CNS News: Feds Spending $1.5 Million to See Why Lesbians Get Fat
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $1.5 million to study biological and social factors for why “three-quarters” of lesbians are obese and why gay males are not, calling it an issue of “high public-health significance.”
. . . .
BWH first received a $778,622 grant for the study in 2011, followed by a $741,378 grant in 2012, totaling $1,520,000. The project has the potential to be a five-year study.
The grants list a “project end date” and a “budget end date” of June 30, 2016. The researchers said the subject is one of “high public-health significance.”
The story says the future of the study is questionable because of sequestration. Air traffic controllers, meat inspectors, and TSA personnel? Definitely out! Get ready for long lines, crashed planes, and spoiled meat. Studies about fat lesbians? We’ll have to look into that further!
This is like that Krugman bankruptcy story, right? This is obviously a satirical story that CNS News got suckered by, right? Onion editors? Daily Currant editors? Who’s hiding behind the curtain, waiting to jump out and yell “you’ve been punked!”
If this story is true, the real shame of it lies in thinking of other ways that $1.5 million could have been spent. With $1.5 million, Obama and his pals could be eating Wagyu beef for weeks. They could crank up the thermostat in the Oval Office high enough to grow orchids for months. Hell, maybe Michelle wouldn’t have to settle for Beyonce at her 50th! Here’s $1.5 million, honey. Now you can afford to have Taylor Swift perform!
(That one was for Kanye West.)
Oh. You were thinking maybe $1.5 million could keep White House tours going for months or years.
Maybe. But if you explain to the children who won’t get to see the White House that we’re using the money to see why lesbians get fat, I’m sure they would understand.
My theory, not that anyone asked: men are superficial whether gay or straight.
You’re welcome.
Patterico (9c670f) — 3/12/2013 @ 7:27 amI demand Milhouse make an appearance in this thread to justify this.
DON’T CALL IT WASTEFUL! IT’S SCIENCE, DAMMIT!
Patterico (9c670f) — 3/12/2013 @ 7:27 amThe study of shrimp on a treadmill looks useful, compared to this, unless they were trying to study whether shrimp are fat too.
rochf (f3fbb0) — 3/12/2013 @ 7:29 amANTI SCIENCE DENIER!!!!
JD (b63a52) — 3/12/2013 @ 7:31 amThis isn’t really dumb science. It’s an interesting research question that could help persons with metabolic-linkes obesity generally by revealing genetic and epigentic factors.
At the risk of being Milhoused out of the discussion, this is a good lampost to go study under.
SarahW (b0e533) — 3/12/2013 @ 7:37 ammeanwhile the bacterias are becoming invincible and learning up how to eat you face and also lung tissue and also how to snack on genitals
you would think even a government as useless and fascist as our stupid one might show a little concern
it really is a worry
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/12/2013 @ 7:38 amWell we don’t have those pesky antibiotics, we won’t have that problem anymore, see death panels,
narciso (3fec35) — 3/12/2013 @ 7:45 amI’m not sure that fatty fat lesbians are taken much note of by my friends here. However hilarious it might seem, there is a set of physical and personality traits concentrated in this subpopulation (a subset of lesbian-identifying females) that suggest an organic origin that goes beyond the normal love of humans for food and lying around like a slug.
There are other shared features among this subset of morbidly obese individuals within the lesbian subset of the general population- other physical problems, and some mental health issues, too, including some specific diagnoses.
SarahW (b0e533) — 3/12/2013 @ 7:55 amSo many jokes, so much sense of “Yes, I’m ashamed of myself”.
nk whose BMI is 21.2 (53646e) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:10 amPatterico, you are not going to publish your BMI like the good nk has?
SPQR (768505) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:14 amWhy do lesbians get fat?
All they do is eat!
Ralph Gizzip (5ab3ea) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:16 amAs always, even if this is not entirely useless, the economic questions are always:
bridget (55e4a2) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:16 am1. Should we be borrowing money from China to fund this?
2. Are there better uses of our money?
3. If this is so amazingly important, why isn’t the private sector doing it?
if i was a fat lesbian and my fat lesbian girlfriend what I loved more than midget pickles was getting her face eated by antibiotic-resistant bacterias I’d be willing to sacrifice the obesity research for to save her
i would do that
cause I would be big that way
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:29 amDo lesbians have different metabolisms? Do they process carbs and sugars and proteins differently than gay guys, or straight people? Do they exercise more?
I have never met a fat lesbian that eats well and exercises.
JD (b63a52) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:29 amI knew happyfeet couldn’t resist this thread…
SPQR (768505) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:30 ammaybe they eat too many avocados Mr. JD
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:30 amThat which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That is my take on this bit of byte fodder
Pete Symes (6b934d) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:34 am3. If this is so amazingly important, why isn’t the private sector doing it?
Comment by bridget (55e4a2) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:16 am
Because the money is in “treating” a chronic disease and not in curing it? What would happen to the fat farms, the diet food industry, and the bariatrics rackets? And what would Michelle Obama and Mayor Bloomberg do to get on TV?
nk the cynic (53646e) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:39 amnonono lady these are MY avocados you get your own
hey you better give em back
you better
okokokokok you can have em lady
oww
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:55 amThere’s a strong push for body acceptance amongst the lesbians. Being fat, tall, muscular, hairy, “unfeminine”, black, white, purple is perfectly okay.
(I’m sorry because I have friends in this group, but I have to share with you all.)
If you go and take a look at an organization like NOLOSE, the National Organization of Lesbians of SizE, you can see that these women are more than willing to support each other, turning what others would consider a negative trait into a positive trait. And has nothing to do with loving large breasts at all.
For some lesbians being fat (pudgy, plump, Rubenesque) is also a way of announcing their sexuality. A former girlfriend of mine was hit on by several women because of this. “You’re plump! And you wear vests! You’re not gay?”
So, body image acceptance + group identification + love of large boobs == a large legion of large lesbians. Tada! Where’s my $100K.
Troublemaker (acc66e) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:55 amAre they fat because they’re lesbians, or are they lesbians because they’re fat and can’t find a man? 🙂
OK, OK, that’s my second comment today for which I must denounce myself!
The Dana who should be denounced (3e4784) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:59 ammen are superficial whether gay or straight
Or to turn it into a positive: Men are good for their spouse’s health.
Brainster (aa2934) — 3/12/2013 @ 9:04 amFat lesbians, skinny lesbians … I don’t care. There really aren’t any mysteries about how people get overweight.
SPQR (768505) — 3/12/2013 @ 9:05 amBeing fat, tall, muscular, hairy, “unfeminine”, black, white, purple is perfectly okay.
Q. Why do sumo wrestlers shave their legs?
nk who does not want Dana to feel alone (53646e) — 3/12/2013 @ 9:08 amA. So people will not mistake them for lesbians.
Someone ought to talk to the 2 lipstick lesbians who run Girl Bar in West Hollywood, one’s a shrink who specializes in issues affecting lesbians like body image. They also own The Fitness Factory, and those girls ain’t fat.
ropelight (3e13f1) — 3/12/2013 @ 9:24 amComment by The Dana who should be denounced (3e4784) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:59 am
It is almost an hourly requirement.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/12/2013 @ 9:24 amaskeptic wrote:
[Patting self on back.]
The extremely proud Dana (3e4784) — 3/12/2013 @ 9:39 amThe obvious answer for why many lesbians become fat is that they eat too many Pop Tarts. And I’m gonna go out on a limb and infer that their Pop Tarts are rarely ever shaped like a pistol or gun.
Elephant Stone (5ca442) — 3/12/2013 @ 9:43 amPeople tell me that most of the lesbians you see in movies are of teh hawt fit variety in teh chick on chick scenes, but that might just be a vicious rumor intended to discriminate against obese, large breasted lesbians. I personally would not know.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/12/2013 @ 9:50 amSarah argues this area of study is important. nk argues the reason private industry doesn’t study this area is because treatment is favored over cure. There is another source of funding other than taxes or business. Raise the money from the group under study. If it’s important to Lesbians, who are as a group more wealthy than average, they can donate.
bonhomme (f0255f) — 3/12/2013 @ 10:04 amI took Sarah’s point to be that it was obesity that made the study valuable, and lesbians were a good study population because of the abnormally high prevalence.
nk who does not want Dana to feel alone (53646e) — 3/12/2013 @ 10:13 am31 was a serious comment.
nk (53646e) — 3/12/2013 @ 10:14 amWell, that’s a reasonable interpretation, nk. There may be valuable information to be gathered. I was thinking this study only had funding because of a political hook, but I think you and Sarah are right.
bonhomme (f0255f) — 3/12/2013 @ 10:39 amif because of this research the lesbians of the future are more likely to be skinny then it’ll be easier to pay off all the debt our little country has racked up cause of the multipliers
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/12/2013 @ 10:46 amKnowledge is Knowledge!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/12/2013 @ 10:51 amKnowledge is Power!
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/12/2013 @ 11:31 amMaybe the lesbians should eat the shrimp who are running on the treadmills–kind of like exercise by osmosis (and yes, now I’ll slap my own face)
rochf (f3fbb0) — 3/12/2013 @ 11:48 amAs a wise man told me, maybe we should get Rosie O’donnell to dress up like a shrimp and run on a treadmill.
JD (b63a52) — 3/12/2013 @ 11:50 amSingle gay men have a high incentive to not be fat; while there’s a subculture that’s into really fat men, the overwhelming majority of gay men are interested in muscular, well-built men.
That said, it’s not clear why *married* gay men, or gay men in long term partnerships, would be more likely to stay thin.
Anyhow … I’m not sure it’s fair to say that this money is in competition with the white house tours. The budget appropriated a certain amount for one bucket and a certain amount for another, and surely this kind of research is funded out of a different bucket.
aphrael (5d993c) — 3/12/2013 @ 12:09 pmThe main job of the president (other than commander in chief) is to MANAGE the federal government. That is the last thing that Mr. Obama wants to do. The federal government is on autopilot and has been for a long, long time. The reason we don’t have spending cuts of any kind is that it would require some amount of management of the federal government, and no one in the executive branch is willing to actually do that.
Mike S (d3f5fd) — 3/12/2013 @ 12:11 pmVideo idea: a fat lesbian in a shrimp suit runs on a treadmill, to the tune of “Never Gonna Give You Up.”
Patterico (a8bbc8) — 3/12/2013 @ 12:27 pm“…and no one in the executive branch is willing to actually do that.”
Nor in the Congress, so it has seemed.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/12/2013 @ 12:35 pm41- with dancing Bon-Bons in the background.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/12/2013 @ 12:39 pmIn other lesbian related news:
First Female Commander of 53rd Wing Comes Out Of Closet As Straight Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/09/first-female-commander-of-53rd-wing-comes-out-as-straight/#ixzz2NML2BK6h Follow us: @theduffelblog on Twitter | duffelblog on Facebook
Steve57 (60a887) — 3/12/2013 @ 1:30 pmThat IS funny, truly a Man-bites-dog tale in this environment.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/12/2013 @ 1:45 pmPatterico – This blog needs more pictures of skinny lesbians in skimpy outfits for important scientific and journalistic purposes.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/12/2013 @ 1:46 pmWhen will Michelle Obama begin her crusade against the dangers of being an obese lesbian?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/12/2013 @ 1:49 pmKrugman about the Krugman story:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/breitbarted/.
He deliberately let it ride, to see who would bite.
He’s kind of happy Breitbart.com bit.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/12/2013 @ 2:02 pmThe problem with this study is, where is the evidence that lesbians are any different when it comes to weight, and if they are different, that it doesn’t have to do with a hundred cultural factors?
Maybe the theory is, because they presumably are not trying to make themselves attractive to men, they weigh more? I guess you could fiund out a lot of things. Why are not the lesbians being compared to other women? Why should they be more similar to whatever men they are being compared to than to other women?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/12/2013 @ 2:06 pmFrom the Post story,
Brian McGrory, the Globe’s editor, explains that no editorial official at his paper ever made a decision to post the piece. “The story arrived deep within our site from a third party vendor who partners on some finance and market pages on our site,” says McGrory. It was never on the Boston.com homepage, says McGrory. “We never knew it was there till we heard about it from outside.” Since the posting went up, McGrory attests to having done “urgent work to get it the hell down,” something that appears to have happened, though not as quickly as McGrory would have liked. “The idea that we’d have a partner on our site is actually news to me,” says McGrory, who vows to “address our relationship with that vendor.”
narciso (3fec35) — 3/12/2013 @ 2:19 pmWhich I got from here;
http://twitchy.com/2013/03/11/liberals-rip-breitbart-com-for-false-report-based-on-erroneous-boston-globe-article/
narciso (3fec35) — 3/12/2013 @ 2:20 pmYou beat me to it, narciso. I was also going to comment how Breitbart got their story from the impeccably liberal Old Media Boston Globe, but that is an inconvenient fact for the Krugmans of the world who think that the NYT, WaPo, and Globe serve some sort of public duty and are thus infallible.
JVW (4826a9) — 3/12/2013 @ 2:35 pmI’m never ordering shrimp fahitas again
EPWJ (590d06) — 3/12/2013 @ 2:52 pmLesbians getting fat is the equivalent of setting domesticated pigs into the wild. After a short time the tusk get bigger, the hide coarser, etc.
BradnSA (acab35) — 3/12/2013 @ 4:26 pmFirst Female Commander of 53rd Wing Comes Out Of Closet As Straight Read more:
LOL! I’m too lazy to figure out whether that report actually is pure satire, that it’s no more than a variation of something from The Onion. But this era in US history is so bizarre, deranged and ludicrously leftwing — and even though supposed quotes like this…
…are totally off the wall (absurdly laughable) and therefore cannot possibly be real — there’s always a possibility that the article needs to be taken at face value. That one cannot be totally sure, one way or the other, is a scary, pathetic thought.
Mark (fa08b6) — 3/12/2013 @ 4:44 pmaphrael wrote:
It’s also true that every different toilet in your house flushes into the same sewer.
Of course, Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) proposed legislation which would have allowed the President great leeway in adjusting the sequester cuts around, to ease the problems caused by it, but the Democrats voted it down and President Obama promised to veto it had it passed. He could have had the power to switch money between programs, but didn’t want it.
But, in away, that doesn’t matter: the point is – though Milhouse will shudder – we should never have appropriated $1.5 million, or even 15¢, to study lesbians’ waistlines, or heterosexuals’ waistlines. We are borrowing a trillion dollars a year, but we don’t even have the discipline to figure out the difference between necessities and “luxury” spending.
The financial wizard Dana (af9ec3) — 3/12/2013 @ 4:54 pmBig-boned girls are genetically predisposed to be dykes.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/12/2013 @ 6:13 pmBig-boned girls are genetically predisposed to be dykes.
People of leftist bent too. And I’m not being snarky when I say that, since a disproportionate number of people in the GLBT crowd do tend to be socio-politically liberal. That’s why a study on how political persuasion influences sexual orientation, or visa versa, would be as interesting as, or far more revealing than, anything related to why so many lesbians are overweight.
Mark (fa08b6) — 3/12/2013 @ 6:19 pmLesbian obesity? Too much post-breakup and ruminating ice cream, I’ll bet.
MarkJ (42fe5b) — 3/12/2013 @ 6:46 pmMark bugs the holy hell out of me.
JD (b63a52) — 3/12/2013 @ 6:54 pmMark bugs the holy hell out of me.
Why? Is someone in your family, or a friend of yours, both gay and conservative? If so, it doesn’t matter, since the statistics involve percentages and not absolutes. So, of course, there exists a variety of GLBTers who don’t fit the prescribed categories. But, again, the point is that a significant percentage of homosexuals have one set of biases, a large portion of heterosexuals have another.
^ Maybe you, JD, aren’t interested in the possible science behind a correlation between political ideology and homosexuality, but I am. It’s another facet of the intriguing puzzle why so many on the left, regardless of their sexuality — regardless of their age — often are so lacking in basic common sense.
Mark (fa08b6) — 3/12/2013 @ 7:31 pmImagine a bunch of non-obese non-lesbians not giving a crap about this issue. Not hard to imagine, is it, non-obese non-lesbians? Fat jokes are the norm; diabetes runs rampant. Maybe a good rug-muncher joke here or there. Sophomoric, self-righteous political alignments blind you to the sheer value of the science, or much science for that matter. But it is so much more fun chasing conspiracy theories instead of being responsible citizens. You dingbats.
Sirch Theoon (78cfaa) — 3/12/2013 @ 7:59 pmWell when lefties get interested in real science, or even just simple math, Sich, let us know.
SPQR (768505) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:16 pmTHE SHEER VALUE OF THE SCIENCE
ok sure
I still don’t see why the NIH can’t find research into more pressing issues to fund with its limited resources
what were confiscated from the people who don’t get the food stamps
people like me, your friend happyfeet
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:26 pmWho knew carpets were so high in saturated fats?
twolaneflash (79ac63) — 3/12/2013 @ 8:37 pmI heard that the study was much broader. Apparently gay men don’t get fat so the study seeks to figure out the reason for the difference.
AZ Bob (bed358) — 3/12/2013 @ 9:38 pmSirch is just precious. How did that Susan Rice thing work out for you?
JD (b63a52) — 3/12/2013 @ 9:49 pmWhy does Sirch think there is a conspiracy to study fat lesbians? Does he hate fat people and is he a homophobe?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/12/2013 @ 9:57 pmMe, I just want to know why gay males have little toy dogs and lesbians always have really big dogs. I went to a dog show once and this was striking.
Tragic Christian (2cc0a0) — 3/12/2013 @ 9:58 pmI have an idea. Don’t stereotype.
Sometimes it may work, most of the time it doesn’t.
And who really gives a crap what people eat, why they may be fat or thin, or who they perform intercourse with?
Especially the government.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 3/12/2013 @ 10:05 pmAg80 – Can you get Michelle Obama out of my lunch box, please?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/12/2013 @ 10:28 pmMore than 70 comments and not one snarky reference to Little Debbie or Sara Lee?
Brian Epps (6c124e) — 3/12/2013 @ 11:26 pmBrian Epps – I was thinking about bringing up Eskimo pie, but I didn’t want people to take it the wrong way.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/13/2013 @ 12:07 amThe real reason studies like the Fat Lesbian Study are funded is to provide money to their base: academia. As a former academic worker, believe me, I know what I’m talking about. Federal grants pay for everything from secretaries to world travel for these profs.
Patricia (be0117) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:35 amI think Lesbians are fat because they eat too much and don’t exercise enough.
Gus (694db4) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:53 amOr maybe they are trying to make themselves less attractive to men.
I want to know more about their HAIRCUTS.
Maybe that’s why lesbians wear comfortable shoes. It must be difficult to wear long heels when you’re obese, and the fat oozes out and hangs over the shoe.
Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba) — 3/13/2013 @ 9:07 amMark – of course, the fact that the Republican party’s representatives in the California legislature, including the most ‘moderate’ of them, overwhelmingly opposed the domestic partner bill, which the Democrats in the legislature mostly supported; or the fact that Republicans in state legislatures across the country overwhelmingly oppose adding sexual orientation to the list of bases which cannot be used for discrimination, which Democrats largely support; or the fact that in states where legislatures have voted on same sex marriage, 90% of Republican legislators vote no while 75-80% of Democratic legislatures vote yes – all of these _might_ have an effect on the political loyalties of gay people.
I’m a relatively open guy; I spend a lot of time talking to conservatives and respect many of them. But it’s *very* difficult for me to look at the Republican party as a place where I would be welcome, and it’s hard for me to look at any Republican politicians and not see someone who would chose to pursue anti-gay policies in order to get votes from social conservative activists who remain largely opposed to homosexuality. And if it’s hard *for me*, how much harder do you think it is for other gay people who haven’t spent years building bridges to cosnervatives?
aphrael (4fdd37) — 3/13/2013 @ 9:09 amOne could say that Republicans, when it comes to The Gay Agenda, are just pandering to the Social-Conservatives within the Party. Or, it could be that they actually take the teachings of their various churches seriously that frown upon the homosexual life-style, even though many of those churches have no problem embracing the individual.
Love the Sinner, Condemn the Sin!
I think that concept is the one that the Gay Community has the most problem getting their arms around, and why they reject the GOP.
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/13/2013 @ 9:20 amI have no probem whatever with domestic partner/civil union economic equality with marrieds.
And, yes, conservative opposition to such legislation seems nasty and stupid, even opposed to one’s self-interest.
Odd, status of the institution of marriage seems to be falling thru the floor at the moment legal interest peaks.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/13/2013 @ 9:23 amBut it’s *very* difficult for me to look at the Republican party as a place where I would be welcome
I would welcome you.
JD (b63a52) — 3/13/2013 @ 9:27 am78. Very insightful, old man.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/13/2013 @ 9:36 amAskeptic – in a way that’s even worse than pandering. In a way it isn’t, because pandering implies dishonesty, dishonor, and untrustworthiness; but if a politician *isn’t* pandering, what that’s saying is that they honestly _believe_ that there’s something wrong with me.
That’s a bad place to start from if you want to convince me to vote for you.
aphrael (4fdd37) — 3/13/2013 @ 9:39 amJD: you would. A lot of people here would. But how many of the people I could vote for in a Republican primary would?
Republicans start at a disadvantage in convincing gay people to vote for them because Republican politicians are *on the whole* actively unfriendly to gay people. There are exceptions; I’ve donated money to some of them, I’ve written letters of support to republican NY legislators who lost their seats because conservative voters were pissed off at them for supporting gay marriage. But they’re *rare*. They’re the exceptions.
aphrael (4fdd37) — 3/13/2013 @ 9:44 amaphrael – How would the above pandering/not pandering scenario play out for you with the Dems? Did you think Obama was pandering when he opposed SSM, and is now representing his true beliefs? Or did you think he cynically lied about his not-wide stance to give him a veneer of being a moderate? I guess what am asking is does it bother you when those that are more closely ideologically related to you use these issues cynically or as wedge issues?
JD (b63a52) — 3/13/2013 @ 9:49 amaphrael wrote:
Depends; are you planning on running in the Republican senatorial primary in South Carolina?
At least as far as I am concerned, I have completely accepted the arguments by liberals of thirty years ago: what people do in their bedrooms is none of anyone else’s business, as long as minors aren’t involved. But if I’m not supposed to care what other people do in bed, if it’s none of my business with whom other people copulate, why must so many people insist on telling me, insist on making it my business?
The inclusive Dana (3e4784) — 3/13/2013 @ 10:04 amIf a majority of the people want to make SS partnerships equal with marriage as far as all legal/financial consequences of a marriage partnership I would watch it happen.
If people want to say a SS couple legally joined is the same as a married heterosexual couple I would say no it is not, if you ask me, even if you end up throwing me in jail (yes, hyperbole, but I’m making the point). “Marriage” has been viewed as one man, one woman, ideally for life by essentially all people for all recorded history. Even aside from religious views, it is presumptuous for a culture or subculture to say they know better than billions of people who have lived and still live.
I would also be against any move to harm or ostracize someone because of their sexual orientation, such as jihadists.
One person’s freedom should not impose on another person’s freedom except for extremes. My “right to happiness” does not allow me to steal from you because you have something I want. My disapproval of SS couples being seen as normative should not be respected unless it can be shown there is harm to me or others. I don’t think it can be shown that a SS couple impacts me directly (“What effect does it have on your marriage”). I think it needs to be proved, not accepted, that if a society legally enshrines SS marriage and hetero marriage as equal there are no negative social consequences.
For example, there are people who would say they “were gay” or “are gay but not acting on it”, who voice a desire and make the attempt, sometimes successfully, to live in a heterosexual relationship. Others would say that such people never were gay or are just self-rejecting or other things.
What’s the issue? John Doe realizes he has had same-sex attraction as long as he can remember. John Doe also takes a view of sexuality consistent with the traditional interpretation of Scripture. John Doe wants to talk to a counselor about what kind of things may have contributed to his feelings and if there is anything he can do to change.
Should John Doe be able to find such a counselor? Should a professional counselor be allowed to discuss such a topic and keep his/her license?
Some people would say no to both, especially if one says SS attraction and SSM are equal and equivalent to hetero. To want “help” to change one’s sexual orientation some would say makes as much sense as a person asking for help to change their favorite color from blue to indigo, and anyone that would want to help someone do that is no professional.
Some may wonder what’s the deal and why am I “droning” on, others may scream murder at my raising the topic.
If I was running for something and a person wanted to vote for people who think we need to be more accomodating of Sharia law than me because of my stance re homosexuality, I say let them. When the jihadists want to behead them I will still come to their defense, even if they didn’t vote for me.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/13/2013 @ 10:13 amJD, that’s a good question.
In 2008, I believed that Obama supported same sex marriage and that he was basically too cowardly to take a stand on the issue. I believed this because he’d been on record as supporting it back in the *1990s*, and because virtually nobody ever goes from supporting SSM to not-supporting SSM, and he didn’t have a good story to explain the shift.
But the thing is: I can’t expect my allies to be ideologically pure in their support for the things I want; that way lies madness. And in 2008, when same sex marriage was a relatively new thing, I couldn’t really expect Obama – or any other prominent Democrat – to take a stand on it and make that the centerpiece of their campaign. I don’t against them what they did *then*; but i’d be pissed at a major Democratic party candidate *now* who was opposed to SSM.
To a certain extent, though, this is very specific to gay issues. Almost all gay people go through a period where they’re afraid to tell the people in their lives about their sexuality; how can I expect our allies to not go through a similar period?
aphrael (4fdd37) — 3/13/2013 @ 5:04 pmaphrael, I understand your point. However, that led to the ironic position of voting for someone because one thought he was a liar.
SPQR (768505) — 3/13/2013 @ 5:05 pmDana – i’m never quite sure how to respond to that sort of comment, because i don’t understand what it means.
What does it mean to insist on telling you?
Most straight employees of major corporations have pictures of their families on their desk. Would me having a similar picture on my desk be making it your business in a way that bothers you?
Also, with specific respect to friends and family, I think it’s a perfectly normal thing to want my friends and family to know enough about my life to know who I’m making a life with. Sure, i’m not going to mention it to the person bagging my groceries … but if I can’t share my relationship, and my feelings about it, with my friends, then by what right do I call them my friends?
aphrael (4fdd37) — 3/13/2013 @ 5:06 pmMD in Philly –
I think there’s a tension between these two statements:
> My disapproval of SS couples being seen as normative should not be respected unless it can be shown there is harm to me or others
> I think it needs to be proved, not accepted, that if a society legally enshrines SS marriage and hetero marriage as equal there are no negative social consequences.
The tension is that they each seem to place the burden of proof on a different party. In the first statement, you’re saying that the burden of proof is on people with disapproval, to show that there is harm which arises from same-sex couples being seen as normative. But the second sentecne seems to indicate that the burden of proof is on those of us who think there is no such harm.
——-
> to vote for people who think we need to be more accomodating of Sharia law than me because of my stance re homosexuality, I say let them.
I keep seeing conservatives mention this, and I remain baffled by it. I’m not aware of any movement to enshrine sharia law in the US. There *are* cases where it’s probably ‘correct’ – an economic contract between two parties which specifies that its terms shall be interpreted via sharia law *should* be upheld as a valid contract and its terms should be enforced – but those are numerically miniscule edge cases.
[Also: thank you, by the way, for your honesty and integrity and *politeness*in this post. I value the fact that we can talk civilly as compatriots despite our obvious disagreement on this issue. :)]
aphrael (4fdd37) — 3/13/2013 @ 5:16 pmaphrael: I’m not aware of any movement to enshrine sharia law in the US.
“enshrine” is setting the bar way too high.
How about this:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/09/02/the-real-impact-of-sharia-law-in-america/
Yes, the case was overturned but is it wrong to be disturbed by the trend?
beer 'n pretzels (6ef50f) — 3/13/2013 @ 5:26 pmbeer’n’pretzels:
(a) md in philly spoke specifically of _voting for politicians_ who want us to be friendlier to sharia law, so i’m not sure a court opinion is relevant. find me the politicians advocating sharia law. 🙂
(b) this decision isn’t really about sharia law per se. it’s basically the same kind of argument (structurally) as the argument that led to dan white’s acquittal for the murder of moscone + milk. In the latter case, the claim was that white was _incapable of forming the intent to kill_ because of his depression; in the former case, the claim is that the husband _did not have the intent to sexually assault_ because of his religious beliefs.
The judge erred primarily because the laws in question *do not have a specific intent requirement*:
> The trial judge found as a fact that defendant committed conduct that constituted a sexual assault and criminal sexual contact, but that defendant did not have the requisite criminal intent in doing so. His conclusion in this respect cannot be sustained. N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(c)(3) establishes the principle that criminal statutes that do not designate a specific culpability requirement should be construed as requiring knowing conduct.
(http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/mcs/case_law/sd_v_mjr.pdf)
Now, the difficult question is, what if the law *did* have a specific intent requirement? It’s a reasonably well accepted principle that cultural assumptions can negate specific intent, at least in certain circumstances.
But this isn’t about _sharia law_ per se; it’s about to what degree, and in what circumstances, the fact that someone harbors different cultural assumptions is indicative of a lack of the required mental state for legal culpability. It could apply equally well to cultural assumptions arising out of hindiusm or jainism, for example.
aphrael (4fdd37) — 3/13/2013 @ 5:38 pmMark – of course, the fact that the Republican party’s representatives in the California legislature, including the most ‘moderate’ of them, overwhelmingly opposed the domestic partner bill,
Aphrael, that reminds me of various pundits or analysts — some Democrats, a few Republicans (eg, Karl Rove) — who’ve theorized that the Latino community in the US has tilted left because of the controversy of illegal immigration. Only problem with that assumption is why are so many people in Mexico just as nonsensically, devoutly liberal as their ancestral kin folk are north of the border? Have Mexican politicians of the right been promoting anti-illegal-immigration laws in Mexico?
I have a hunch that biological/genetic factors that make people innately leftwing may also be closely tied to what makes a large percentage of people homosexual in orientation. Therefore, it’s difficult to know where one begins and one leaves off.
Again, to assume that gays would be less liberal, or even sympathetic towards Republicans, if ongoing controversies about same-sex marriage didn’t exist is as laughable as assuming the reason Mexican voters aren’t sympathetic with conservatives in Mexico is because of the issue of immigration at Mexico’s southern border.
Mark (6ae95d) — 3/13/2013 @ 5:53 pmMark: I don’t know that I assume that gays as a group would be less liberal. However, it seems absurd to me to assert that gay people, unlike every other interest group, are not effected by their perception of whether a particular political party is acting for their interests or not.
I understand that anecdote is not the singular of data, but I can attest to many conversations with many gay people who agree with conservative positions on economic policy but who will *never* vote for Republicans because of Republican positions on gay issues. And I think that’s an understandable reaction on their part.
aphrael (4fdd37) — 3/13/2013 @ 5:57 pmAphrael – how many conservatives do you know that don’t really give a crap about the social issues, like me, but are bothered by the co-opting of the language in the SSM debate?
JD (b63a52) — 3/13/2013 @ 6:09 pmWith all due respect, I hope that particular sentiment you express helps you appreciate how pro-life voters think and vote without calling them narrow or single-minded. And I hope you will defend those people when others do call them narrow or single minded.
I really don’t like how some choices are championed, and some are not….when few of them are anyone’s choice but the people involved. I hate it when people are turned into reflexive partisan tools. It’s the cynic in me.
Simon Jester (dac790) — 3/13/2013 @ 6:30 pmbut I can attest to many conversations with many gay people who agree with conservative positions on economic policy
Those are so-called economic conservatives or centrists — straight or GLBT — who nonetheless are quite liberal on social matters.
My definition of what is innate leftist sentiment actually pertains far more to the gauge of socio-cultural conformity or non-conformity — and a respect or disdain for tried-and-true tradition — than whether one favors a balanced checking account and low debt, or doesn’t tolerate huge tax rates, or favors a comfortable lifestyle, and the money (and labor) that often goes with that. IOW, I don’t think economic conservatism is necessarily of innate rightist bent, which is why the definition of “limousine liberalism” at its most basic is also the most obvious one.
Perhaps the only homosexuals who I’ll take at face value when they say they’re the way they are, and who claim it’s not a matter of choice, and who say it’s definitely not analogous to a person into ear, nose, tongue and body piercings (etc), are GLBTers who truly lean right socially and politically.
Mark (6ae95d) — 3/13/2013 @ 6:43 pmMost people will be bored and not interested in this comment, but my main point was already made in #86 above about John Doe
aphrael-
It is my understanding that parts of Europe, in France and Great Britain (Londonistan) especially, that the islamic neighborhoods are virtually left to themselves.
in the US we have the military too scared to confront hassan on his pro-jihadist views until after he goes on a killing rampage, and then they still insist on calling it “work place violence”.
Coptic Christians are murdered in NJ and ritually beheaded and hands chopped off according to a passage in the Quran, and the media virtually ignores it
public schools are taught islamic traditions when people would go nuts if they tried to do the equivalent with say Good Friday
I think there’s a tension between these two statements:
> My disapproval of SS couples being seen as normative should not be respected unless it can be shown there is harm to me or others
> I think it needs to be proved, not accepted, that if a society legally enshrines SS marriage and hetero marriage as equal there are no negative social consequences.
The tension is that they each seem to place the burden of proof on a different party. In the first statement, you’re saying that the burden of proof is on people with disapproval, to show that there is harm which arises from same-sex couples being seen as normative. But the second sentecne seems to indicate that the burden of proof is on those of us who think there is no such harm.
You are correct, part was intentional and part was sloppy on my part.
I think it is true that allowing a SS couple the legal protections equivalent to marriage is a defensible position, and it is up to the opponent to prove there is a problem. All that is being asked is to have certain advantages like hetero couples, and the hetero couples aren’t being asked to give up anything. The heteros would have to prove they would be disadvantaged/infringed upon, whatever, and I don’t think they/we can.
On the other hand, if you want to change the definition of a social institution (marriage) that has existed across cultures and across time, I think the burden of proof is on the minority that wants the change, and if proof of no harm cannot be made I think it is a dubious request. (And yes, i think it is pretty untestable to prove one way or another- I guess that is one definition of “conservative”, don’t change things unless there is a clear reason, give deference to experience).
Especially with today’s journalism standards, I bet the number of people who quiblle with this at this point are few
BUT
if the effect of “normalization” of same sex attraction and marriage means that those who wish to change their sexual identity from ss attraction to hetero sexual attraction are seen as the ones who are “abnormal” I think people would think twice
I am certain that in the early days of in vitro fertilization, most people, even those seeking such therapy, did not realize that in the process there might be many early embryos created that would be “in limbo”, just like many women and couples using oral contraceptives never considered the possibility that some small percentage of the time (but not zero) pregnancy would be avoided not by preventing ovulation hence making fertilization impossible, but rather by preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum, which for some is tantamount to abortion
details mean things
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/13/2013 @ 7:58 pmThe state law in Massachusetts says that transgender-identifying children have the right to use the bathroom and locker room of their preference.
This newly elucidated right takes preference over the qualms of children who do not want a child of different external genitalia in their bathroom.
In a blunt sense, what is being communicated is that it is “more normal” for a 14 yo boy who thinks of himself as a girl to shower in the girls locker room if he wants to, than for 14 yo girls to object. That is simply absurd.
And I don’t think it is even sympathetic to any of the 14 year olds involved, but putting individual children on the sacrificial alter of PC for the “good of the cause”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:12 pmIf you can explain how society can equally embrace those who think SSM is equivalent to heterosexual marriage and those who think SS unions are not the same as traditional marriage (but don’t oppose them) at the same time with equal treatment please do so.
This includes saying that if Jim Doe wants to live out his same sex attraction and John Doe wants counselling to overcome his same-sex attraction both are treated equally, including in terms of social stigma/acceptance.
I don’t think these issues are resolvable. As feets says, it is more of a situation where people say “you’re wrong and I’m right” rather than you like vanilla and I like chocolate and it’s all ice cream
the problem is whether a goal is tolerance (“let them be”) or affirmation (“isn’t it great”)
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:12 pmlegalizing tolerance is doable and “fine”,
legalizing affirmation is impossible and attempted thought control.
Yes, but the administration could easily transfer money from one bucket into another. Or just decide to cut one bucket more than another. You’re letting the admin off too easily here.
In any event, this is a silly bit of research on its face, and the highly-publicized cuts to White House tours were sheer grandstanding in light of this story.
Chuck Bartowski (ad7249) — 3/13/2013 @ 8:22 pmWhat I enjoy when the students are all championing same sex marriage and patting themselves on the back about being oh so tolerant is when I ask about plural marriage.
I mean, neither is anyone’s business but the people involved, right? No one is being abused, and everyone is over 18. So what’s the big deal?
It’s not a red herring. It’s an issue of fashion in politics. “All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others.” Either government has no role in interpersonal relationships, or it does. You cannot switch it on and off depending on what is politically fashionable.
Simon Jester (dac790) — 3/13/2013 @ 9:14 pmi love same sex marriage it’s the new thing, and very modern
so cool
but plural marriage on the other hand seems prone to being abused such that womens would get the short end of the plural marriage stick
but mostly it does not feel like the new thing, and very modern
rather comma it feels anachronistic and silly
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/13/2013 @ 9:27 pm98. Out of time the Sauds just beheaded 7 thieves for armed robbery, one being 15 at the time of arrest in 2005.
The Iranians hang kids for Emo haircuts.
We’re sorta burning the candle at both ends, eh?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/13/2013 @ 10:39 pmWhy, Mr.Feet! How do you know plural marriage would be abused? You are just being duonormative. How is it anyone’s business but the adult people involved?
Like I said, this isn’t about freedom of choice or even civil rights. It’s about political fashion.
Simon Jester (b2118b) — 3/14/2013 @ 6:14 amR. Paul(not the entertainer) talking more sense:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/13/rand-paul-lets-get-government-out-of-the-marriage-business/
This is what I like about keeping lawyers out of government, even legislatures. They get fat enough on contracts.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/14/2013 @ 6:20 amA fundamental misunderstanding, the left wants to kneecap marriage, because it is competition for their goals.
narciso (3fec35) — 3/14/2013 @ 6:40 amplural marriage is just so tacky is all
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/14/2013 @ 6:55 am#99 Can’t wait for the sexual assaults to start. Be lots of essssssplaning to do.
Heck if I am a boy, I declare myself a girl and always go shower with the ladies. When confronted with my oggling I then declare myself a lesbian and seek further protections from the law.
Rodney King's Spirit (951136) — 3/14/2013 @ 7:44 amA boy declares himself a girl who is also lesbian. All comes full circle.
I would like to see some comments seriously defending the Mass law or seriously discussing how it came to be and how it can be repealled.
As some have said before, there are funny things that could be said about combining research efforts concerning overweight lesbians, treadmills, and shrimp of various permutations, such as whether lesbian shrimp also tend to be obese or not and does running on a treadmill work in weight loss-
but I’ll semi-condemn myself for that and say something that I wish I didn’t have to but will. (It is serious and I think something better discussed in private settings).
Some say people often do things that are irrational, others say people always have reasons they do what they do, whether or not they are aware of them, whether or not they appear to make sense or not.
One patient of mine years ago was a woman who had same-sex attraction, which was in conflict with other beliefs she had. (And yes, she was a bit heavier than was optimum, FWIW). One bit of her history was that she had an abusive father, no sexual abuse but everything else, terribly harsh verbal and physical discipline that was abusive, along with the emotional abuse that was involved. She was very distraught in her relationship with her mother, both angry and heartbroken that her mother did not come to her defense.
Obviously those who think that same-sex attraction is simply one “flavor of normal” would dispute any connection between their feelings and any “issues” in their upbringing. It is also certainly true that not every person with same-sex attraction has such a history to relate.
It is also true that there is some unknown overlap between people who are “simply obese because they eat too much and exercise too little” and those who would be diagnosed with an “eating disorder”.
Lesbian shrimp on treadmills is one way to humorously disarm a confluence of news items, but in some ways I wish the topic was never brought up.
The MD in Philly that knows less than Dana about Catholicism (3d3f72) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:27 amThe original observation and question for research has some merit behind it, but calling it an issue “high public-health significance” and awarding 1.5 million dollars to study the issue seems to beg for derision. I imagine most lesbians who are overweight would not have asked to get headline coverage, even if they are emotionally mature and strong enough to put it in a “macro-perspective” and not take it as a personal affront.
Changing my name back to the usual.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:29 amSorry.
I find it endlessly amusing to watch proponents of same sex marriage get all “Footloose Village Elders” about plural marriage. They don’t even see that their arguments and attitudes are very similar to those they dismiss as intolerant and anti-freedom of choice.
These types think they are all cool and hip, but they are really just the same as always: wanting to tell other people what to do.
It really does make me laugh.
Re-reading “Animal Farm” is always helpful.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:41 amif some random backwoods state like utah wants to vote for the plural marriage I’m not gonna get excited about it
trust me I wouldn’t get excited about it
and beyond utah I just don’t see any danger of that sort of thing passing in any for reals normal state
it’s just not on the radar except for when anti-gay bigots bring it up as some kind of oh so clever slippery slope argument
but let’s not pretend that the push for plural marriage, such as it is, doesn’t come primarily from weirdo trailer park religious freaks what aren’t much philosophically different from what Team R lovingly refers to as “the base”
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:48 amplural marriage is just so tacky is all
No it isn’t, Mr. Happyfeet. It’s just as fitting of human nature and deserving of honor and accommodation as the concept of two dudes getting hitched or two chicks getting hitched. To think otherwise is gay.
Mark (6ae95d) — 3/14/2013 @ 9:10 amOho, Mr. Feet! I am a freaking bigot now? Honestly?
I also thought the trailer park trash comments were very classy from you, as well. And “…oh so clever…” from you? Really?
It is to laugh.
As everyone can see—you are not quite so accepting and tolerant of what others do as you claim. You just want people to agree with you, which is no different from the bozos in the White House right now.
Seriously, dude. Rick Santorum is more tolerant than you are sounding. Think it over, and look at your words—the people you claim are intolerant don’t sound different than you are sounding. Sheesh.
And here I thought you felt people had a right to make their own choices. Funny how that works.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 3/14/2013 @ 10:37 amI’ve been plenty plenty plenty tolerant of anti-gay bigotry I even woulda voted for Mitt Romney if I’d been able to make that happen
but at some point the time for tolerance is over and you’ve (quite graciously) given the bigots enough time to grok that society is rejecting their bigotry
and that is where we are now with the gay marriage
go ahead though
nominate another anti-gay bigot
how’s that workin out for you again?
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/14/2013 @ 10:43 ambut at some point the time for tolerance is over
Exactly! Enough tolerance this, tolerance that. The lunacy of tolerance for tolerance’s sake is at the core of — among other notorious, infamous examples of liberalism gone berserk — the military being an enabler to an anti-US-spouting, pro-Sharia-loving enlistee (ie, Nidal Hasan) until it was too late.
Tolerance for tolerance’s sake is the reason various phonies (eg, throughout Hollywood) get all warm and fuzzy over the idea of same-sex marriage, yet still ask whether a celebrity is homosexual (but notice how they rarely if ever wonder whether such a celeb is bisexual—because even many liberals can’t seem to grasp the concept of the “B” in “GLBT”). But they ask not in the same way they say: “I wonder if he’s a Rhodes Scholar?,” or “I wonder if he was voted most popular in high school, the most likely to succeed, and is a multi-millionaire?” Or their questions are sort of like people who use the word “gay” in a negative or derisive way.
Mark (6ae95d) — 3/14/2013 @ 11:03 amfeets- we thank you for demonstrating the logical problems with “tolerance” in this discussion
there is no “tolerance”; either affirmation if one is “pro-gay”, or bigotry if one is “anti-gay” (even if that means only saying “I don’t agree but you live your life like you want”)
I’ve been very very tolerant of anti-straight bigotry, and will continue to be, and I will be clear and consistent about it so no one can make the mistake of thinking I am actually “pro-gay”
Am I right, JD, that this is the kind of stuff you take objection with, that willingness to “live and let live” is switched for “agree with me or you’re the bigot/abnormal/meany person”?
Political discussion “bait and switch” is what it is.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/14/2013 @ 11:05 amfeets, tell me, how do you suggest the state of MA deal with a transgendered 8 yo in a public school? 10 yo? 14 yo? 18 yo?
for reals reals, not humorous, because none of the parents involved think it is humorous
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/14/2013 @ 11:07 ambut at some point the time for tolerance is over
No more assault pop tarts in schools
No more 20 oz soft drinks
If the government allows you to make choices, you will make painful mistakes. The government will make your choices for you.
Liberty!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/14/2013 @ 11:34 amMD in Philly – Beware the Thought Police.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/14/2013 @ 11:37 amyou are welcome Mr. Dr. and I thank you for the opportunity
with respect to the transgendered I think we can tolerate a little bigotry for at least a good ten twenty more years
they’re just not at the same place on the curve as the matrimonial homosexual peoples
sucks to be them I guess
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/14/2013 @ 11:39 amaphrael wrote:
People who are friends, whether personal or workplace, usually know or figure out these things. Sure, there will always be some who never pick up on some co-workers’ personal lives, but most do.
The issue as far as I am concerned is the insistence — and that word is deliberately chosen — of some organizations to make their sexual identity or preferences a part of their public life, in a way which pushes their choices or lifestyles on others. These are the groups which say that I must accept, and must not judge, someone because he is homosexual — or black, or Buddhist, or whatever — rather than simply saying that someone is a human being.
The inclusive Dana (3e4784) — 3/14/2013 @ 11:48 amAm I right, JD, that this is the kind of stuff you take objection with, that willingness to “live and let live” is switched for “agree with me or you’re the bigot/abnormal/meany person”?
You don’t have to be a bigot to oppose redefining a union of a man and a woman to be something other than what it is. As we have seen previously, accepting civil unions with the same legal considerations is not enough. They want to redefine the institution as well.
I am intolerant of intolerance
JD (31065f) — 3/14/2013 @ 11:55 amI do find it amazing that we are spending millions of dollars to find out what makes people fat. Improper diet. Insufficient physical activity.
JD (31065f) — 3/14/2013 @ 11:57 am“I can’t vote Republican because they dislike my lifestyle” (paraphrase)
Yet, you’ll turn right around and vote Democrat when the intent of the Democrat/Progressive Party is to shackle you to an ever increasing debt that will impoverish the country.
How is that an improvement?
And the corollary is: Why should those Republicans embrace you when you wish to consign them, and the rest of the country, to a life of penury?
Personally, I’ve gotten to the point that I don’t care what color you are, where you’re from, what religion you practice, what your sexual identity is:
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/14/2013 @ 12:07 pmIf you vote Democrat, I have no use for you because the people you endorse and support are trying to impoverish me (at best) and kill me (at worst) through their economic and international political endeavors.
i’d never vote for a Democrat personally
there’s just no upside in doing something like that at all that I can see
fascism never ends well
never ever
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/14/2013 @ 3:27 pmA “good” ending to Fascism…..
askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/14/2013 @ 3:49 pmhttp://rote-hahn.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html
“People who are friends, whether personal or workplace, usually know or figure out these things. Sure, there will always be some who never pick up on some co-workers’ personal lives, but most do.”
The inclusive Dana – I don’t remember anybody holding the title Chief Diversity Officer when I first entered the workforce. The number and type of groups claiming protected victim status has multiplied like rabbits.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/14/2013 @ 4:16 pmthat’s just a cartoon Mr. skeptic
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 3/14/2013 @ 4:49 pmI know this is an older thread and this comment may get hidden, but I heard something today in reference to SS marriage that I had never heard of before and thought I would put it by you lawyers.
Hewitt was interviewing someone from the AEI- American Enterprise Institute- I believe. Something was said about tax-exemption status potentially being withheld from an organization that has practices outside of the norm, even if not illegal. The point was made that if SS marriage became more prominently accepted and legal, that even though a church could refuse to marry SS couples on religious grounds, they could potentially have their tax-exemption status in jeopardy.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:32 pmI don’t know if that is a valid concern or not. If it is true, the govt. can make tax policy as they want to in such a situation. I just want, as always, full disclosure on consequences of actions.
MD in Philly, I see a free exercise constitutional problem. But that is the kind of crap I’d expect from Obama administration. Have the same position on SSM that Obama had until last year == you are a bigot.
SPQR (768505) — 3/15/2013 @ 8:48 pm