RI, MN, DE, CA get marriage equality. DOMA dies, and now the UK!

[Magmar]

http://www.turnto10.com/story/22065374/ri-lawmakers-to-vote-on-gay-marriage


PROVIDENCE -
Rhode Island senators put their state on the path Wednesday to becoming the 10th state to allow same-sex couples to marry, passing legislation by a comfortable 26-12 margin after nearly two decades of attempts to legalize same-sex marriage.

The bill passed the House in January and now returns there for a largely procedural vote, likely next week, before going to Gov. Lincoln Chafee, who supports the legislation.

Hundreds of gay marriage supporters erupted into cheers and applause - and many cried - outside the Senate chamber following the vote.

"I think it's actually going to happen," said Michael Sherman, 45, a gay man from Providence who came to the State House for the historic vote. "When you tell someone they can't do something because they're different from you, people see that as just wrong. It shouldn't have taken this long."

While the other five New England states already allow gay marriage, heavily Catholic Rhode Island has been a hold-out. Supporters this year mounted an aggressive and coordinated campaign that included organized labor, religious leaders, business owners and leaders including Chafee and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras.

The bill's chances improved when Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed said she would allow the bill to move forward, despite her opposition to gay marriage. Earlier this week, the Senate's five Republicans announced they would all support the measure.

The first gay marriages in Rhode Island could take place Aug. 1, when the legislation would take effect. Civil unions would no longer be available to same-sex couples as of that date, though the state would continue to recognize existing civil unions. Lawmakers approved civil unions two years ago, though few couples have sought them.

Gay marriage legislation has been introduced in Rhode Island's General Assembly for nearly 20 years only to languish on the legislative agenda without a vote. Last fall, House Speaker Gordon Fox, who is gay, vowed to hold a vote early in the session, a move that focused the attention of supporters on the Senate.

Fox's chamber will now get the final say on the legislation, when the House is expected to sign off on minor changes the Senate made to the bill. A hearing on the bill is expected Tuesday, ahead of the House vote next Thursday.

"After all these years, all these setbacks, all the hearings, we kept at it and we got closer and closer each year," said Rep. Frank Ferri, D-Warwick, a gay man who lobbied for marriage legislation before he ran for office and is now one of the top supporters of the legislation. "I'm pumped. I'm excited. I'm thrilled. It's almost surreal."

Supporters framed the issue as one of civil rights, arguing in daylong legislative hearings that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and protections given to opposite-sex married couples. The Catholic Church was the most significant opponent, with Bishop Thomas Tobin urging lawmakers to defeat what he called an "immoral and unnecessary" change to traditional marriage law.

The Rhode Island legislation states that religious institutions may set their own rules regarding who is eligible to marry within the faith and specifies that no religious leader is obligated to officiate at any marriage ceremony and no religious group is required to provide facilities or services related to a gay marriage.

While ministers already cannot be forced to marry anyone, the exemption helped assuage concerns from some lawmakers that clergy could face lawsuits for abiding by their religious convictions.

Delaware could be the next state to approve gay marriage. Legislation legalizing same-sex marriage narrowly passed the Delaware House on Tuesday and now heads to that state's Senate for consideration.

Before Wednesday's vote some supporters held up signs reading "Rhode Island No. 10." Annie Silvia, 61, of North Attleboro, Mass., just across the state line, said she and her partner of 30 years may retire to her home state of Rhode Island now.

"I grew up in Rhode Island and I'd like to retire in Rhode Island," she said. "No. 10 is a nice round number, but I'd like it to be bigger. Fifty sounds good to me."

THIS.

YESSSSS

[Roy Karrde]

Congrats!

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

Congratulations!

I didn't know your state is heavily Catholic.

[RedStarWarrior]

10th state, 40 more to go!

Also, please make sure your title and first post have more content next time.

[Magmar]

sorry dude! this was post after celebratory shots were had. haha.

Yes, very very excited :) finally being treated like an equal

[Lady Vulpix]

Finally! I hope the rest of the states and countries who still haven't legalized it follow.

[kainashi]

congrats, now you can be miserable with the rest of the married people. :cool2:

[Lady Vulpix]

congrats, now you can be miserable with the rest of the married people. :cool2:No one forces you to get married if you don't want to. This is for those who do.

[Dark Sage]

Finally! I hope the rest of the states and countries who still haven't legalized it follow.

I know. Among the countries who have legalized it this month alone are France, New Zeland, and Urugway.

URUGWAY! Can you believe it? Even THEY are more tolerant than we are, it seems.

And with Rio de Janeiro doing so too, the 11th state in Brazil to do so, it seems they're well on their way.

[Kumori]

Yay! ^^ I'm not actually gay or anything, but I've always supported gay marriage because I don't see anything wrong with gay people. Not at all. There is nothing wrong with them, a lot of them are really nice!

[Heald]

I know. Among the countries who have legalized it this month alone are France, New Zeland, and Urugway.

URUGWAY! Can you believe it? Even THEY are more tolerant than we are, it seems.

New Zeland

Urugway

URUGWAY!
http://i.imgur.com/RMfWU.png

What

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand


Yay! ^^ I'm not actually gay or anything, but I've always supported gay marriage because I don't see anything wrong with gay people. Not at all. There is nothing wrong with them, a lot of them are really nice!
This post made me laugh, not because there's anything intrinsically wrong with it, just its naive simplicity.

The UK is lining up its gay marriage bill at this moment, but de facto there is no legal difference between a civil union (for gays) and a marriage (for straights), except a civil union can not be referred to as a marriage, nor can it be conducted in a church. I believe this is what the UK's gay marriage bill is going to change.

Anyway, congrats Rhode Island, once we have full gay marriage here, Barry can come here and get gay married to me.

[Katie]

Hooray for completely basic equality in 20-fucking-13!

Meanwhile, in Texas ..

[CaptainJigglypuff]

PA will probably never pass it. I mean our one Senetor has said in public that women who get raped and end up being pregnant should be "thankful for such a wonderful gift from God." Not to mention how messed up some of the public roads are.

[ChobiChibi]

Anyway, congrats Rhode Island, once we have full gay marriage here, Barry can come here and get gay married to me.

SHOTGUN MAID OF HONOUR. You know I've earned it >>

Congrats though :D Yay weddings!

[Emerald_Gen.3]

I support gay marriage because if two people love each other why can't they be together. And honestly can't tell the difference between straight marriage and gay marriage

[Oslo]

Yay! ^^ I'm not actually gay or anything, but I've always supported gay marriage because I don't see anything wrong with gay people. Not at all. There is nothing wrong with them, a lot of them are really nice!

That's mostly just a ruse we put on. We're actually pretty horrific. *flosses babies out of teeth*

This is wonderful news, Baz! Once it's official you should go marry the shit out of some guys to celebrate.

[Blademaster]

Well that's certainly a net positive for you Rhodeys, I suppose.

But RI is the TENTH state to give the okay? I wasn't aware of that... I'm curious what the other nine are now.

[RedStarWarrior]

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington (also the District of Columbia).

[Magmar]

Anyway, congrats Rhode Island, once we have full gay marriage here, Barry can come here and get gay married to me.

I do ;D

@Katie LOL

[ChobiChibi]

I love to be the one to break this to you, but Magmar's name is Barry :P Well done for getting the completely wrong idea.

[Dark Sage]

I didn't know that.

To anyone here who wants to know why the message is deleted, I deleted it myself.

Heald... I apologize.

[RedStarWarrior]

I didn't know that.

To anyone here who wants to know why the message is deleted, I deleted it myself.

Heald... I apologize.

Barry can be short for Barrack, so I see your confusion.

[Dark Sage]

My confusion, Red Star, came from the fact that it's a very common insult directed at Mr. Obama by Birthers and certain members of the Tea Party. And I hate it along with every other insult they make towards him.

They claim it was a nickname he used in college, something which is completely untrue, along with all their other claims.

And the worst part is, that's their least offensive insult.

When I confront them on this, they say I did the same thing to Bush, calling him "Dubbya", which is a blatant lie. I never resorted to name calling with him. I didn't like the man, but he was President, and I gave him the respect his office deserved, something which many people refuse to do towards Mr. Obama.

So I jumped to conclusions. Again, I apologize.

[CaptainJigglypuff]

PA is so behind when it comes to equal rights. In my city, there's only ONE gay bar and it's open only after 9 at night AND Tuesday until Saturday. All other gay bars are like an hour away.

[RedStarWarrior]

I'd address Obama to his face as President Barry. I don't think he's the type of person who'd care.

To keep it on topic, I wish the issue of gay marriage would be addressed on a Federal level. The only stipulation should be that any religious organization has a right to refuse to perform such marriages if they wish. However, official employees at any level of government or other tax-payer funded service should not be able to refuse. I've seen instances where a state passed legislation to allow it, but a local-level permit office refused to process same-sex applications. I think such actions are grounds for immediate termination. What if a fire fighter simply watched a building burn because he didn't like the owner?

[Roy Karrde]

I'd address Obama to his face as President Barry. I don't think he's the type of person who'd care.

To keep it on topic, I wish the issue of gay marriage would be addressed on a Federal level. The only stipulation should be that any religious organization has a right to refuse to perform such marriages if they wish. However, official employees at any level of government or other tax-payer funded service should not be able to refuse. I've seen instances where a state passed legislation to allow it, but a local-level permit office refused to process same-sex applications. I think such actions are grounds for immediate termination. What if a fire fighter simply watched a building burn because he didn't like the owner?

I wouldn't mind that, but I am curious if places like Flower Shops that are not specifically religious organizations would have the right to refuse service on religious grounds. The reason I bring this out is that there is a lawsuit currently in court on this very issue right now.

[Dark Sage]

Actually Roy, the flower shops in NYC couldn't have been happier when New York legalized gay marriage. With gays able to marry legally, it meant more business.

Same with caterers, jewelers, people who run convention halls... Pretty much ALL businesses who benefitted from weddings were happy about it, because it meant profit.

Know why? Because Republicans can call Mr. Obama a socialist all they want, but this country is still run on capitolism, and it has not changed since 2008. Not at all.

[RedStarWarrior]

I believe that a privately owned business has a right to refuse service to any person for any reason. However, I don't feel that businesses who practice such should be allowed to have any tax-payer funded agencies as customers.

[Dark Sage]

Private businsses CAN refuse. You see restaurants that have the "We reserve the right to refuse service" sign?

I'm reminded of the story about that bakery who refused to make a birthday cake for a couple who named their son Adolf Hiter (their daughter was named Aryan Nation). They tried suing in order to force them to make the cake, and only got Child Welfare Services on them as a result. Seriously, not the smartest Neo Nazis around.

[Roy Karrde]

I believe that a privately owned business has a right to refuse service to any person for any reason. However, I don't feel that businesses who practice such should be allowed to have any tax-payer funded agencies as customers.

I do too, but the U.S. Civil Rights Act Title 2 Section A says:

(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

So that is why it is in court right now, is there a religious exemption for that.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, that passage you quoted is the biggest argument gay marriage supporters are using as to why laws against it should be unconstitutional.

As for religion as a reason to outlaw or restrict gay marriage?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

This short passage from the First Amendment not only grants us Freedom of Religion, it grants us Freedom FROM Religion.

[Zak]

10th state, 40 more to go!

Also, please make sure your title and first post have more content next time.

41 actually... since Washington DC is one of the "ten". Anyway, yay for RI!

[RedStarWarrior]

41 actually... since Washington DC is one of the "ten". Anyway, yay for RI!

DC isn't a state and I did not include it in the 10. Read my later post in which I named them all.

[Nall]

I support gay marriage because if two people love each other why can't they be together. And honestly can't tell the difference between straight marriage and gay marriage

They typically differ from heterosexual marriages in the number of penises involved, although not always. ~THE MORE YOU KNOW~

Hooray equality!

[CaptainJigglypuff]

While we're on the subject, anyone ELSE notice society's hypocrisy when it comes to gay men and women? What I mean is why is it okay for two women to kis and hold hands ANTWHERE they want and sometimes even get applauded for just a simple kiss but two gay men holding hands and kissing is seen as taboo? I mean WHAT'S the difference? Think about it for a minute. Name five mainstream movies that show tow women kissing. Now name five more where two MEN kiss. Notice how easy it is to name the movies for women kissing each other but the only movie you can really think of that is mainstream where two men kiss is Brokeback Mountain?

[RedStarWarrior]

From a hygienic standpoint, it was often not looked upon as badly for women to be with other women because there was less chance for disease transmission.

[Magmar]

Oh my, so many point to address :)

-Yes, my name is Barry, and it's not short for Barack. I can understand why President Obama chose a nickname though, especially with a name so close to Barrack (which is pronounced differently, more like the "Bar" in Barry actually). It probably made things easier for him. My dad's side of the family is 100%(ish) Irish/Great British, and Baz is a common familiar name there for people named Barry. (In fact, almost no one names their kids Barry in the U.S. these days. I've never had a class with another Barry, but there was one at my undergrad that I knew who was in the class year ahead of me.

-The Governor of Rhode Island is signing marriage equality into law at 5:45 p.m. today. Hooray for progress! It has to pass the House again as amended, but given the 75% supermajority voting in favor last time, it doesn't seem likely that a third of those politicians would back out at the last minute after approving it the first time.

-CaptainJigglypuff, yes I've noticed that. It still is hard to show minor public displays of affection with Nate, but we do ordinary couple things like cuddle at the back of a movie theater. :) It also helps to be well-connected in the city, as we know many people who own restaurants and can do things like play footsie while out on dates haha

-Gay marriage IS being debated at the federal level; the Supreme Court heard the case on DOMA and will release a ruling next month on the constitutionality of denying federal benefits to married couples in those nine (ten?!) states.

-Delaware's House passed a marriage equality bill recently as well, so we might see the number climb to 11. A potential easy victory is also New Jersey, where the governor, Chris Christie (what a twat) vetoed it after it passed the House and Senate. At least here in RI, Governor Lincoln Chafee promised he would sign the bill when it comes to his desk!

[Blademaster]

While we're on the subject, anyone ELSE notice society's hypocrisy when it comes to gay men and women? What I mean is why is it okay for two women to kis and hold hands ANTWHERE they want and sometimes even get applauded for just a simple kiss but two gay men holding hands and kissing is seen as taboo? I mean WHAT'S the difference? Think about it for a minute. Name five mainstream movies that show tow women kissing. Now name five more where two MEN kiss. Notice how easy it is to name the movies for women kissing each other but the only movie you can really think of that is mainstream where two men kiss is Brokeback Mountain?

Blame feminism. Our apologist society has to applaud any women who dare to be different because it 'empowers' them.

Conversely, men who do such things are perverse degenerates poisoning the minds of our children.

:patriot:

[Magmar]

CONDRAGULATIONS, RHODE ISLAND!

As of rightmeow, marriage equality is the law of Rhode Island! I wish I could be there for this hearing, but alas, my only good excuse is gluten-free lasagna is in the oven LOL. But I was there for the House and the Senate votes :)

I CAN HAS EQUALITEH :D

[Dark Sage]

The final procedural vote was taken last night. The tally was 56 in favor, 15 against.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee says he plans to sign it.

To all the people who oppose gay marriage, here what I say:

This is America, and we are a nation that cherishes equality. We fought a war to gain it, and an even worse war to gain it for others. This is how it should be.

Forty states to go.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

Blame feminism. Our apologist society has to applaud any women who dare to be different because it 'empowers' them.

Conversely, men who do such things are perverse degenerates poisoning the minds of our children.

Fortunately, I see the youth culture is bringing equality. I mean anime. Yaoi fangirls enjoy yaoi and yuri fanboys enjoy yuri. And by extension, when a hetero watches two persons of his or her preferred sex making love together, the watcher doesn't have to close his or her eyes for a second.

[RedStarWarrior]

Magmar, your name is short for Barold, right? ;)

Also, in regards to a Federal ruling on marriage equality, I'm referring to the government making gay marriage legal and taking that power away from the states. However, granting the same rights to gay couples in states that have legalized it is a step in the right direction.

[Dark Sage]

Here are the claims that have been made recently by people who oppose gay marriage:

Homosexuality is the same as bestiality.
Homosexuality is a sin that is second only to murder.
Legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy.
Gay politicians want to abolish traditional marriage.
Homosexuality is caused by the same "impuse" that causes crimes like arson.
Homosexuality is three times more dangerous to your health than smoking.
And my personal favorite, a "gay lobby" pressured Pope Benedict into resigning.

Sounds kind of ridiculous when you lump them all together, doesn't it?

My opinion? Anti-gay marriage people know that the days are numbered for their cause, and they're getting desperate.

[Magmar]

Let's play "Best of Rhode Island Senator Metts at the Marriage Equality Senate Hearing"!!

"I too believe that I am a sinner saved by grace. This is America"

"The bible is clear. God ordained marriage between one man and one woman."

"Satan and gunmen have come in the schools because prayers are gone from schools."

"Be not deceived, God is not mocked."

"Wrath of God for those who reject his commandments."

Oh, my jaw was sooo wide open as I listened to him say these things. Wide. Open. He used Satan as defense against marriage equality! SATAN.

[Dark Sage]

Magmar, I've heard lunatics say things like this since the whole deal started.

They're saying God is going to smite us, just like they did when the Supreme Court ruled that laws outlawing interracial marriage were unconstitutional.

Any decade now, right fellahs?

[Roy Karrde]

Legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy.


And the problem with that is? Mind you I am not against Gay Marriage but I cant see why we need to place artificial limits on marriage.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, the claim is not true, and it's silly.

[Lady Vulpix]

I don't see the connection between gay marriage and polygamy, I agree that it's silly.

Anyway, I think polygamy could lead to a lot of complications, and wherever it is/has been legal it has led to unfair treatment of the multiple spouses, and usually serious conflicts among them too. So no, Roy, I don't think legalizing polygamy would be a good idea. Perhaps you should try sharing the same spouse with a bunch of other guys and then you'll see my point.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, doesn't hurt anyone, so I think it should be legal everywhere.

[Roy Karrde]

I don't see the connection between gay marriage and polygamy, I agree that it's silly.

I would suggest then reading this article by a Gay Marriage Advocate then as to why those for Gay Marriage should embrace advocating for Polyamory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/why-are-gay-marriage-advo_b_155476.html


Anyway, I think polygamy could lead to a lot of complications, and wherever it is/has been legal it has led to unfair treatment of the multiple spouses, and usually serious conflicts among them too. So no, Roy, I don't think legalizing polygamy would be a good idea. Perhaps you should try sharing the same spouse with a bunch of other guys and then you'll see my point.

Gay marriage, on the other hand, doesn't hurt anyone, so I think it should be legal everywhere.

By those arguments Polyamory doesn't hurt anyone either, could one spouse get more attention than other's like one child being favored over another? Of course, and if they know going in that may be a issue then who is it really hurting again?

[Oslo]

hurr digression

I'm a soft advocate of polygamy. There is a plausible connection between the same-sex marriage debate and the polygamy debate, as Roy's article points out, in that both conversations deal with the issue of consenting adults wanting to get hitched. The reason why I say "soft advocate" is because of all the twisted, abusive stuff that can come out of polygamist unions. I also imagine spousal/survivor benefits would be a bit of a mire to sort out. That said, I still see the merit in allowing polygamy, just as I think there's reason to permit incestuous marriages between consenting adults.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, here's another factor.

In some countries where polygamy IS legal, you can only have more than one spouse IF you have the finances to support all of them.

Think about that.

Ask anyone who is married how expensive it is to support a wife (and possibly kids), even in a two-income family, and then think of how it would be like if he had two wives.

To say this would cause problems would be an understatement.

I once asked someone who was in favor of "personhood" bills, if a fetus has all the rights of a citizen, could a man with a pregnant wife write off his unborn son as a dependent on his tax form? I doubt the IRS would accept that, but there'd be outcry for them to do so if these futile attempts to pass personhood laws succeed.

The IRS would likely have a problem with multiple spouses too. Your spouse is considered your next of kin and in most cases, your default heir. What happens if you're legally married to two people?

See what I mean? A married homosexual couple has none of these problems. Government agencies would just treat them as they would a heterosexual couple.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, here's another factor.

In some countries where polygamy IS legal, you can only have more than one spouse IF you have the finances to support all of them.

Think about that.

Ask anyone who is married how expensive it is to support a wife (and possibly kids), even in a two-income family, and then think of how it would be like if he had two wives.

To say this would cause problems would be an understatement

How a family is able to handle their finances and support whoever is none of our business and is in no way a excuse to not allow someone to wed.

[Katie]

There are quite a few dumb opinions in this thread, but

Blame feminism. Our apologist society has to applaud any women who dare to be different because it 'empowers' them.

Conversely, men who do such things are perverse degenerates poisoning the minds of our children.

:patriot:
Maybe I can't tell sarcasm staring me in the face, but do you seriously believe society's obsessive objectification of "lipstick lesbians" (porn, movies, music, college parties, etc etc) is at all a step in the progress of gender equality? Really? Personal anecdotes skewed because loltexas, but I've personally never seen someone who is against gay mens' rights be for lesbians' rights without the idiotic tagline of "unless both chicks are hot." Surprise - there are normal looking (ugly, fat, old, amputee, whatever) lesbians who'd like some acceptance too.

Edit: I'm all for the legality of polygamy. Consenting adults, closed doors, - who fucking cares. If a polygamist dies and needs their estate split up, you divide it equally. The same way you do if a single parent dies and has multiple children. There are complications to work out, but the right of all people to marry who they love should be worth the effort to figure it out.

[Zak]

Sorry a bit late to this, but:


DC isn't a state and I did not include it in the 10. Read my later post in which I named them all.

I did, that's what I counted.


Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington (also the District of Columbia).

That's still 9... and not counting DC that's 8. Plus Rhode Island is 9, so 41 no?

EDIT: OH, I see, I thought you meant "Washington (AKA District of Columbia)" rather than "Washington state (and also the District of Columbia)". This is one of those instances where the Oxford comma would really help.

[RedStarWarrior]

And the problem with that is? Mind you I am not against Gay Marriage but I cant see why we need to place artificial limits on marriage.

I also (if I am reading your post correctly) have no problem with polygamy IF it is with consenting adults. The problem I've noticed is that a lot of polygamists get involved (or start) cult-like groups and tend to be pedophiles as well. Of course, it could just be that those are the few.

Anyway, I know a few straight couples that have a third partner that is bisexual and lives with them. If polygamy were made legal, they would get married.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

Personal anecdotes skewed because loltexas, but I've personally never seen someone who is against gay mens' rights be for lesbians' rights without the idiotic tagline of "unless both chicks are hot." Surprise - there are normal looking (ugly, fat, old, amputee, whatever) lesbians who'd like some acceptance too.

I don't know if you are arguing with Blade here, rather than me, but let me give my personal own impulsive opinion-like anecdote: I can't stand watching naked men. Hetero porn makes me vomit.

[Lady Vulpix]

I find all kinds of porn disgusting, but I'm all for couples of any gender combination having sex in private. Even in groups if that's what they like, but I think there's more to marriage than just sex.

[Katie]

I don't know if you are arguing with Blade here, rather than me, but let me give my personal own impulsive opinion-like anecdote: I can't stand watching naked men. Hetero porn makes me vomit.

.....this isn't at all relevant to what I was saying. Congrats on hating sweaty man ass, I guess?

[Magmar]

And hooray, Delaware has now entered the 21st century as well! :)

[CaptainJigglypuff]

I don't know if you are arguing with Blade here, rather than me, but let me give my personal own impulsive opinion-like anecdote: I can't stand watching naked men. Hetero porn makes me vomit.

What makes me want to vomit is how no one has a problem with two women kissing and making out in public or in the media but as soon as a guy kisses another guy, he is practically crucified or it is done for humor. Being gay should not be the basis of a joke. I have nothing against lesbians but the absence of men being allowed to kiss without ridicule is hypocritical in my opinion. Also, I'm sick of women being allowed to show every part of their bodies in a mainstream film for however long as the director wants them to be but guys cannot do full frontal unless it is for either shock value or (AGAIN) supposed to be funny and some kind of joke. This doesn't really apply to Europe, just more of the US. And when the guy IS doing full frontal it is either for a split second or filmed at like 200 feet away so you can't see anything and yet in the movie Not Another Teen Movie, the foreign exchange girl was naked the entire time and even had close ups of her body. I am sick of how society allows women to be free with their bodies but not men!

[Lady Vulpix]

What you call being free with their bodies is what I would call being used as sexual objects for horny men. I think that is sexist and abusive, and it saddens me to see that so many women will allow themselves to be degraded like that just for money.

[ChobiChibi]

That's not really the point he is trying to make though. He's not talking about porn, he's talking about people out in the street, simply sharing an intimate moment (a kiss, nothing more). He's talking about movies, not porn, and it's true. Movie directors do make a big thing out of lesbian couples, and do seem to avoid gay men completely.

What's wrong with enjoying the clothes you wear though? Alright, so you would probably wouldn't class my choice of clothing as slutty, but I love short shorts. And I love low cut, tight fitting tops. Should I not wear them in fear of becoming a sexual object? I like to make the most of my tiny tits and my peachy bum because I'm a skinny Minnie, I'm not putting them away.

It's like the whole debate around women and rape and skimpy clothes. But lets not go into that, please...

[Dark Sage]

Not Another Teen Movie was a farce of a genre of movies that are themselves farces. It was meant to poke fun of the genre.

In other words, having the foreign exchange student naked the whole time was kind of the idea. It took a common stereotype found in such movies and took it to absurd proportions.

Pretty much every character in the whole movie was the same. An exaggeration of a sterotype found in a genre that is LOADED with stereoypes.

Understand.

[Lady Vulpix]

Becki: I'm not talking about short shorts (which men can also wear, and I also wear sometimes). I'm talking about the women who show up on TV in minuscule bathing suits while the camera spends most of the time focusing on their butts or boobs, which are nearly always artificial and huge.

[CaptainJigglypuff]

DarkSage, I know Not AnotherTeen Movie was making fun of a genre but I mentioned the one girl only because she is the best example of what I find vomit inducing. Hollywood mainstream movie producers are literally shove naked women down our throats now and yet men are NEVER shown from the front naked UNLESS it supposed to be part of a joke (e.g. Forgetting Sarah Marshall) or for shock value (e.g. The Crying Game.) Even THEN the guy is shown from a far distance. I'm SICK of seeing naked women's breasts ALL the time!

[CaptainJigglypuff]

Becki: I'm not talking about short shorts (which men can also wear, and I also wear sometimes). I'm talking about the women who show up on TV in minuscule bathing suits while the camera spends most of the time focusing on their butts or boobs, which are nearly always artificial and huge.

That's ALSO what I'm disgusted by. And then the camera focuses on those body part SOOOOOOOOO much, they literally take up most of the screen and you can't see anything BUT those parts!

[Oslo]

What makes me want to vomit is how no one has a problem with two women kissing and making out in public or in the media but as soon as a guy kisses another guy, he is practically crucified or it is done for humor. Being gay should not be the basis of a joke. I have nothing against lesbians but the absence of men being allowed to kiss without ridicule is hypocritical in my opinion. Also, I'm sick of women being allowed to show every part of their bodies in a mainstream film for however long as the director wants them to be but guys cannot do full frontal unless it is for either shock value or (AGAIN) supposed to be funny and some kind of joke. This doesn't really apply to Europe, just more of the US. And when the guy IS doing full frontal it is either for a split second or filmed at like 200 feet away so you can't see anything and yet in the movie Not Another Teen Movie, the foreign exchange girl was naked the entire time and even had close ups of her body. I am sick of how society allows women to be free with their bodies but not men!

Your examples don't really show women possessing control over their bodies. They speak to a culture in which female bodies and female intimacy are sexualized, sensationalized and exploited for attention. Not Another Teen Movie was written, produced and directed entirely by men. Where does female freedom enter the picture there?

While depictions of female intimacy are far more common than depictions of male intimacy, queer culture generally favours gay white males (though those portrayals often get seriously fucked up as well). As of GLAAD's latest "Where We Are on TV" report, there are three times as many gay men as lesbians on television. It speaks to a society that is okay watching hawt women hug and kiss and stuff, but what happens when those women get butch cuts and tatted up and put on an extra fifty pounds and move next door and raise kids? Welp, we're not quite so cool with that, either in real life or in the media.

But yeah, I'm okay with more peen getting shown. :yes:

[Dark Sage]

If you thought the movie was bad, you should have seen the DVD-released R-rated version. (Actually, I take that back. Save your money.)

Anyway, you're acting like it was a blockbuster, and it was not. It was moderately well-received by audiences (I think most folks who went to see it were teenage boys) but not by critics. Rotten Tomatoes gave it 28% (making it officially "rotten" on their scale) and their critique was, "NATM has some funny moments, but the movie requires the audience to have familiarity with the movies being spoofed and a tolerance for toilet and sexual humor to be truly effective."

In other words, if you're a fan of bad taste and vulgar humor (and I know there are a lot of folks like that, otherwise shows like Family Guy would never have be successful), sure, it was funny.

Didn't think so myself...

Oh, by the way. The name of the character in question was "Areola". (Yeah, very lame pun, right?)

[Nall]

I'm sorry, but this:

Blame feminism. Our apologist society has to applaud any women who dare to be different because it 'empowers' them.

Conversely, men who do such things are perverse degenerates poisoning the minds of our children.

:patriot:
is completely wrong. It's the straight men who're putting women rubbing all over each other and making out into movies, and it's the men who have declared two men kissing to be icky. Blaming that on feminism is just ignorant. Pretending that women are the ones who control what makes it onto mainstream television or big blockbuster films, and they're the ones telling us how much lipstick lesbians rock, is laughable.

The distinction of "men kissing icky, women kissing hot" is solidly rooted in misogyny. Straight men are the ones who set those definitions, not women.

Speaking of GLAAD, I find it kinda funny that even the queer subculture focuses on the white men, even though they're supposed to be all about the underdogs. The only thing ickier than a gay man is a butch lesbian, one of those slutty bisexuals, or a transgender person, after all. I honestly wonder how many heterosexual people (or hell, even gay people) even know what the B or the T in "LGBT" stand for, let alone any of the other letters they keep tacking on there. Sure, there may be three times as many gay men on TV than lesbians, but can you name even one bisexual person? It doesn't count if they later "come out" as gay or write it off as "experimenting".

For the record I'm in favor of anybody kissing whoever they want, wherever they want, and I'm perfectly comfortable with anyone's naked body showing up on my screen.

Sidenote:

That's ALSO what I'm disgusted by. And then the camera focuses on those body part SOOOOOOOOO much, they literally take up most of the screen and you can't see anything BUT those parts!
Miranda would like a word with you. (http://i.imgur.com/0H0Hz.jpg)

[CaptainJigglypuff]

Sidenote:

Miranda would like a word with you. (http://i.imgur.com/0H0Hz.jpg)

I don't get the pic at all. All I see is the guy....

[Magmar]

I'm sorry, but this:

is completely wrong. It's the straight men who're putting women rubbing all over each other and making out into movies, and it's the men who have declared two men kissing to be icky. Blaming that on feminism is just ignorant. Pretending that women are the ones who control what makes it onto mainstream television or big blockbuster films, and they're the ones telling us how much lipstick lesbians rock, is laughable.

The distinction of "men kissing icky, women kissing hot" is solidly rooted in misogyny. Straight men are the ones who set those definitions, not women.

Speaking of GLAAD, I find it kinda funny that even the queer subculture focuses on the white men, even though they're supposed to be all about the underdogs. The only thing ickier than a gay man is a butch lesbian, one of those slutty bisexuals, or a transgender person, after all. I honestly wonder how many heterosexual people (or hell, even gay people) even know what the B or the T in "LGBT" stand for, let alone any of the other letters they keep tacking on there.

*Raises hand* Many of my friends are pansexual or bisexual, and my biffle is a trans* man. Of all my dear "Senshi" friends (yes we have a clique and yes we call ourselves Senshi for the lulz and the love and beauty attack-u at the gay bars), I think only two are straight. Our dear Moon and Neptune are bisexual, Mercury Venus and Uranus are gay men, Mars is a trans man, Jupiter, Luna and Saturn are pansexual, our Chibi-Moon <3 is an adorable little lesbian, and Pluto, Tuxedo Zach, & Cosmos are straight. Yay! (And OH THE LULZ on the city bus when we've been drinking after a night and start talking about our situation in senshi inuendo. All the lulz.)


Sure, there may be three times as many gay men on TV than lesbians, but can you name even one bisexual person? It doesn't count if they later "come out" as gay or write it off as "experimenting".

I don't watch much TV, but I know that Captain Jack Harkness is openly bisexual and many Doctor Who characters identify as lesbian (like Vastra and Jenny <3 my favorite characters ever on the show!)

Also on DeGrassi, which I do adore, LOL, Imogen Moreno is bisexual and has been in the only stable relationship to span the current series (she dates lesbian Fiona Coyne), but has dated boys as well. Adam Torres in the current series is trans* and the episodes dedicated to him are simply beautiful. That's the only reason I got into the show and still watch it! There's Muslim characters, the beauty queen is a woman of color, and well yeah. Woot for diversity!

Unfortunately, these programs are British and Canadian, and I can't think of one that's American and really gets into these issues. The only American program I watch is RuPaul's Drag Race and, well, yeah, all the gays (and occasionally a trans* woman) :)

~*~*~**~*~*~**~**etc~*~*~*~

WOOT FOR MINNESOTA! Minnesota's House passed Marriage Equality 75 to 51. It's expected to easily pass the Senate, and the Minnesota Governor has promised to sign the bill into law. And then there was 12!

[Dark Sage]

Man, three states in less than thirty days?

Here that sound? That's the sound of Santorum and Bachmann hitting their skulls against the wall as they start to realize why no-one was listening to them.

[RedStarWarrior]

@Magypoo, both of those shows are popular in the US. A good number of hit US shows are now produced in Canada anyway.

Also, I'm straight, but I'd have a threesome with 10 and Jack.

[Mikachu Yukitatsu]

*Raises hand* Many of my friends are pansexual or bisexual, and my biffle is a trans* man. Of all my dear "Senshi" friends (yes we have a clique and yes we call ourselves Senshi for the lulz and the love and beauty attack-u at the gay bars), I think only two are straight. Our dear Moon and Neptune are bisexual, Mercury Venus and Uranus are gay men, Mars is a trans man, Jupiter, Luna and Saturn are pansexual, our Chibi-Moon <3 is an adorable little lesbian, and Pluto, Tuxedo Zach, & Cosmos are straight. Yay! (And OH THE LULZ on the city bus when we've been drinking after a night and start talking about our situation in senshi inuendo. All the lulz.)

Can I join your group as Queen Blind Guardian? (A variant of Queen Metalia)

\m/ (o)m(o) \m/

[Lady Vulpix]

I'm sorry, but this:

is completely wrong. It's the straight men who're putting women rubbing all over each other and making out into movies, and it's the men who have declared two men kissing to be icky. Blaming that on feminism is just ignorant. Pretending that women are the ones who control what makes it onto mainstream television or big blockbuster films, and they're the ones telling us how much lipstick lesbians rock, is laughable.

The distinction of "men kissing icky, women kissing hot" is solidly rooted in misogyny. Straight men are the ones who set those definitions, not women.

Speaking of GLAAD, I find it kinda funny that even the queer subculture focuses on the white men, even though they're supposed to be all about the underdogs. The only thing ickier than a gay man is a butch lesbian, one of those slutty bisexuals, or a transgender person, after all. I honestly wonder how many heterosexual people (or hell, even gay people) even know what the B or the T in "LGBT" stand for, let alone any of the other letters they keep tacking on there. Sure, there may be three times as many gay men on TV than lesbians, but can you name even one bisexual person? It doesn't count if they later "come out" as gay or write it off as "experimenting".

For the record I'm in favor of anybody kissing whoever they want, wherever they want, and I'm perfectly comfortable with anyone's naked body showing up on my screen.

Sidenote:

Miranda would like a word with you. (http://i.imgur.com/0H0Hz.jpg)
I agree with the first 2 paragraphs.

I can name a few bisexual TV characters: 13 from Dr. House, Captain Jack Harkness from Torchwood (and Doctor Who), and just about everyone else who was born in the same area and time period as Jack. And probably the 9th Doctor, although he wasn't completely clear about it.

And if written stories are allowed, read "A Fisherman of the Inland Sea" by Ursula K. Le Guin, and you'll read about a planet where everyone is bisexual.

[Magmar]

Gabi, I love you even more for being so down with British television. <3

I think the Doctor is pansexual, but has generally pursued women in the recent series. Captain Jack is bi, but Ianto and Gwen might be pansexual? Not sure what to make of Ianto and Gwen just yet, I've only seen the first series of Torchwood. (But I love love love Toshiko!)

Edit: Also of note in American media is Josh Whedon, who has always incorporated diversity (in terms of sexual orientation) into his programs (two examples: Buffy the Vampire Slayer; Dollhouse). Dollhouse is probably the single most inclusive program I've watched to date from American television. The whole thing's on Netflix/Amazon Prime; I suggest any sci-fi lovers check it out! Especially if you liked Eliza Dushku in other programs... she really shines in this one.

[Lady Vulpix]

I watched Dollhouse. I didn't like the premise or the ending much, but I agree that her acting was amazing. I'm not sure in which way it was inclusive, though. People could be 'rewired' to have any inclinations or fall in love with anyone (for a while, anyway), but that was imposed and unnatural.

And Magmar, you'd probably love my brother (he's married, though). He visited London during his honeymoon and said that every person he saw there was hot.

[Magmar]

Ah, but everyone in London IS really ridiculously good looking and stylish! At least the downtown part... and especially #TPMUK ;)

[Dark Sage]

I think it kinda depends WHICH Doctor you're talking about, Magmar. Lol.

By the way, I have at least three bisexual friends. Not going to give their names, however.

[CaptainJigglypuff]

Man, three states in less than thirty days?

Here that sound? That's the sound of Santorum and Bachmann hitting their skulls against the wall as they start to realize why no-one was listening to them.

Bachmann yes but Santorum no. I think everyone stopped listening to him after his "rape babies are a wonderful gift from God" statement. The other Senetor who said it (I forgot his name but he represented Illinois) said the same exact thing and lost some election. Let's see what a "wonderful gift from God" a baby concieved after rape is when it happen in his OWN family....

[RedStarWarrior]

@Magmar, how does Gwen come off as anything but straight? Also, you'll hate the last series...

[Dark Sage]

Bachmann yes but Santorum no. I think everyone stopped listening to him after his "rape babies are a wonderful gift from God" statement. The other Senetor who said it (I forgot his name but he represented Illinois) said the same exact thing and lost some election. Let's see what a "wonderful gift from God" a baby concieved after rape is when it happen in his OWN family....

It was TWO Senators, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. Both had to look for new jobs after January.

People won't stand for this anymore.

And by the way, Bachmann pulled another boner today, claiming that both 9/11 and Benghazi were the result of God's wrath, and recommended a national day of prayer and atonement this September 11th.

I swear, when this woman leaves office, she may well do so in a rubber truck.

[Roy Karrde]

Bachmann yes but Santorum no. I think everyone stopped listening to him after his "rape babies are a wonderful gift from God" statement. The other Senetor who said it (I forgot his name but he represented Illinois) said the same exact thing and lost some election. Let's see what a "wonderful gift from God" a baby concieved after rape is when it happen in his OWN family....

I can actually understand what he is coming from. Rape is not a gift from God of course not, but a baby is, and just because the baby was conceived via rape does not make the baby any less wonderful. It just makes the act it was brought about by absolutely despicable.

[Nall]

I love Dollhouse. I watched most of the first season when I got a free trial of Amazon Prime, but I haven't finished it yet. :( I really want to. I didn't really know any of Joss Whedon's stuff before Avengers came out but since then one of my friends who's always been into him has just been throwing his stuff at me and now I can't wait for the new S.H.I.E.L.D. show. I wouldn't describe any of the episodes of Dollhouse I saw as particularly inclusive, but it was very refreshing to see a badass female lead character (I've barely seen any of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, sadly :().

Also, I never said bisexual people don't exist (I'm pansexual), but they are very under-represented in American television and typically get glossed over in any "gay rights" campaign.


I can actually understand what he is coming from. Rape is not a gift from God of course not, but a baby is, and just because the baby was conceived via rape does not make the baby any less wonderful. It just makes the act it was brought about by absolutely despicable.

A baby is not a gift if you don't want one. It then becomes a burden, and that isn't fair to the mother or the child.

[CaptainJigglypuff]

It was TWO Senators, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. Both had to look for new jobs after January.

People won't stand for this anymore.

And by the way, Bachmann pulled another boner today, claiming that both 9/11 and Benghazi were the result of God's wrath, and recommended a national day of prayer and atonement this September 11th.

I swear, when this woman leaves office, she may well do so in a rubber truck.

A couple of things. I forgot that Santorum said that women who become pregnant as a result from rape "should be thankful" for the result. And with Bachmann, she sounds like a female version of Freddy Phelps. Seriously, does she ALSO believe that the American War for Independence was won by singing cowboys wearing suits of metal armor riding on pink and purple dinosaurs?

[Dark Sage]

I can actually understand what he is coming from. Rape is not a gift from God of course not, but a baby is, and just because the baby was conceived via rape does not make the baby any less wonderful. It just makes the act it was brought about by absolutely despicable.

But it might happen to a girl whose body is too young to even handle pregnancy - which is hard for even an adult - and serves as a constant reminder of the horrid attack.

And Roy, I should add that I no longer respect you and several other of my detractors in the least after finding out the things you have been saying behind my back. Please just go away.

[Roy Karrde]

But it might happen to a girl whose body is too young to even handle pregnancy - which is hard for even an adult - and serves as a constant reminder of the horrid attack.

Again the attack is horrible, but is anyone honestly going to look at a baby, or kid that was born from a rape victim and say "Oh yeah, your friends may be gifts from God because they werent born from rape, but your not."


And Roy, I should add that I no longer respect you and several other of my detractors in the least after finding out the things you have been saying behind my back. Please just go away.

It's Mt Moon man.

[RedStarWarrior]

If the girl is too young, then she'd have an abortion because even those politicians believe in it when the life of the woman is in question.

DS, you don't understand what Mt. Moon is all about. We bitch about everyone (I'm especially hard on blademaster) and that's perfectly acceptable in that forum. This thread isn't really the place to talk about these things, though.

[Dark Sage]

It's Mt Moon man.

So a hate thread that's started to insult me is right because it's on your exclusive members-only club that I'm not invited to?? That makes it WORSE!

I was abhorred that this is even permitted, much less accepted. I do NOT buy the garbage about it "not being personal". To me, it IS. It hurt me. Hurt me deeply to see two whole threads started just to insult me.

I lost all respect for you I had left when I saw it, Roy. And the same goes for Heald and Blade.

And by the way... I only wish you knew what pregnancy was like so you could feel what having it forced upon you is like. In fact, I wish EVERY man who opposes abortion knew.

OR knew what it was like to face their attacker in court when he demands visitation rights, which they have the right to do in some states (mostly red states). As if the trial for the crime isn't bad enough.

[CaptainJigglypuff]

So a hate thread that's started to insult me is right because it's on your exclusive members-only club that I'm not invited to?? That makes it WORSE!

I was abhorred that this is even permitted, much less accepted. I do NOT buy the garbage about it "not being personal". To me, it IS. It hurt me. Hurt me deeply to see two whole threads started just to insult me.

I lost all respect for you I had left when I saw it, Roy. And the same goes for Heald and Blade.

And by the way... I only wish you knew what pregnancy was like so you could feel what having it forced upon you is like. In fact, I wish EVERY man who opposes abortion knew.

OR knew what it was like to face their attacker in court when he demands visitation rights, which they have the right to do in some states (mostly red states). As if the trial for the crime isn't bad enough.
Um I do not mean to be offensive but I think this topic has become drastically off topic and has taken a turn for the worse. I am not taking anyone's side here but this REALLY isn't the place to discuss issues with other members. I'm starting to feel uncomfortable now and I believe that others feel the same way.

[Dark Sage]

Well, I can't discuss it anywhere else, Jig.

I don't have the right to post there, and no mods will listen to me.

I'm very, very hurt. I actually cried when I saw it. I never saw so much effort go into people insulting me. You may all think it's fun and games, but I thought it was sadistic.

[Gavin Luper]

Well, I can't discuss it anywhere else, Jig.

I don't have the right to post there, and no mods will listen to me.

I'm very, very hurt. I actually cried when I saw it. I never saw so much effort go into people insulting me. You may all think it's fun and games, but I thought it was sadistic.

Dark Sage, I'm genuinely sorry that you were upset by what you read. I do not like bullying behaviour either.

However, you need to realise that Mt Moon is exempt from the usual TPM rules. Please read Gabi's announcement in Mt Moon to better understand this.

There is no "exclusive" club. You just need to apply to the forum mods and they can give you posting privileges. You can then post to defend yourself, and write similar diatribes against other members. I don't really like things getting personal in Mt Moon but at the same time, it is a double edged sword and you can do the same thing back.

In any case, the appropriate place to resolve this is in Mt Moon or via PM to the relevant parties. Post about it here again and you can expect an infraction.

[Magmar]

Gavin, I... Thank you

The Minnesota Senate takes up marriage equality on Monday. I'm pretty excited for the Minnesotans who have fought so long for equality! Hooray, Minnesota! It's so exciting to watch this map start to turn more blue:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

*even though Rhode Island and Delaware (tl;dr of whole thread: recently legalized marriage equality) are really specks on the map! Ha! We're still people though with our own state identity and it's a big deal to us.

---------

Dark Sage, I'm sorry you're feeling hurt by what's going on in mount moon. I assure you it's just a domain of randomness there, and some posters behave snidely and sarcastically towards everyone. I really think you should take up your issues in an inquisitive way. Ask questions--why are you being attacked? Did you have anything to do with it? Is it a problem with the other person(s)? Ask questions and reach out to someone who seems reasonable and you should get answers.

I know if I weren't allowed to view a thread where other members of the community were (perceived as) insulting me, I'd be offended as well. But I'm also a Cancer and we Cancers get offended easily anyway (at least that's my excuse).

----------

I view Dollhouse as inclusive because not only of the diverse main cast, but because they touch on issues like disability as well. Sierra's story late in the second series brought me to tears, which is something television/movies so rarely do. I could really relate to Sierra, having a mother with the same issues she does--paranoid schizophrenia. Victor lives with PTSD, which I have from child abuse and I can understand why he wanted to erase his memory to avoid triggers throughout life. Echo was a vegan social activist before she became a doll. November is fuller-figured than most women in Hollywood, and is never portrayed as anything but stunningly beautiful. Those dimensions of diversity, which are rarely reflected in protagonist characters as anything but weaknesses, are added as layers to strong and powerful characters. That's where my reflection of the program as "more inclusive" comes from.

[RedStarWarrior]

@Magmar, the light blue and red striped states hurt my eyes.

Even though Rhode Island is a smaller state, it gets equal say in the Senate!

I think that the National Cathedral being willing to marry gay couples was also a win, but it wasn't as heavily covered when it happened.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/13/national-cathedrals-same-sex-marriage-decision-ren/?page=all

It's an interesting read.

[Dark Sage]

Even though Rhode Island is a smaller state, it gets equal say in the Senate!

Yes, that's the exact reason we have two houses of Congress.

See, the small states outnumber the big ones, but big states have bigger populations.

With the House of Representatives have a state's influence determined by its size, but the Senate giving each state an equal number, the large states can never dominate the small ones on any issue they'd disagree with (or vice-versa), and believe me, that is often a big concern.

[RedStarWarrior]

I'm well aware of the overall structure of Congress. I did go to school and actually paid attention.

I only said that in response to Magmar's statement about the state's size.

Your condescending syntax could be a reason that people have issues with you, DS.

[ChobiChibi]

Ah, but everyone in London IS really ridiculously good looking and stylish! At least the downtown part... and especially #TPMUK ;)

Yeah we are! Especially my sheep PJs... Fuck yeah!

I'd like to go back to the topic of sexuality if I may, since I was too busy finishing assessments to contribute. I'm bisexual (yes, those flirtations with my fellow RPG mod are real, and no, you cannot watch), but have never had the chance to... Explore this. I'm clearly stuck in the bi-closet, since not many of my rl friends know about it (not even my ex (still feels weird using that word)), but maybe I will get the chance to now.

I don't see, though, how someone can truly be republican, yet claim to support their LGBT friends... It just doesn't sit well with me.

Anyway, back to the most important thing... BARRY. You should have brought a hard drive with you when I saw you. I've got series 1-3 of Torchwood, I could have given you D: And yeah, don't even bother with series 4 (Miracle Day). BBC America took it over and ruined it :(

Are any of you fellows across the pond up to date with the current series of Doctor Who? I <3 Clara.

[Lady Vulpix]

Are any of you fellows across the pond up to date with the current series of Doctor Who? I <3 Clara.
I greatly dislike Clara. :( I don't find her character believable at all.

[RedStarWarrior]

She's too perfect of a companion, yes.

I'm waiting to see why, though. She's too perfect for a reason, in my opinion.

[kainashi]

She's too perfect of a companion, yes.

I'm waiting to see why, though. She's too perfect for a reason, in my opinion.we're supposed to find out next week. :D

[Magmar]

Other than the current episode from yesterday, I'm all caught up... I'm not loving Clara. She's kind of uninteresting thus far to me. I LOVED Doctor Donna :) she's my gurl

[ChobiChibi]

You'll love yesterday's episode, Matt Smith did such a good job. It was... Interesting :D

[Roy Karrde]

I don't see, though, how someone can truly be republican, yet claim to support their LGBT friends... It just doesn't sit well with me.


Being a Republican does not mean being absolutely dogmatic in your belief of the party line. There are many Republicans who like myself are very socially liberal.

[Dark Sage]

I don't see, though, how someone can truly be republican, yet claim to support their LGBT friends... It just doesn't sit well with me.

Ever hear of the Log Cabin Republicans?

Of course... I really don't understand them much at all myself...

[Roy Karrde]

Ever hear of the Log Cabin Republicans?

Of course... I really don't understand them much at all myself...

Simple, they refuse to allow their sexuality define their political beliefs completely. They may agree with 95% of the Republican party, so why let that 5% define which party they join?

[Dark Sage]

To be honest Roy, I don't understand most Republican voters in general.

But ones who support a party that is trying to limit their rights...

Well, uhm... Know what a "Boomerang Bigot" is? It's someone who speaks out against or hates a race or ethnic group that he himself is a member of. (Like, say, Uncle Rufus in The Boondocks.)

Such people are usually only found in fiction, and portrayed negatively, but if you encounter a real one... Be afraid.

In fact, here's one example of a real one - also a member of the a GOP group - that's downright shocking:

http://samuel-warde.com/2013/04/mississippi-tea-party-president-janice-lane-country-would-be-better-off-if-only-men-voted/

[RedStarWarrior]

I've always been pro-gay rights. I've voted Republican and I've voted Democrat. The only reason I've been leaning more Democrat (I'm personally Libertarian) is because the Republican Party has decided to make the idea that gay marriage is wrong one of their main points. Sure, it's been a part of the platform, but it wasn't on the highlight reel, so to speak, when I voted for Bush. I still vote Republican in local and state elections when the individual doesn't have the stance as a key part of their campaign.

I'm probably more like Roy, socially liberal.

[Magmar]

Fiscal conservatism + social liberalism = moderate, in general. I'm definitely a liberal, but have always felt comfortable debating the conservative perspective on fiscal policy.

In Rhode Island, all 5 Republican state senators voted in favor of marriage equality. The 12 nays were Democrats!

[Oslo]

oh hey there deja-vu heyyy


Yes they do. They show women possessing complete control over their bodies. They have chosen to appear in a film of their own free will: they alone make that decision. Just because it's a decision you don't approve of, doesn't mean they aren't free to make it.

My point is that the nude scene resulted from male writers saying "I want to write a female nude scene" and the male director saying "I want to direct a female nude scene" and male producers saying "there's definitely a bankable male audience for our female nude scene" and the male-owned studio believing that all of the above can result in a profitable movie. Yes, the actress chose to take part (and I certainly don't disapprove of that choice), but the processes that led to that nude scene were predominately male-determined. That's where the control is centred.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the same movie we're talking about has Chris Evans at some point wearing nothing but whipped cream and fruit, right? And the lead character is female, which is unique for this kind of film. And I'm pretty sure in its own stupid way, with some tasteless exceptions, it was actually kind of a funny movie. (It's been a few years.) So I don't intend to call out the movie as a bastion of all things anti-feminist, because it's really not. My point is that a female nude scene in this sort of context arises from male interests/the male gaze far more than the choice of the individual consenting actress.


What's wrong with sexualising female bodies? It is normal human sexuality. Why do you have a problem with female bodies being sensationalised but you are all for "more peen getting shown"?

Nothing is wrong with sexualizing female bodies, but only when male bodies are proportionately sexualized as well. Great strides toward a better sense of balance have been made even in the last decade, but we're still not there. CaptainJigglypuff's example of male genitals being used for shock/humour is quite spot-on. There are many others. We'll get there, though.


What is wrong with a film being written, produced and directed entirely by men? Why, it actually makes perfect sense for men to make a film that is targeted to teenage boys and young men! And in what possible way could men simply making a film preclude female actors, or even females in general, from possessing freedom?

Nothing is wrong with a film being written/produced/directed entirely by men. Some of my favourites are. My point is that it's ineffective to use a film written/produced/directed entirely by men as a shining example of female agency and control.


What is wrong with gay white males? If there is a subculture of people calling themselves “queer” (the most masochistic, self-loathing name for a group ever), and they are made up of all kinds of people who are interested in seeing something other than gay white males, what is stopping them from making these portrayals themselves?

Nothing is wrong with gay white males. (I am a gay white male and would never change that for anything.) What's wrong is the fact that this one group pulls disproportionate focus in queer culture. Ideally, all directors/writers/whatever should work toward inclusivity in whatever representations they put forward. It sometimes does happen but the GLAAD report indicates further work to be done.


What makes you assume that “lesbian” means butch women with tattoos and weight problems? Also, GLAAD cannot be taken seriously: they act like a cult where homosexuals are expected to act, think and believe in line with GLAAD’s leftist feminist politics. Homos who actually think for themselves/challenge that party line are slammed and essentially excommunicated (see: Bret Easton Ellis).

There are a lot of ways to perform lesbian identity. However, lesbian portrayals coded with traditional notions of femininity are by far the most common in works targeting mainstream culture. The "butch" subculture, which destabilizes these norms, doesn't curry much favour. And I'm not pretending everything GLAAD touches turns to gold—their criticisms can miss the mark and their hero-worshipping of Dan Savage is disappointing, given his history of transphobic and ableist remarks—but I'd rather think critically and discerningly about their work than slap a "cannot be taken seriously" label on everything they do. The report gives examples with sensible analysis so I believe it.

[RedStarWarrior]

Fuck yeah, Minnesota! 3rd state to legalize in less than 2 weeks.

[Dark Sage]

This kind of means that the GOP's goal of a Constititutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is sunk. Literally.

An Amendment needs ratification by at least 38 state legilatures before it is approved. As of right now, there are at least 12 that will clearly refuse to do so, leaving exactly 38 that might.

And there are others where it is highly unlikely, such as New Jersey. They would have legalized gay marriage twice if Christie hadn't vetoed it, and trying very hard to gain the votes to overide his veto the next time.

So I'd say that the Republicans can pretty much throw this one away.

[Magmar]

Fuck yeah, Minnesota!

That's exactly what I tweeted :) huzzah Minnesota! Who's next? Illinois? Oregon? It could even be California, pending Supreme Court action in the coming weeks.

[Katie]

I can actually understand what he is coming from. Rape is not a gift from God of course not, but a baby is, and just because the baby was conceived via rape does not make the baby any less wonderful. It just makes the act it was brought about by absolutely despicable.

....is no one else disgusted by this attitude?

[Blademaster]

What's there to be disgusted by? It's simple logic.

Rape = bad.
Baby = good.

[Katie]

It's flawed logic, assuming all women (people?) would welcome an unplanned rape-reminder baby with open arms, potentially destroying all goals, plans, relationships, health, and finances in the process. "Gift" indeed.

[Heald]

I present a new tactic for the pro-choice movement.

The pro-choice movement receives letters of support from women who wish to have abortions so they have a comprehensive and constantly updated list of women who wish to abort their pregnancies.

As the pro-life movement/Republicans feel violent rape is an acceptable price to pay for a pregnancy not to be aborted, then the pro-choice movement should offer a bargain. They will actively dissuade women seeking abortion services from getting an abortion - if they succeed in dissuading one woman from getting an abortion, then one prominent pro-lifer or Republican politician that is pro-life gets violently raped/sodomised by a convicted violent sex offender. So for every abortion that is averted, one member of the pro-life movement must be violently raped to pay for the pro-choice movement's help in helping to stop abortions.

If the Republicans and Pro-Life movement do not agree to this compromise, then clearly they do not actually believe that violent rape is an acceptable price to pay for the birth of a new child, and therefore their entire stance is based on misogynistic rhetoric and hatred against women.

edit - obviously this is a satirical suggestion where I have taken the pro-life argument that pregnancy via violent rape is a gift from Jesus to its logical extreme - after all, it doesn't have to be the violent rape of the mother forced to give birth that is the price of the gift, it could be the violent rape of ANYONE, including prominent Republican Senators.

[Dark Sage]

It's flawed logic, assuming all women (people?) would welcome an unplanned rape-reminder baby with open arms, potentially destroying all goals, plans, relationships, health, and finances in the process. "Gift" indeed.

THANK you, Katie. That is exactly the point I try to make that the pro-life people don't get.

Edit: Oh, and Heald? I understand you were trying to make a satire there, but it was really in VERY poor taste.

[Roy Karrde]

It's flawed logic, assuming all women (people?) would welcome an unplanned rape-reminder baby with open arms, potentially destroying all goals, plans, relationships, health, and finances in the process. "Gift" indeed.

So lets say they carry the baby to term, and are forced to raise it, they are going to then shun and hurt the child either mentally or physically? That really makes them no better than the rapist, taking advantage of a innocent person that has no ability to really fight back.

By the way I am curious if we were to go to a child from a rape victim, who has been raised and loved, would the child agree they were not a gift from God? Would they consider themselves a horrible burden that has destroyed their mothers goals, plans, health, and finances? Would you be willing to tell a child those things?

[Katie]

So lets say they carry the baby to term,
Okay, so we're not talking about the right to abortion anymore


and are forced to raise it
is anyone calling for rape-impregnated women to be ineligible to put their kid up for adoption?


they are going to then shun and hurt the child either mentally or physically? That really makes them no better than the rapist, taking advantage of a innocent person that has no ability to really fight back.
True, but this is now an issue of child abuse rather than the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy before she gives birth. This is an issue that should be taken up with CPS, not part of an abortion platform and is not really relevant to the topic.


By the way I am curious if we were to go to a child from a rape victim, who has been raised and loved, would the child agree they were not a gift from God? Would they consider themselves a horrible burden that has destroyed their mothers goals, plans, health, and finances? Would you be willing to tell a child those things?
"Gift" is in the eye of the receiver. If the woman chooses to keep the kid and love it, absolutely. ("from God" depending on her personal views). What is absurd to me is assuming that all rape babies should be viewed as gifts.

I am not saying all rape victims should have abortions (why else would you bring up a raised and loved child unless you thought I was suggesting that?). I am saying they should have the choice to abort, adopt, or keep. You are saying they should have to keep, only. I would amend that to include adopt, but if it were such a blessed gift why would you ever give it away!!

[Roy Karrde]

Okay, so we're not talking about the right to abortion anymore

We can but it does not fit in this scenario as to if the child is a gift or not. Unless you want to consider a embryo a child.


is anyone calling for rape-impregnated women to be ineligible to put their kid up for adoption?

Again does not fit the scenario we are talking about how the mom would perceive the child. If it was adopted away there would be no perception of the child as a gift or not.


True, but this is now an issue of child abuse rather than the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy before she gives birth. This is an issue that should be taken up with CPS, not part of an abortion platform and is not really relevant to the topic.

Again I am speaking of how a woman would view a child, if they believe that the child is a gift from God or not, unless you want to say every embryo is a child you can, but then that opens up a whole different can of worms. Right now I am sticking with the woman being able to hold the child in her arms and look at it and say if it is a gift or not.


"Gift" is in the eye of the receiver. If the woman chooses to keep the kid and love it, absolutely. ("from God" depending on her personal views). What is absurd to me is assuming that all rape babies should be viewed as gifts.

Well we either view all human life as gifts or not.


I am not saying all rape victims should have abortions (why else would you bring up a raised and loved child unless you thought I was suggesting that?). I am saying they should have the choice to abort, adopt, or keep. You are saying they should have to keep, only. I would amend that to include adopt, but if it were such a blessed gift why would you ever give it away!!

People can give away gifts if they think it will go to a better household, as happens with animals all the time by people who receive gifts and move on. By the way I never said they should be forced to keep, merely trying to explain if a woman would perceive a child she was forced to raise as a gift or not.

[Heald]

Edit: Oh, and Heald? I understand you were trying to make a satire there, but it was really in VERY poor taste.
Thank you, that was precisely the point i.e. to present a hideous opinion that is logically consistent with a viewpoint that is also equally hideous, just not as overtly so.

But I'm not surprised it went over your head, there were plenty of people who didn't understand what Swift was trying to do either.

[RedStarWarrior]

If the satire doesn't sound reprehensible, then it isn't a satire.

Anyway, I get what Roy is trying to say. The child itself is a blessing if the mother chooses to actually keep it. The rape will never be acceptable. I don't think he's saying that rape victims have to carry in intended pregnancies to term, just that the baby itself shouldn't be ostracized.

[Blademaster]

It's flawed logic, assuming all women (people?) would welcome an unplanned rape-reminder baby with open arms, potentially destroying all goals, plans, relationships, health, and finances in the process. "Gift" indeed.

Or, if it's that big of an issue, the baby could be aborted.

Or maybe the state/government could take the little bugger. People do like to adopt babies now and then. Woman doesn't want baby? Give it to people who want baby. No more reminder for the mother and nobody has to die/be saddled with a kid they don't want. Everyone wins.

[Dark Sage]

But I'm not surprised it went over your head, there were plenty of people who didn't understand what Swift was trying to do either.

Actually, I thought Swift was a pretty sorry excuse for a satire too. (And this is an English major you're talking to.)

I mean, seriously, when you look at Gulliver's Travels, the Houyhnhnms were NOT the utopian society that Gulliver seems to think they are in the book. I mean, think about it for a minute. Swift's portrayal of this so-called utopian society is actually pretty bleak and unpleasant if you look closely; individuals do only what they need to survive, with strict and dull diets, engage in sex only so far as is necessary to preserve the species, appear to exhibit zero attachment to their own children (any extras are given to smaller or infertile families without a thought), lack of empathy towards other creatures (see their proposals to exterminate Yahoos and rejection of Gulliver for his resemblance to them; sounds like outright bigotry to me) and lack of any language besides what is required to exchange information (meaning while while there are no lies there is also no creativity or imagination). It can essentially be seen a passionless and cold existence so we should not take this the book at face value and assume Swift actually believes the stuff he is writing here.

And RSW, you're onyl proving our point. It should be up to the woman. Outlawing abortion will not solve anything.

People claim that monsters like Kermit Gosnell would have been kept in check if abortion had been outlawed. If anything, he is a frightening example of what would happen MUCH more often if it WAS outlawed, and unprofessional quacks like him did the proceedure illegally to women who wanted it done.

[RedStarWarrior]

I'm pro-choice, DS. Maybe I should be pro-death. Everybody aborts!

Also, I like Swift and my degree was in English (not that area of study gives greater weight to what essentially is an opinion).

So, anyway, back to this gay marriage thing. Magmar, when you getting hitched?

[Magmar]

My man's birthday is today :) yay

oh and on the shine aqua abortion topic, I'm going to copy-paste excerpts from an article here to really make ya'll think. this one's for you Katie, I spent a half hour this morning trying to track this down <3


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/zygotes-lost-with-birth-control-v-without-birth-control.html

Zygotes Lost With Birth Control v. Without Birth Control

Let me preface this with a quick biology lesson. Every month, a woman’s body releases an egg. If there is sperm there waiting, the egg becomes fertilized. This is when I was taught life – including personhood and the bestowing of a soul – began. This fertilized egg, or zygote, then travels into the uterus, where it implants in the uterine wall. That is when pregnancy begins. The birth control pill works primarily by preventing ovulation in the first place, and also by impeding sperm so that it can’t get to to an egg to fertilize it. But leading organizations in the pro-life movement argue that there is some chance that women on the pill will have “breakthrough ovulation,” and if this occurs and sperm somehow make their way to the egg, you could technically end up with a fertilized egg. They further suggest that because the pill also thins the uterine lining, this fertilized egg would be flushed out of a woman’s body rather than implanting in her uterus.

The pro-life movement is divided between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics oppose birth control for religious reasons, but the Protestants in the movement who take issue with birth control generally do so because, based on the information detailed above, they believe that it is an “abortifacient.” In other words, they believe that the pill causes abortions.

So, with that background, Sarah’s numbers were as follows:

Without Birth Control:

Out of 100 fertile women without birth control, 100 of them will ovulate in any given month.
Out of those 100 released eggs, 33 will become fertilized.
Out of those 33, 18% will be rejected by the uterus.
In a group of 100 women not on birth control: 6 zygotes will “die”

With Birth Control:

Out of 100 fertile women on birth control, around 6 of them will ovulate in any given month.
Out of those 6 released eggs, only 2 will become fertilized.
Out of those 2, 100% will be rejected by the uterus.
In a group of 100 women on birth control: 2 zygotes will “die”

As a natural protective mechanism, the uterus tends to reject fertilized eggs that take too long to adhere to the lining because they may be less fit, the researchers say. On day 11, more than 50 percent of pregnancies fail and on day 12, that number jumps to over 80 percent. (Source)

Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time. (Source)

In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman’s missed menses.

-----------------

Yay my gay topic is flaming! ;) http://www.pokemasters.net/forums/images/statusicon/tpm/thread_hot.gif

[Heald]

incoherent drivel
I think it was rather obvious that I was referring to A Modest Proposal in comparison to my satirical suggestion (comparable in theme only, I do not intend to suggest it is of equal quality to Swift) but since you don't appear to be aware of this particular essay then I won't bother trying to drive the point home.

To be honest, not sure how this topic went from gay marriage to abortion rights so I'm putting the kibosh on any further discussion about abortion in this thread.

I don't have particularly much to add, I just hope that in a generation's time, those that opposed gay marriage will be looked upon much like those who opposed cross-racial marriage, and that things that actually impact life at a much greater level will take up anywhere near as much time as this has been
Argued for.

[Dark Sage]

I don't have particularly much to add, I just hope that in a generation's time, those that opposed gay marriage will be looked upon much like those who opposed cross-racial marriage, and that things that actually impact life at a much greater level will take up anywhere near as much time as this has been
Argued for.

Well what do you know? For once we agree on something.

[Lady Vulpix]

Same here. Anyway, why has this turned into a discussion about abortion?

I don't think anyone believes that rape is a reasonable price to pay for a new life. I think the argument begins once the rape has happened. That can't be taken back no matter what, and now a new life is in progress (spontaneous abortion does not factor in the discussion, no one considers that murder just like no one considers death by illness or accident to be murder). The question is: once rape has already happened and the embryo/fetus is there, with a beating heart and developing normally, what do you do?

Rape is horrible and definitely condemnable, and the woman has already suffered enough and shouldn't have to continue paying for something that was not her fault. But it's not her child's fault either. So, as you see, the solution isn't simple. No matter what you do, an innocent pays the price.

[Heald]

Apologies if there was a language barrier when I said I was putting the kibosh on discussions of abortion, what I was trying to say was this is a thread about gay marriage, not abortion and so such off-topic discussions should be stopped. I would create another thread but there have been about 4 previous discussions on the various moral obstacles of abortion and none of them have been particularly pretty to bear.

[Lady Vulpix]

Oh, sorry, I should have looked up the word "kibosh". -.- Well, I've learnt something new now.

As for gay marriage, at least it looks like everyone here agrees on that point. Which is a lot to say, considering it's hard for all of us to agree on anything.

[Magmar]

Yes, no more rape/abortion, that can have its own topic unless anyone wants to argue it in the context of marriage equality.

But this thread should go on because we're about to find out what's going to happen to the bans on marriage equality in those 29 states that have them!

[RedStarWarrior]

Maybe. The decision of the Supreme Court would just open up the possibility for action to be take against similar laws. It doesn't negate them immediately.

[MToolen]

Hey look, my state may become #13. Illinois' House has the vote scheduled for today, assuming they actually call the vote.

I've been mum on this issue for a while, because it's a complicated issue. So here goes. I believe in the government's duty to treat all people equally. To me, that means that united couples of any gender should be entitled to any benefits, including custody and power of attorney and all that. I believe in a complete separation of church and state (a freedom from religion), so that religious beliefs shouldn't sway the government's aforementioned duty. Finally, I believe in a freedom of religion, that clergy should be allowed to refrain from conducting services if it is against their system of beliefs. I find no problem with this because those beliefs evolve as a greater understanding of their religion is attained.

My solution, therefore, would be to have two separate actions, one religious and one secular, offered separately with different consequences attached to each. The state could offer unions to legally bind two people into one entity in the same way that a religious wedding would bind the two together spiritually. Is this plan likely to take effect? Not a chance. But if you truly wanted separation of church and state, that's how I would go about it.

[CaptainJigglypuff]

I'm glad that Michelle Bachman is leaving politics. She truly was not a very nice person when it came to equal rights and gay marriage. Bachman's ego seemed pretty big as well. The only thing bigger than her ego was Rick Perry's which is the size of Jupiter. I saw the video she posted on her website on the news and I think even though she did not say why she was leaving, I think it's pretty clear. She knows she can't push for the constitutional ban on gay marriage because of how many states legalized it and that is all she really had going on for her.

[Roy Karrde]

I'm glad that Michelle Bachman is leaving politics. She truly was not a very nice person when it came to equal rights and gay marriage. Bachman's ego seemed pretty big as well. The only thing bigger than her ego was Rick Perry's which is the size of Jupiter. I saw the video she posted on her website on the news and I think even though she did not say why she was leaving, I think it's pretty clear. She knows she can't push for the constitutional ban on gay marriage because of how many states legalized it and that is all she really had going on for her.

We may not see the last of her, she may be going for a Senatorial run x.x

[Magmar]

T_______T go away Michelle Bachmann pleeeease! (I think we can all agree, regardless of our political views, that she's nuts.)

[CaptainJigglypuff]

Bachman said she was leaving politics.

[Magmar]

BAM!

Sashay Away, DOMA. Sashay the f*** away!

Yay yay yay <3

[Heald]

Congrats Barry (and also everyone else in the USA who was a victim of DOMA). Call me maybe? x

[Magmar]

As the Supreme Court has declined to rule on Proposition 8, the ruling of lower courts is now upheld, and California has marriage equality again.

Also, Wendy Baker, I effing love you for what you've done for the rights of women in Texas.

HA! Proud to be pissing in your cheerios today, you crazy social (read: SOCIAL) conservatives.

[Mewfour]

Too bad the SCOTUS ruling doesn't outright strike down existing bans on same sex marriage per state, but at least it's something.

Congratulations, America. You've taken your first baby steps into the 21st century.

[Heald]

Until America stops having a major network that is promoting turning the USA into effectively a theocracy then it will remain in the 11th century, let alone the 21st.

[Gavin Luper]

BAM!

Sashay Away, DOMA. Sashay the f*** away!

Yay yay yay <3

This is great news for all of you in the US, congrats!

Hopefully we get more traction on this now, both within the US and worldwide.

[Magmar]

Congratulations to all the UK-based TPMers who now can marry the person of their choice, provided they're an adult and not a sibling (unless they're in Norfolk) <333333

God(dess)(es) save the Queen!

[Heald]

It's great and all, but it's largely semantics: same sex unions were already recognised in law under the legal and tax/welfare system, this bill may seem symbolic and it is actually a pretty major milestone from a social perspective but all the practical and tangible benefits of marriage have been available to same sex couples for several years now.