Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       06-26-2015, 8:33 AM Reply   
'bout time. That is all.
Old     (King12)      Join Date: Jul 2012       06-26-2015, 8:39 AM Reply   
Oh there's that can of worms I was looking around WW for lol
Old     (john211)      Join Date: Aug 2008       06-26-2015, 10:29 AM Reply   
While this has not been an issue which particularly fanned my interest (or angst), I'm glad for a former part-time employee of mine.

Regarding my full-time employee of over 11 years, she attends a Baptist church which only reads the King James version of the Bible. When we were interviewing for a part-time graphic artist position, it was clear after a series of interviews with other people that one young woman (A) was the person for the job.

At the end of the interview, A asked me if I objected to her posting on blogs during her off-hours ... like would I worry about the reflection of that activity back on me. I abruptly said, "Heck no girl, you wouldn't believe the time I waste on a boat-owning forum." So she pulled up a web-site to show me one she posts on. I wasn't showing any interest at first. It was a site where people were debating politics, and there were no cool pics of boats or G-like projects. So she swishes the mouse to move the cursor on the screen to get my attention. And I got it. It was LGBT site. Well ... in my mind, A had the job before she showed me that ... so now that I was given notice about her orientation, I respected her courage and forthrightness for doing this in an interview. A was hired. (And I always used more polite language than "girl" ever after.)

It was good experience for both my full-time employee and A. Her work output was good for me. A stayed on for 4 years before the work dried up. I was asked to (and did) find some legal referrals for her partner. As an aside, in college, A had been a scholarship basketball player at an all-women's college. And when she got married, she took on her partner's last name. !?!?!?
Old    bigdtx            06-26-2015, 11:16 AM Reply   
Great! Can all the bible beaters and other religious and otherwise crazy bigots now please just shut up and go away? That's a fantasy I know. Here's a news flash, there are exactly zero more gay people now than there ever were. They just have to put up with less abuse and discrimination than they did in the past.

I'm not gay but I don't care if you are - live your life - you only get one and it's over a lot quicker than you might think.
Old     (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-26-2015, 12:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Great! Can all the bible beaters and other religious and otherwise crazy bigots now please just shut up and go away?
Amen.

Great step forward for this country, congrats to anyone who can now finally marry the person they love. Two of my buddies are having their ceremony this fall... Its crazy it has taken this long for them to be able to actually get the rights they deserve. A few years back, one of the two guys was in a pretty serious car wreck, and his partner (of like 8 years at the time) wasn't allowed in the hospital room.

... it will be interesting to see how quickly straight marriages stop meaning anything and fall apart now that "the sanctity of marriage" has been wrecked. /s
Old     (john211)      Join Date: Aug 2008       06-26-2015, 1:10 PM Reply   
When I said, "And I got it," I did, but slowly. There was a long pause while I reasoning things through, and A was studying my squinting expression the whole time. First, I had to figure out that, if all the threads are LGBT in nature, then it's an LGBT site. Second, it dawned on me that A wanted to show me she was an active member of this online community, therefore her interests are as keen about this matter as my interests are as keen about boating.

Then, I figured out that this was sort of a test for me. Was her orientation going to be a problem for me? She'd rather know now, at the interview. Was I a bigot and was her orientation going to be a problem for me?

I was stunned that she wanted this information to come out at the end of successful interview. But finally I figured, no time was better than right at the beginning. And I instantly respected her courage, her tact, and her decision to test for bigotry right at the beginning.

So after making dumb faces at the computer for how many unknown awkward minutes (my full time employee was oblivious, I had to fill her in afterwards), I finally came out of my stupor, put on good face, smiled and said "You're hired."
Old     (King12)      Join Date: Jul 2012       06-26-2015, 1:40 PM Reply   
That's a pretty awesome experience, and really impressive of her to do. Neat way to either impress your future employer or understand early that you wouldn't work in that position.
Old     (TerryR)      Join Date: Aug 2010       06-26-2015, 3:24 PM Reply   
The arguement isn't going away. According to Judge Scalia, "The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”
As long as there are constitutional scholars the debate will continue.
Old     (wakesk8er2)      Join Date: Mar 2002       06-26-2015, 4:17 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidekicknicholas View Post
congrats to anyone who can now finally marry the person they love. /s
Kissing cousins everywhere rejoice!
Old    bigdtx            06-26-2015, 4:55 PM Reply   
> Kissing cousins everywhere rejoice!

They were never part of the law but you're welcome... I guess...
Old     (wakesk8er2)      Join Date: Mar 2002       06-26-2015, 6:58 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdtx View Post

They were never part of the law but you're welcome... I guess...
You act like this would be an odd situation?
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       06-27-2015, 1:19 AM Reply   
poor huck
Attached Images
 
Old    bigdtx            06-27-2015, 3:18 AM Reply   
HAHAHA! TIL Jesus is on Twitter...
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       06-27-2015, 6:48 AM Reply   
First to marry in Dallas. 85 and 82 years old, been together 54 years.
Attached Images
 
Old     (BigJohnsonUT)      Join Date: Apr 2014       06-27-2015, 3:33 PM Reply   
This is an 100% Honest question: does this mean that Mormons can now bring back polygamy? I can marry whatever I want, can I also marry how many of them that I want?? Love is love
Old     (wakesk8er2)      Join Date: Mar 2002       06-27-2015, 6:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJohnsonUT View Post
This is an 100% Honest question: does this mean that Mormons can now bring back polygamy? I can marry whatever I want, can I also marry how many of them that I want?? Love is love
You're going to get the same answer you would have gotten 15-20 years ago if you asked when you were gonna see a picture of two dudes in their 80's kissing after they got married in Texas.

Opens the door for other fringe groups to demand the same "rights".
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-27-2015, 6:24 PM Reply   
The Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples can marry nationwide.

Nope, nothing about multiple wives or husbands. You will have to start lobbying for that as a separate cause.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       06-27-2015, 6:41 PM Reply   
Two consenting adults can now marry no matter their gender. Nothing about those who can't consent such as children or animals. Nothing about marrying family members. Nothing about marrying your closet or your stamp collection. Nothing about marrying multiple partners. Two consenting adults. That's all that was asked for and it is all that people are entitled to per the U.S. Constitution. No new laws were made and no new rights were guaranteed. This simply shut down the legal bullying by those who chose homosexuals as their victims and violated people's constitutional rights by doing so. Nobody will be forced to like gay people or perform gay ceremonies. You simply won't be able to use an illegal law to prevent two homosexuals from getting married to each other in the eyes of the law anymore. Your church doesn't have to recognize the marriage but your state government does. It is that simple.
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-27-2015, 6:46 PM Reply   
It is true that allowing separate races to marry likely helped the cause for gay marriage. Damn slippery slope of anti bigotry.
Old     (BigJohnsonUT)      Join Date: Apr 2014       06-27-2015, 7:38 PM Reply   
lol- let me clarify -I am not a polygamist and am not going to lobby for that "cause"

I am pretty neutral on everything, but I am just saying I think this decision opens the doors for many interesting things to follow. If 2 consenting adults can marry then it's seems logical that 3 or 4 or 5 consenting adults should be able to do the same thing if they all love each other...

just sayin
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       06-27-2015, 7:53 PM Reply   
The reason your argument is invalid CJ is because there is no discrimination. It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, black, white, red, yellow, or purple, two consenting adults can get married. No protected group is being discriminated against as long as two consenting adults can get married. People who want to get married to two or more people are not protected by the U.S. Constitution. Polygamy, unlike homosexuality, is a choice. No one is born a Polygamist or a child molester, or a necrophiliac, or an incestuous pervert. These are choices. Homosexuality is not a choice. You can choose to live a lie as a heterosexual, getting married to a woman (as a man), having a family, etc. but you can't choose to be truly straight any more than I could choose to think it would be a good idea to have sex with another man. I can't choose to be a homosexual. Neither can an actual homosexual. They just are.
Old     (wakesk8er2)      Join Date: Mar 2002       06-27-2015, 8:30 PM Reply   
So homosexuality is a genetic trait, but all the other seemingly unnatural lifestyle choices you mention are a choice?
Old     (BigJohnsonUT)      Join Date: Apr 2014       06-27-2015, 10:37 PM Reply   
Denver-

Again, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with polygamy or Homosexuality, I am just saying that the doors have now been opened to those who are polygamists, etc to have the same argument. I can just hear it now... "Polygamy is not a choice, I was born with the desire to care for and have sex with multiple women. It is who I am, God made me this way, Love is love, and we all love each other in a consenting manne, so don't discriminate against us."

It is not my place to say what is right and what is wrong, I am just commenting that other groups will follow this decision with their own agendas.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       06-28-2015, 12:21 AM Reply   
This decision was about legal recognition - most polygamy cases to date have been about decriminalization (i.e. none of them have tried to get the state to legally recognize more than one legal partner). There is a legalization argument to be made for protection against abuse of women (and young girls) in these cultures that practice polygamy (which itself could be argued as biblically supported) but I don't see it happening any time soon.
Attached Images
 
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       06-28-2015, 12:22 AM Reply   
p.s. gay marriage wasn't the creator of the slippery slope; state-sanctioned marriage was
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-28-2015, 4:07 AM Reply   
Every gay man that I know struggled significantly with his inclination until it was no secret and he had to bear the brunt of his family and society. So, yes, it is definitely NOT A CHOICE for many. And, further even if it was a choice, it would not bother me.
Old     (racer808)      Join Date: Jan 2013       06-28-2015, 8:36 AM Reply   
The real question to me is why does anyone need a license or permission to marry in the first place?
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       06-28-2015, 12:26 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by racer808 View Post
The real question to me is why does anyone need a license or permission to marry in the first place?
It's about the legal recognition -- the chance to make medical decisions for next of kin, the right to inherit, the right to the marital estate upon divorce, sometimes parental rights (adoption being disfavored for unmarried couples).

There are a lot of additional rights that follow automatically when two people become legally married.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-28-2015, 4:08 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJohnsonUT View Post
This is an 100% Honest question: does this mean that Mormons can now bring back polygamy? I can marry whatever I want, can I also marry how many of them that I want?? Love is love
Unless you've been living under a rock and have no idea what the SC ruling was about, then no that isn't a 100% honest question.
Old     (BigJohnsonUT)      Join Date: Apr 2014       06-28-2015, 7:59 PM Reply   
You are right the question was worded poorly. I'm assuming that this decision will lead to FUTURE decisions on other (small percentage groups) wanting similar treatment.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-29-2015, 9:44 AM Reply   
I could see that polygamy could be argued. I could also see that it could be argued that every person in the marriage would have to agree to marrying another member. Quite frankly that's no concern of mine. The animal thing is pretty absurd because marriage from the govt standpoint isn't about having sex. It's about sharing of financial resources, inheritance rules, legal responsibilities toward each other, and tax rules that reward taking care of those who earn nothing or very little in comparison to the main wage earner. The govt doesn't care about your pets and there are no relevant financial or legal issues that marriage and pets have in common. You could marry your pet right now if you wanted to in your own mind. Just not in the eyes of the govt, and it wouldn't give you any rights to abuse the animal.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-29-2015, 10:31 AM Reply   
BTW, the pet thing wasn't in response to you CJ. I just threw that in because I've seen others associate it with the gay maariage slippery slope. But yeah, polygamy is certainly within the realm of potential marraige right arguments.
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-29-2015, 3:38 PM Reply   
They have made the marriage of two consenting adults legal for all. Before, there was an inequity. Thus, this issue stands on it's own.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-29-2015, 3:44 PM Reply   
Good point GD. Rather than being about rights it's about fixing inequitable rights.
Old     (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-30-2015, 1:55 AM Reply   
Yes, marriage is the legal union of two consenting adults. First, they took away the race exclusion. Now they took away the gender exclusion. So, I guess the only slippery slope argument is the incest exclusion. But, I doubt that one will get a lot of traction.
Old     (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       06-30-2015, 7:51 AM Reply   
I just feel sorry for all of the guys who's joy of victory was quick overshadowed by, "Oh No!" as they remember the conversation they had a few weeks ago with their boyfriend about how he could totally see them being together forever and would totally be married if it was legal. #straightpeopleproblems

It is whatever to me. I don't want judge anyone for sinning differently than me. Especially if it doesn't hurt me in the slightest.
Old     (superair502)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-30-2015, 8:42 AM Reply   
Another interesting side note of the ruling... There is now case law to support nationwide conceal carry and gun owners rights.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       06-30-2015, 10:12 AM Reply   
Where is the discrimination on the incest exclusion? You can't say that only white people or gay people can't marry their sibling because that would be discrimination. The law says that NOONE can marry their brother/sister/mother/father. That means the law is fair and impartial. Are you suggesting that the argument would be that someone is discriminated against because they have a sexy looking sister??? That's pretty ridiculous and not a valid slippery slope argument in my opinion, traction or not.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-30-2015, 6:53 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
Where is the discrimination on the incest exclusion?
Being of different race is the discriminator when not allowing cross race marriage. Gender is the discriminator when not allowing gay marriage. And blood/biological relation is the discriminator when not allowing incest marriage. There is discrimination, but the word discriminate is not adequate on it's own to determine rights. Just as the phrase "slippery slope" is not meaningful in arguing such matters.

It's a combination of rational reasoning and sufficient people in society adopting an attitude of acceptance. It took about 100 years (from the creation of the US) of slippery slope before blacks were considered "sort of" men, as in "all men are created equal". It took about another 100 years before blacks were considered equal in all ways by law. It took 150 years before women were considered equal enough to vote. Oddly enough "slippery slope" is used to warn against progress even though history seems to provide evidence of the contrary virtually 100% of the time.

There are rational reasons why incest marriages are not allowed. I could certainly see a rational argument were elderly related people past child bearing years would be allowed to marry. It not particularly a topic that I care to argue.
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       07-01-2015, 3:52 AM Reply   
Each to there own. If someone wants to marry their pot plant it doesn't worry me.
Old     (ralph)      Join Date: Apr 2002       07-01-2015, 3:57 AM Reply   
And seriously, it's not the law that prevents guys from shacking up with their sister, it's the fact you know them and find them annoying. Normally it takes a few years of marriage to get to know a girl this much.
Old     (digg311)      Join Date: Sep 2007       07-01-2015, 11:35 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by superair502 View Post
Another interesting side note of the ruling... There is now case law to support nationwide conceal carry and gun owners rights.
I've seen that being tossed around by some NRA and pro gun sites. Don't think it's actually true though. They seem to be misinterpreting a few key factors of law.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       07-02-2015, 3:23 PM Reply   
Makes sense to me.
Attached Images
 
Old    bigdtx            07-02-2015, 5:16 PM Reply   
Wow. A lot of hate on this site.

How exactly is gay marriage hurting you in any tangible way? Not in the hamster wheel inside your skull / hat rack, but in reality?

Is it because "they" are different from you? Because "they" don't share the same "values" as you (whatever that means)?

The Upright Citizens Brigade is always ready to judge others while ignoring/defending their own (often criminal) faults.
Old     (clubjoe)      Join Date: Sep 2005       07-03-2015, 11:38 AM Reply   
That's funny.....

It's amazing how the "everything is ok, so stop judging me" opinion is supposed to be off limits to criticism but an opposing opinion is an automatic cue for crying "hate," followed by calls of persecution and whining..... Those people are cowardly IMO because they don't stand for anything that require personal standards for themselves or society. Like leaves in a storm blowing with the wind. Good luck when it bites you in the butt like Obama care

Maybe those "haters" don't like that a super tiny loud minority of the people is being allowed to PC the Supreme Court into violating the 10th amendment and open the door to attack on the First Amendment, rather than protect the Constitution by allowing the citizens to accept or reject it as a society (which was happening anyway). It's not the Supreme courts job to take the pulse of PC America and PC media and run with it.... That's the job of low information voters. Anybody who gets married in any state that has accepted gay marriage has it recognized in another.

I thought the first blast of hate speech by -PC standards- applied both ways was on this thread was "Great! Can all the bible beaters and other religious and otherwise crazy bigots now please just shut up and go away?"

Ahhh..... I feel better now
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       07-04-2015, 8:02 PM Reply   
"To live well in a free society, you must embrace discomfort. You must be willing, in equal measure, to listen and to argue; to stand steadfast and to admit doubts; to look out for yourself and for others; and inevitably one of the two will not come easily. You must live among people you find troubling—in their views, their habits, the legacy they may leave—and still honor their rights as your own. So seek out your kindred, feel yourself come alive in their company, but never close your circle for long. Utopia is not a place where everyone feels safe. It’s a place where everyone lives bravely." -Vienna Teng


Happy 4th everybody. Make it a good one.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 5:37 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us