Poll of the Day > The next thing they're gonna do is outlaw being gay

(+) Yeah! (+)

Theyre already freaking out about a quick lesbian peck in a Disney movie

Theyre gonna start by making it so youre only allowed to hold hands with your same sex partner in special zones, and no kids are allowed at all in case they might see it and think about gay things and then turn gay from exposure.

Well I will take to the streets again with you guys just like I did when we legalized it the first time.

Seems to me the world is more and more progressive these days so I doubt it.

It clearly doesnt matter what the majority says or does when the Supreme Court can do whatever the fuck they want and all the president can say is lets vote in November :3

wwinterj25 posted...

Seems to me the world is more and more progressive these days so I doubt it.

not in America

DirtBasedSoap posted...

not in America

Hmm. TV shows and the like suggest otherwise. Although granted I've no idea bout the gay scene in other countries outside of that.

wwinterj25 posted...

Hmm. TV shows and the like suggest otherwise. Although granted I've no idea bout the gay scene in other countries outside of that.

California =/= The US. Right wing principle is about traditionalism, which means not progressing.

wwinterj25 posted...

Seems to me the world is more and more progressive these days so I doubt it.

Doesn't matter how progressive "the world" is. Only how progressive the nine people sitting on the court are.

PK_Spam posted...

no kids are allowed at all in case they might see it and think about gay things and then turn gay from exposure.

Being gay is so great, just the sight of two woman kissing for half a second is irresistible and now you're indoctrinated into the lifestyle

wwinterj25 posted...

Hmm. TV shows and the like suggest otherwise. Although granted I've no idea bout the gay scene in other countries outside of that.

Don't ever base what politics, culture or anything of a real life situation are like in a goddamn TV show, do you really need this to be said to you? Works of fiction are never indicative of what a country is like, especially one that's unfathomably huge like the US.

Cruddy_horse posted...

Don't ever base what politics, culture or anything of a real life situation are like in a goddamn TV show, do you really need this to be said to you? Works of fiction are never indicative of what a country is like, especially one that's unfathomably huge like the US.

Also TV is constantly going back and forth between edgy and conservative.
There are channels that bleep God but not damn. The 90s had TV start to get real dirty, but I'm not sure if that was progress or not, just assuming the audience was mature.

wwinterj25 posted...

Seems to me the world is more and more progressive these days so I doubt it.

pretty much

Well they did explicitly say they were going to go after gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws, so you're right, they will.

Cruddy_horse posted...

Don't ever base what politics, culture or anything of a real life situation are like in a goddamn TV show, do you really need this to be said to you? Works of fiction are never indicative of what a country is like, especially one that's unfathomably huge like the US.

I dont know Ellen coming out as gay on a sitcom hurt her a lot at the time. Now we have a show like Modern Family with a gay couple on it, and it does well with republicans.

I think media can be used as a gauge.

And for anyone curious. We have 3 that voted for gay marriage and 3 that voted against still left on the court.

Gorsuch, Baret, and Kavanaugh are the likely deciders.

DrPrimemaster posted...

And for anyone curious. We have 3 that voted for gay marriage and 3 that voted against still left on the court.

Gorsuch, Baret, and Kavanaugh are the likely deciders.

Based on their previous decisions, Gorsuch would likely vote in favor of gay marriage with Kavanaught and Barrett* voting against. So it would likely come to a 5-4 ruling against gay marriage. However for that to happen a case would need to make its way to the supreme court, which seems kind of unlikely.

*I'm not as sure about how Barrett would vote, but based on the limited evidence I'm guessing she'd probably be against.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/3/2/AATQZDAADYOA.jpg

wwinterj25 posted...

Hmm. TV shows and the like suggest otherwise. Although granted I've no idea bout the gay scene in other countries outside of that.

Doesnt matter when we have a right wing majority in the SC do whatever the fuck they want.

I know it's important to acknowledge these things but it kind of sucks that this abortion issue can't just have the spotlight without having to share the misery with all this other shit. It really is a testament to the state of our country right now.

Jen0125 posted...

I know it's important to acknowledge these things but it kind of sucks that this abortion issue can't just have the spotlight without having to share the misery with all this other shit. It really is a testament to the state of our country right now.

I think it helps emphasize that this isn't a temporary setback or roadblock. This isn't going to resolve itself in a few years. America is on a hard downward slant and there's no reason to think things aren't going to get worse.

I see a lot of Americans, even intelligent Americans, assume that society is always on a constant upward (if bumpy) trajectory. There's almost no historical precedent for this.

DrPrimemaster posted...

I dont know Ellen coming out as gay on a sitcom hurt her a lot at the time. Now we have a show like Modern Family with a gay couple on it, and it does well with republicans.

I think media can be used as a gauge.

A gay couple that is very much a generic stereotype though, and it's a comedy show, conservatives don't really care if a gay couple is played for laughs, they care if it's a real life gay couple though. Lesbians also tend to get a bit of leeway in terms of acceptance, then there's plenty of people who think gay stuff is hot as long as it is happening between the opposite gender.

Bligh_with_no_T posted...

I think it helps emphasize that this isn't a temporary setback or roadblock. This isn't going to resolve itself in a few years. America is on a hard downward slant and there's no reason to think things aren't going to get worse.

I see a lot of Americans, even intelligent Americans, assume that society is always on a constant upward (if bumpy) trajectory. There's almost no historical precedent for this.

It's hard to accept our species is shitty but you're right.
I assume all evolution is positive but clearly it's not.
When we compare the numbers and facts, it's just our technology that's improving. My outlook is generally positive but this is sobering.
Most of my motivation is set to a positive example to leave the world a better place, but it can be so fruitless.

Bligh_with_no_T posted...

I think it helps emphasize that this isn't a temporary setback or roadblock. This isn't going to resolve itself in a few years. America is on a hard downward slant and there's no reason to think things aren't going to get worse.

I see a lot of Americans, even intelligent Americans, assume that society is always on a constant upward (if bumpy) trajectory. There's almost no historical precedent for this.

Honestly we're on a path to civil war. Policy is being dictated by a tiny minority and it's pissing off the majority while the minority splits the majority in half and makes them hate each other for it.

Yes, they will target contraception, gay marriage, and general privacy rights (which protect people who engage in any form of sex that isn't PtV) next, it's rather obvious, and all the while their followers will scoff and say "pft no they won't it's settled law you're just paranoid herp derp" until after it's done and then the next day they'll call the police on their neighbors, because they're all a bunch of bootlicking rats who fantasize about ruining the lives of anyone who is even remotely different from them and they're just too pathetic and cowardly to openly admit it until after they already have the power to do it.

It's good to know that the Supreme Court has its priorities in order and wants to make sure that people can't have condoms but can be forcibly sterilized when deemed "unfit."

BlackScythe0 posted...

Honestly we're on a path to civil war. Policy is being dictated by a tiny minority and it's pissing off the majority while the minority splits the majority in half and makes them hate each other for it.

There won't be a civil war. The military would quickly demolish any attempts.

wwinterj25 posted...

Seems to me the world is more and more progressive these days so I doubt it.

Justice Thomas: In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Courts substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

Griswold v. Connecticut: In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Douglas, the Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception.

Lawrence v. Texas: In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.

Obergefell v. Hodges: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples.

And you can bet after that they'll probably go for Brown v Board. And I'm not exaggerating. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-education/2022/05/09/will-brown-v-board-of-education-be-next-to-fall-00030923

I should point out that Roe v Wade was decided by a 7-2 majority. It was overturned by 5-4, with 4 of those 5 deciding justices nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote.

Jen0125 posted...

I know it's important to acknowledge these things but it kind of sucks that this abortion issue can't just have the spotlight without having to share the misery with all this other shit. It really is a testament to the state of our country right now.

The conversation did almost immediately switch to what else are they going to ban. I wonder if the part of the intention of Thomas stating the concurring opinion statement was to shift focus away.

DrPrimemaster posted...

The conversation did almost immediately switch to what else are they going to ban. I wonder if the part of the intention of Thomas stating the concurring opinion statement was to shift focus away.

I get this is one of the first indicators of the huge changes to come but we really need to work on fighting this to stop the downfall, not spreading the message immediately too thin.

Jen0125 posted...

I get this is one of the first indicators of the huge changes to come but we really need to work on fighting this to stop the downfall, not spreading the message immediately too thin.

What does fighting mean for you? Is it campaigning in Arizona to change laws there? or is it trying to overturn this ruling?

Also, for you personally and if you know generally, what is the end goal of abortion rights? Is it all the way until birth?

What I've been arguing for is:

-Any abortion is acceptable if the baby is untenable. Stillborn babies during pregnancy due to fertility drugs being an example.

-Any abortion is acceptable if the mother's health is in danger. Ectopic pregnancies, pregnancy diabetes, and other health complications that create an extreme risk during child birth.

-First trimester abortion so any accidental and unwanted pregnancies can be stopped.

DrPrimemaster posted...

What does fighting mean for you? Is it campaigning in Arizona to change laws there? or is it trying to overturn this ruling?

Also, for you personally and if you know generally, what is the end goal of abortion rights? Is it all the way until birth?

What I've been arguing for is:

-Any abortion is acceptable if the baby is untenable. Stillborn babies during pregnancy due to fertility drugs being an example.

-The mother's health is in danger. If the mother is likely to die you can abort at any time.

-First trimester abortion so any accidental and unwanted pregnancies can be stopped.

I'm not getting into an abortion conversation with a man on potd. It's not happening. I don't have the emotional capacity to talk to men who will never be affected by this issue but want to dictate terms.

captpackrat posted...

Justice Thomas: In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Courts substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

Griswold v. Connecticut: In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Douglas, the Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception.

Lawrence v. Texas: In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause.

Obergefell v. Hodges: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples.

And you can bet after that they'll probably go for Brown v Board. And I'm not exaggerating. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-education/2022/05/09/will-brown-v-board-of-education-be-next-to-fall-00030923

I'm pretty sure that even if Thomas tries though the public will be very quick to ask that they start with Love v. Virginia. Thomas didn't think what he said through hard enough and I doubt he realizes it yet.

im sure they would love to overturn that one too.

Jen0125 posted...

I'm not getting into an abortion conversation with a man on potd. It's not happening. I don't have the emotional capacity to talk to men who will never be affected by this issue but want to dictate terms.

Fair enough.

Arcturusisnow posted...

Love v. Virginia. Thomas didn't think what he said through hard enough

I think he knows exactly what he's doing and is just too much of a coward to ask his wife to sign the divorce papers.

KodyKeir posted...

I think he knows exactly what he's doing and is just too much of a coward to ask his wife to sign the divorce papers.

This is my current theory lol

DrPrimemaster posted...

-First trimester abortion so any accidental and unwanted pregnancies can be stopped.

While the basic concept of time-limiting abortions seems nice on paper, in practice, less scrupulous jurisdictions will often abuse that limit by throwing in so much red tape that it's almost impossible for a woman to finish getting approved for an abortion before she passes the time limit. On top of that, it's not at all uncommon for women to not realize they're pregnant until they're several weeks or even months in, especially if they normally have periods that are irregular enough that random pregnancy bleeding (which is common), so it's completely possible to miss that deadline even without pro-life interference.

I do understand where you're coming from, because late-term abortions are a really unpleasant concept, but the practical reality of the matter and of the malicious actors involved is that fettering abortion access at all will result in people that need abortions being denied them, even if they would "deserve" them under your reasoning. If you want to minimize late-term abortions, don't give lawmakers an excuse to make them necessary, because they will do exactly that if they think it will prevent the abortion altogether. Completely unfettered access is what needs to be protected. Adding caveats and limitations will only make things worse.

Of course, there's also the point that nobody but the pregnant woman should have the right to decide whether or not to continue carrying a pregnancy, regardless of the circumstances, so all of this rationalization is moot. Nobody should be determining whether or not a woman "deserves" to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term in the first place, let alone debating about the criteria used to make that call. I'm fine with saying that viable fetuses should be induced and delivered instead of aborted, since the process isn't all that different once you get to that stage and you might as well save the baby and put it up for adoption if the experience going to be so similar for the mother, but that's really the only limitation I can justify, and even that's pushing it because it's still none of my business what any given pregnant woman chooses to go through.

Jen0125 posted...

This is my current theory lol

"I don't actually have anything against any of these issues, but it'll be much cheaper for me to get divorced if my marriage is legally annulled instead, so I'm working up to that."

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/9/9/AAAgaZAADYZ_.jpg

Exactly. The only reason needed to want an abortion is not wanting to be pregnant. It's probably worthwhile to offer birth control counselling to "frequent flyers," since multiple unwanted pregnancies may indicate that they don't understand something about birth control and that's putting them at higher risk, but even that should be voluntary.

adjl posted...

Exactly. The only reason needed to want an abortion is not wanting to be pregnant. It's probably worthwhile to offer birth control counselling to "frequent flyers," since multiple unwanted pregnancies may indicate that they don't understand something about birth control and that's putting them at higher risk, but even that should be voluntary.

People who get multiple abortions should have additional medical coaching anyways because of the risk for medical injury.

KodyKeir posted...

I think he knows exactly what he's doing and is just too much of a coward to ask his wife to sign the divorce papers.

I can't wait till we bring back slavery and Thomas is led out of the courtroom in chains to work as a slave.

adjl posted...

Exactly. The only reason needed to want an abortion is not wanting to be pregnant. It's probably worthwhile to offer birth control counselling to "frequent flyers," since multiple unwanted pregnancies may indicate that they don't understand something about birth control and that's putting them at higher risk, but even that should be voluntary.

Are there actually frequent flyers?

Also, the only reason I talk about a time limit is it feels like itll be easier to get that legislation passed.

A question I wonder too though is how many women get to 8 months pregnant and then change their minds.

DrPrimemaster posted...

A question I wonder too though is how many women get to 8 months pregnant and then change their minds.

Unless they didn't know they were pregnant until 8 months, zero. Late term abortions are always medical necessities.

Jen0125 posted...

People who get multiple abortions should have additional medical coaching anyways because of the risk for medical injury.

That too. But, of course, that would require a functional medical system, so here we are.

DrPrimemaster posted...

Are there actually frequent flyers?

There are, but not to nearly the extent that many pro-lifers want to believe. It's pretty uncommon for any one person to get more than one abortion, especially since the first unwanted pregnancy is very often a wake-up call for people that haven't necessarily been careful about birth control (to which end, I'd say offering (but not mandating) birth control consultations after every abortion would be a good idea) and they're more careful after that (which isn't a guarantee, but it reduces the odds significantly).

DrPrimemaster posted...

Also, the only reason I talk about a time limit is it feels like itll be easier to get that legislation passed.

The problem is that the reason it's easier to get that legislation passed is that the people pushing back against stronger legislation see the compromise as something they'll be able to exploit to get what they want (which is to prevent as many abortions as they legally can). Make that compromise, and you give up most of the point in making the legislation in the first place.

Make no mistake: These people aren't going to be happy unless abortion is federally illegal. You give them an inch, they'll take as much of that mile as they can possibly grab.

DrPrimemaster posted...

A question I wonder too though is how many women get to 8 months pregnant and then change their minds.

Outside of medical issues (which isn't really "changing their minds,") or the rare (but not unheard of) cases where they didn't realize they were pregnant until then, not many. Again, many pro-lifers have this fantasy that most abortions are late-term ones where they're hacking apart perfectly formed babies, but with proper access, it's much more common to catch it early enough to just take a pill and have an extra-heavy period.

Arcturusisnow posted...

I can't wait till we bring back slavery and Thomas is led out of the courtroom in chains to work as a slave.

They will carve out exceptions for "the good ones". Hypocrisy is not a weakness for them.

adjl posted...

Make no mistake: These people aren't going to be happy unless abortion is federally illegal. You give them an inch, they'll take as much of that mile as they can possibly grab.

That's what they're going for next. If the Republicans can take Congress and the White House, it's a sure thing they're going to go for a federal ban and they will get rid of the filibuster to do it.

Cruddy_horse posted...

Don't ever base what politics, culture or anything of a real life situation are like in a goddamn TV show, do you really need this to be said to you? Works of fiction are never indicative of what a country is like, especially one that's unfathomably huge like the US.

Maybe I should elaborate. Documentaries, real life stories (films or TV show) and stuff can give insight to certain countries but media is all I have to work with as I've never visited the US and don't actively follow politics.

PK_Spam posted...

Theyre already freaking out about a quick lesbian peck in a Disney movie

Theyre gonna start by making it so youre only allowed to hold hands with your same sex partner in special zones, and no kids are allowed at all in case they might see it and think about gay things and then turn gay from exposure.

The bizarre, alarmist leaps people make are truly astounding.

Count_Drachma posted...

The bizarre, alarmist leaps people make are truly astounding.

Remember when you were all like "it's just a draft decision that got leaked, they won't actually overturn Roe v. Wade" and told everyone to stop worrying about it?

Yeah. Just get out. You cannot contribute meaningfully to this discussion in any way.

TBF, Zeus has never contributed meaningfully to any discussion that isn't about a work of fiction.