reviewed the studies on this subject, and, on the overwhelming consensus of credible experts in the relevant fields, I am now changing my opinion to better reflect reality" or even a GOPer that admits that they're against the idea personally but don't want to fight the electorate on this, then they can have the Hero tag, maybe.
 
2013-06-19 09:07:11 PM
Guessed Lindsey Graham finally came out of the closet.
/meh
 
2013-06-19 09:23:46 PM

Jim_Callahan: In an interview with KTUU, the Anchorage NBC affiliate, Murkowski said she experienced a change of heart after spending time with a same-sex couple raising four adopted children.

I know, yay for finally being on the non-stupid side of history briefly, good for her, but... if you're so lacking in basic empathy and analytical thought that you can't conceive of two or more people raising children without being a man/woman pair in a sexual relationship without actually meeting them first, you're not really someone I want making major decisions about where shared national resources will be used.  You don't get points for this, in fact I think you lose extra points for being on the right side for a reason so stupid it almost makes it the wrong side by association.

//When we get a GOPer that says "I carefully reviewed the studies on this subject, and, on the overwhelming consensus of credible experts in the relevant fields, I am now changing my opinion to better reflect reality" or even a GOPer that admits that they're against the idea personally but don't want to fight the electorate on this, then they can have the Hero tag, maybe.


TBT, conservatives were against anti- gay discrimination long before Democrats.
It was the influx of the religious right (Southern Democrats) who ruined it for everyone.
/google "Goldwater gay rights"
 
2013-06-19 10:48:22 PM

valar_morghulis: She doesn't deserve the "Hero" tag for doing what any decent, moral human being should.


This is one of my biggest gripes around here.  Every time a republican does something that's not off-the-rails insane, they get a hero tag.
 
2013-06-20 09:26:44 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Lord Dimwit: That graph should give me hope, but it a way it depresses me

What is the provenance of that graph? I find it hard to believe that there was any widespread surveying of the general public regarding same-sex couples in 1920.

/tee-hee.


The years along the bottom represent birth year cohorts rather than when people were questioned about it.
 
2013-06-20 11:03:54 AM

Serious Black: The years along the bottom represent birth year cohorts rather than when people were questioned about it.


I know. (Note the "tee-hee")
 
2013-06-20 03:33:25 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: And every sect of Judaism and Christianity engages in some level of picking and choosing today.

Yeah. Not an argument I am making. I am not interested in going down the well-worn path about who us "right" in their interpretation of scripture, only observing that the religious right clings to an interpretation that has been universal for a millennium. Lots of things that were universally accepted for a long time are not any longer. Doesn't change that they do.

Serious Black: Of course, homosexuality itself is a pretty novel concept historically given that the word homosexuality was not coined until the late 19th century.

Tomato, tomahto. Catamites, Sodomites, Pederasts, Queers, Fairies, fudge pirates, etc. No one was confused about what homosexual was. Speaking of Christian Scripture and Sodomites... where does that word come from? Ah yes. When God himself destroyed a whole city for having all the buttsecks and fornication and whatnot. Again, some churches can choose to ignore it, but you can't pretend that the scriptural stance on teh ghey is ambiguous. At least man on man. The scriptures allow more wiggle room for polygamy and adultery than they do for man-love.

Serious Black: Pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and polygamy are among the many things that the religious right say will have to be legally recognized if the government legally recognizes marriages between same-sex couples. Yet none of the people who are currently advocating for letting same-sex couples get married are advocating for morally or legally accepting any of the other practices I mentioned.

Ah. So that's where you were going. I get your point, but I don't know that the same people who insisted that unless it was stopped, Rock-n-Roll would lead to a sexual revolution, or that Will and Grace would lead to rampant and open homosexuality are likely to be convinced that the slippery slope of damnation is going to stop at same-sex marriage.

And even if you COULD convince them, for many people that already takes the country to the level of Sodom and Gamhorra, and for them, the Bible is pretty clear about what god thinks of all the orgies and buttsecks.


My reading of the Sodom story actually doesn't necessarily condemn homosexuality. As a thought experiment, consider if the angels had been female (or at least appeared female, I think angels are supposed to be sexless). The crowd's actions are still horrible, because they're still rapists.

Also, I think that whoever upthread said that the word homosexual didn't exist until the late 19th century was more saying that before then, gays were just guys who had sex with guys, there was no idea that some people might be mentally hardwired to prefer that to sex with women. Gays have existed for millennia, the new part is realizing that some folks are like that naturally.
 
2013-06-20 06:06:01 PM

DoctorWorm21045: As a thought experiment, consider if the angels had been female (or at least appeared female, I think angels are supposed to be sexless). The crowd's actions are still horrible, because they're still rapists.


Your reading of the story may be omitting the part that the Angels were going there, to deliver God's already determined judgement, having already wrangled with Abraham about whether he could find 10 good men and all. The incident of attempted angel rape (and the weird "here, rape my virgin daughters instead" bit) just reinforced that they were beyond redemption.

Considering that the City gave the name to the practice of anal penetration thousands of years ago, I think it's safe to say that the town was known for teh ghey buttsechs, and all sorts of "giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh". Even if you were to argue that the sins of Sodom isn't explicitly or exclusively homosexual, it was explicit that God's wrath fell on them for general fornication and lasciviousness and unspecified sins of the flesh, of which homosexuality is a subset (in the minds of Judeo-Christain theologians for the last two-thousand years or more).

(I always think it's odd that some people insist that religious opposition to homosexuality is irrelevant, while also arguing that there isn't a "real" opposition in religion anyway. There clearly is. Either you discard the bit you don't like from your faith, or you discard the faith.)

DoctorWorm21045: Gays have existed for millennia, the new part is realizing that some folks are like that naturally.


Actually, THAT idea is very recent, probably gaining real acceptance only in this century. In the 19th and most of the 20th century, homosexuality was codified in law as being a moral crime, and was often seen as indicative of a mental infirmity. Keep in mind that prior to the mid-1970s, all psychological and medical organizations classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, and the World Health Organization had it classified as a mental disorder until 1990.

Even today, while it widely accepted by conventional wisdom that people are "born gay", there has been little scientific evidence identifying a biological origin of homosexuality, and there remains a great deal of dispute as to whether homosexuality is ultimately biological or enviornmental in origin. (Please do not confuse this with the argument about whether people "choose" to be gay). Theories include in utero hormonal levels, early childhood imprinting, or even simple childhood gender non-conformity. And that's just on the biological origin side. There are a number of scientific studies suggesting environmental origin as well. The jury is out on the "nature v. nurture" debate.

CSB: I am reasonably good friends with a long term gay couple, each of which takes the opposite viewpoint. One says he's just "born that way" and has no choice, and the other furiously denies that he has not made a choice, saying that he is "PROUD of his choice to be gay, and how dare anyone suggest that homosexuality is some sort of genetic aberration that can be corrected or cured "!!. It's funny as hell after a few beers, because they are both strong on the swishy side and get real biatchy with each other about it. It's like watching a Baptist and a Catholic couple argue about which is the "real" religion.
 
2013-06-20 11:33:10 PM

alizeran: Ok republicans are coming out.


It would be amusing if every single Republican member of Congress turned out to be gay.
 
Displayed 85 of 85 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report