Pittsburghers Celebrate SCOTUS Ruling (Harrisburg, Butler: living, to move, wealthiest)

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by jay5835

What Stijl said. I can't imagine how anyone could even type Q-Tip's first sentence, let alone present it as truth.

Being able to empathize with the position of people that you disagree with is a great tool for destroying their arguments about a particular topic, and ultimately has a better chance of forcing them to reconsider why they believe what they believe.


There are people who disapprove of an action due to their religious beliefs, and yet they do not actively seek to inhibit it.

Bigotry requires malice. It requires prejudice and intolerance.

I don't agree with any of those views, but I can see ways that a person would potentially be against the practice of homosexuality strictly due to biblical interpretation and yet through their actions or inaction be still tolerant of it.

Throwing the b-word around, even in instances where it is fully warranted, is far less effective at combating ignorance than calmly forming a rebuttal.

[hinsey86]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

Being able to empathize with the position of people that you disagree with is a great tool for destroying their arguments about a particular topic, and ultimately has a better chance of forcing them to reconsider why they believe what they believe.


There are people who disapprove of an action due to their religious beliefs, and yet they do not actively seek to inhibit it.

Bigotry requires malice. It requires prejudice and intolerance.

I don't agree with any of those views, but I can see ways that a person would potentially be against the practice of homosexuality strictly due to biblical interpretation and yet through their actions or inaction be still tolerant of it.

Throwing the b-word around, even in instances where it is fully warranted, is far less effective at combating ignorance than calmly forming a rebuttal.

Damn..that was just plain well said and ITA. Which is why I have friends on both sides of the coin...but only tolerant ones. The religious ones may not agree or go to a rally to support Gay Marraige but they don't agree with DOMA either. Then there are the non religious buds who respect friends commitment to their respective religion ....I don't like crazies on either side. But sometimes you gotta sift thru the crazies to find the keepers.

[jay5835]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

There are people who disapprove of an action due to their religious beliefs, and yet they do not actively seek to inhibit it.

Bigotry requires malice. It requires prejudice and intolerance.

I don't agree with any of those views, but I can see ways that a person would potentially be against the practice of homosexuality strictly due to biblical interpretation and yet through their actions or inaction be still tolerant of it.

Throwing the b-word around, even in instances where it is fully warranted, is far less effective at combating ignorance than calmly forming a rebuttal.

My calmly formed rebuttal is this: no one deserves an opinion about two people who want to marry other than the two people who want to marry. And I will never pretend anyone, however large and righteous and august a body it considers itself, has a right to such an opinion.

Originally Posted by hinsey86

Damn..that was just plain well said and ITA. Which is why I have friends on both sides of the coin...but only tolerant ones. The religious ones may not agree or go to a rally to support Gay Marraige but they don't agree with DOMA either. Then there are the non religious buds who respect friends commitment to their respective religion ....I don't like crazies on either side. But sometimes you gotta sift thru the crazies to find the keepers.

The "coin," quite simply, should not exist. Hard to believe it has taken so long to come to this actually rather intermediate step, but such is life. I guess by your standards, I'm a "crazy." I can live with that.

[jimmyev]

Originally Posted by youngabe

Aside from the sheer lack of knowledge on the issue, what drives me insane about comments like this is something that most people don't consider...the economic BENEFIT to same-sex marriage. The glaring issue is that it's simply a civil rights issue, but morons like Metcalfe can't even see the economic benefit. If Pennsylvania continues to be in the stone age on social issues, we aren't going to gain the population that we COULD gain if EVERYONE felt that they were a welcome resident in the state of Pennsylvania. More residents equals a larger tax base. Gay marriage equals more people spending their money in our state on EVERYTHING wedding related. I specifically remember when New York state allowed same-sex marriage, the economical benefit was cited. Goons like Metcalfe truly are so out of touch with social issues, it pains me that people like him are in any form of elected position for a diverse society. With mentality like his, growth in the entire state will be stymied. It's a damn shame, since the leaders of the city of Pittsburgh are so pro-gay. Our state's out-of-touch views could potentially hinder the growth of Pittsburgh, even though the city itself is progressive, it wouldn't do incoming gay residents enough since the state level makes them feel unwelcomed.

Places like Houston already have to fork out salaries 25-50% larger than places like Pittsburgh to attract the engineers and scientists that they need. The reason United Airlines choose Chicago over Dallas as its hub had less to do with taxes and more to do with the Quality of Life. More and more professionals are going to refuse to work in states that they consider 'backwards.' When Dell or Apple can't find enough IT people to fill their facilities in Austin, they'll have to either pay through the nose or move out of state. Eventually most western/northern states are going to have marriage equality, and southern states are just going to bleed economically as people refuse to live/work in them.

[that412]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

I don't agree with any of those views, but I can see ways that a person would potentially be against the practice of homosexuality strictly due to biblical interpretation and yet through their actions or inaction be still tolerant of it.

Anyone who is truly tolerant of same-sex marriage is by definition not opposed to it and is thus not who is being discussed here.

Jay has said everything else that needs to be said.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by jay5835

My calmly formed rebuttal is this: no one deserves an opinion about two people who want to marry other than the two people who want to marry. And I will never pretend anyone, however large and righteous and august a body it considers itself, has a right to such an opinion.

The "coin," quite simply, should not exist. Hard to believe it has taken so long to come to this actually rather intermediate step, but such is life. I guess by your standards, I'm a "crazy." I can live with that.

On the contrary everyone deserves an opinion on everything, and its protected by our constitution.

There is a difference though between opposing something merely in opinion and actively (voting, campaigning, harassing, etc) opposing it. I'm not suggesting that there are anything but a tiny minority of Christians (I'm an atheist FYI) who fit this definition, but I know a handful of them who feel compelled to live by biblical definitions on life, yet refuse to see it forcibly applied to those who don't. I'm sure they struggle to rationalize it. Labeling them as bigots (when they aren't) will only produce a defensive reaction to push people like this more towards more militant forms of fundamentalism.

You're right though, the coin shouldn't exist. People shouldn't define their morality by a 400 year old text that was written and heavily edited at the behest of a certain monarch...but they do. White privilege shouldn't exists, but it does. It is unfortunate that the supreme court ruling on DOMA is but a small step towards actual equality, but that is the world we live in. Fortunately that world seems to be changing for the better.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by that412

Anyone who is truly tolerant of same-sex marriage is by definition not opposed to it and is thus not who is being discussed here.

Jay has said everything else that needs to be said.

Tolerance: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own

As I said one doesn't have to be tolerant and approving of something at the same time.

[I_Like_Spam]

Originally Posted by jimmyev

Places like Houston already have to fork out salaries 25-50% larger than places like Pittsburgh to attract the engineers and scientists that they need. The reason United Airlines choose Chicago over Dallas as its hub had less to do with taxes and more to do with the Quality of Life. More and more professionals are going to refuse to work in states that they consider 'backwards.'.

In theory, you may have a point. But I don't think divergent stands on this particular controversial topic are that critical to the vast majority of young people.

United already has a hub at Bush Int'l in Houston and DFW has the hub for American. Atlanta is a "red" state airport which is among the world's largest.

Pittsburgh salaries are lower than most places, the fact that people have to be paid more to want to live in a terribly hot town like Houston isn't surprising.

How this issue shakes out in the long run, I couldn't say, but it will be a live one for the next decade along with abortion, as its about the only thing the Republicans have to run on with the Democrat position winning the battle on the tax/entitlement type issues.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by that412

Anyone who is truly tolerant of same-sex marriage is by definition not opposed to it and is thus not who is being discussed here.

Jay has said everything else that needs to be said.

...and for the record I get where both yourself and jay are coming from, but I feel that your posts are the product of a very polarizing issue.

[jay5835]

Brian Sims, Pennsylvania Lawmaker, Silenced On DOMA By Colleagues Citing 'God's Law'

Brian Sims, Pennsylvania Lawmaker, Silenced On DOMA By Colleagues Citing 'God's Law'

An openly gay lawmaker was silenced by colleagues on the Pennsylvania House floor Thursday when he attempted to speak about the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act.

State Rep. Brian Sims (D-Philadelphia) took to the House floor on Thursday to discuss the high court's landmark ruling, which found the federal law barring the government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by states to be unconstitutional. However, as WHYY News and Philly.com report, Sims' remarks were blocked by several state lawmakers using a procedural maneuver.

One of those lawmakers, conservative state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler), told WHYY that he believed Sims' comments would be a violation of "God's law."

"I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's law," Metcalfe said.

Sims said he had no intention of criticizing gay marriage detractors, and had only planned to highlight the importance of the court's ruling.
"I wasn't planning on chastising anybody. I wasn't planning on discussing how far we have to come in Pennsylvania or that we really have no civil rights in Pennsylvania," Sims said.

Two other Democrats attempted to speak in support of Sims, but they too were blocked.

At the end of the session, Sims rose to speak again, criticizing Metcalfe and others who had blocked him.

"A few months ago I reminded this House that we put our hands on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around. What I did was in no way against the law of any God," he said, referencing a speech he made in April. "I can't call anyone a bigot, a homophobe or racist, but language used against me does not live up to the standards of this body."

Sims, who entered office in January, is the first openly gay lawmaker elected to the state legislature.

On Thursday, Sims and fellow Democratic Rep. Steve McCarter vowed to introduce a measure in the state House allowing same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania.

"LGBT Pennsylvanians are seeing their neighbors in New York, Maryland and Delaware, among other states, now qualify for the approximately 1,000 federal rights and benefits that come with civil marriage and they are increasingly asking why they don't have those same rights, as well as the state rights and benefits," Sims said in a statement.