Utah man fasting for nullification

[Avatar4321]

umm, the granting of marriage licenses in Calif was halted until the Sup Ct dismissed the citizen complaint and restored the Circuit Court's holding.

Why was their appeal punted when it's clear this one or another just like it [probably this one] will be determined with finality since so many are being buckshotted at the SCOTUS?

And, do you think the US Supreme Court will set the precedent of aberrent sexual behaviors grabbing away the definition of marriage in Utah? Think "polygamy"...?

The CA case had a lot of baggage related to who had standing, etc. It will be better when there is a nice clean case resulting in a "yes, you can discriminate against gays" or "no, you need to consider gays to be equal citizens".

Polygamy?? That's sure a random interjection. Were you just trying for insulting?

Polygamy hardly seems random when both the controversial decisions came down on the same week.

 

[G.T.]

a man fasting for nullification is ironic.

Maybe it's just be but I don't see the irony.

By fasting he's nullifying himself.

 

[bendog]

Is he dead yet?

 

[Statistikhengst]

@sillhouette

Oh gosh, that's going to take forever to read. I appreciate the data though, and I'll take a look at it later today. Is there anything in particular I should be learning from it. I have no doubt about sexual imprinting, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make of this.

I know many of the universities have prestigious study programs, but universities are often over represented by liberals, so it seems it would be easy for bias to seep into the study. Without a group being ignorant of where they get their funding, it seems like it would be difficult to trust any study program.
[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

It makes sense that the impartial would be best, but how so you know if a group is truly impartial? Almost everyone will claim they try to be objective. Even if a group has no stated agenda, they are always financed by someone or some group that does have an agenda.

I agree that sexuality should be a private concern, yet it has become a political issue. Even before that, it was a cultural issue, and I can see why people would want data on it for either of these reasons even if I don't care much about it myself. Personally, I'm a live and let live kind of guy. I want the government to stop regulating marriage altogether. I can see people wanting statistics on homosexual marriage in regards to adoption because you would want to prove hat gay homes are either good or bad for the child, but beyond that, I don't see why the issue is a mainstream American political issue. It of my list of concerns for the nation, this probably ranks about fiftieth.

Side question, if you are in Germany, why are you concerned with US politics.

Your reasoning on looking at the consensus of polling makes sense. If people are slanting on both sides in opposite directions, is should even out.

First bolded: got some evidence to back that up? That is an assumption, nothing more. I know a whole of of Conservatives who also work in Ivory Towers.

Second bolded: you never know 100% for sure, but many research firms or tanks rely mostly on public funding and are therefore beholden to no one.

Third bolded: I am a US-Citizen, I just work in Germany.

 

[Seawytch]

Is he dead yet?

No...there's a temporary stay so he gets to eat temporarily.

 

[Seawytch]

I am a US-Citizen, I just work in Germany.

Tell me MOVE voter, have you gotten your ballot from an online system? How'd you like it if so?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am a US-Citizen, I just work in Germany.

Tell me MOVE voter, have you gotten your ballot from an online system? How'd you like it if so?

No, I still register with the county of my permanent residence in Ohio and receive the ballot per normal mail. I much prefer it that way. But that's just a personal preference, has to do with actually having a piece of paper in my hand.

 

[deltex1]

Utah man fasting to stop same sex marriages - 4Utah.com

I am going to preface my comments by saying I completely believe in fasting. i believe that fasting, like Gandhi engaged it can change things. I also believe there is power in fasting for our daily struggles.

With that said, I find this incredibly foolish. Nullification has never been considered a legitimate state policy in the history of the United States. Fasting for nullification to be used for the first time in US history is not a prudent.

Gandhi's use of fasting was not to change laws. He fasted to get people to stop being violent. He fasted to change people's hearts. Moreover, Gandhi was already a well beloved person. A random stranger doing a fast to change people would never have the same effect.

Also, Christ taught those of us with Christian backgrounds not to fast publically. We are supposed to fast in secret not to be praised in the world. I could see a small group of people fasting for change, but public fasting just isn't something Christians should be doing in most situations. (Obviously, inspiration of the Spirit is the general rule).

I think perhaps we should pray for this young man to see that other methods would be more prudent if he wants to accomplish a goal.

I prefer drinking to fasting.

 

[Avatar4321]

Utah man fasting to stop same sex marriages - 4Utah.com

I am going to preface my comments by saying I completely believe in fasting. i believe that fasting, like Gandhi engaged it can change things. I also believe there is power in fasting for our daily struggles.

With that said, I find this incredibly foolish. Nullification has never been considered a legitimate state policy in the history of the United States. Fasting for nullification to be used for the first time in US history is not a prudent.

Gandhi's use of fasting was not to change laws. He fasted to get people to stop being violent. He fasted to change people's hearts. Moreover, Gandhi was already a well beloved person. A random stranger doing a fast to change people would never have the same effect.

Also, Christ taught those of us with Christian backgrounds not to fast publically. We are supposed to fast in secret not to be praised in the world. I could see a small group of people fasting for change, but public fasting just isn't something Christians should be doing in most situations. (Obviously, inspiration of the Spirit is the general rule).

I think perhaps we should pray for this young man to see that other methods would be more prudent if he wants to accomplish a goal.

I prefer drinking to fasting.

The difference is drinking doesnt do anything beneficial.

 

[Avatar4321]

BTW the man stopped fasting upon the Court's stay

 

[candycorn]

BTW the man stopped fasting upon the Court's stay

When it gets reinstated...it will start back up? Hope so.

 

[Noomi]

Let me know when he starves to death.

 

[Avatar4321]

BTW the man stopped fasting upon the Court's stay

When it gets reinstated...it will start back up? Hope so.

No idea. but glad to see you being so compassionate.

 

[Avatar4321]

Let me know when he starves to death.

What part of "he is eating again since the Court stayed the ruling" was confusing?

 

[Noomi]

Let me know when he starves to death.

What part of "he is eating again since the Court stayed the ruling" was confusing?

Didn't read that part, sorry. My bad.

 

[Knightfall]

First bolded: got some evidence to back that up? That is an assumption, nothing more. I know a whole of of Conservatives who also work in Ivory Towers.

Second bolded: you never know 100% for sure, but many research firms or tanks rely mostly on public funding and are therefore beholden to no one.

Third bolded: I am a US-Citizen, I just work in Germany.

1. It's not an assumption. It's a commonly held belief that I've heard repeated many times and my anecdotal observation fully supports. More importantly, research supports the idea. I've checked into it before, though I will not claim I dug deep into it at the time or currently. Still, I regoogled it just a second ago and came up with evidence immediately.

This Survey reported on Insider Higher Ed, an apparently non-partisan website, says that the over representation of liberals to conservatives is five to one and growing. The study was done by Higher Education Research Institute, a program which is based out of UCLA and has no apparent bias. If you know this to be wrong, I'd like to hear why. That's the kind of stuff I was hoping you could teach me. If it's right, I'm surprised you didn't know it.

2. It seems to me that people who rely on public funding would be more inclined to bias things towards the party with the most power over their checks.

3. Oh, cool. What do you do in Germany?

 

[Seawytch]

I am a US-Citizen, I just work in Germany.

Tell me MOVE voter, have you gotten your ballot from an online system? How'd you like it if so?

No, I still register with the county of my permanent residence in Ohio and receive the ballot per normal mail. I much prefer it that way. But that's just a personal preference, has to do with actually having a piece of paper in my hand.

You have to print the ballot out. There is no online voting...yet.

 

[WillReadmore]

Polygamy hardly seems random when both the controversial decisions came down on the same week.

Which "both"? Do you mean DOMA and the CA ruling?

Neither of those had anything to do with polygamy.

In fact, the only time polygamy was mentioned was in questioning which ensured it was NOT an issue.

 

[Barb]

 

[WillReadmore]

First bolded: got some evidence to back that up? That is an assumption, nothing more. I know a whole of of Conservatives who also work in Ivory Towers.

Second bolded: you never know 100% for sure, but many research firms or tanks rely mostly on public funding and are therefore beholden to no one.

Third bolded: I am a US-Citizen, I just work in Germany.

1. It's not an assumption. It's a commonly held belief that I've heard repeated many times and my anecdotal observation fully supports. More importantly, research supports the idea. I've checked into it before, though I will not claim I dug deep into it at the time or currently. Still, I regoogled it just a second ago and came up with evidence immediately.

This Survey reported on Insider Higher Ed, an apparently non-partisan website, says that the over representation of liberals to conservatives is five to one and growing. The study was done by Higher Education Research Institute, a program which is based out of UCLA and has no apparent bias. If you know this to be wrong, I'd like to hear why. That's the kind of stuff I was hoping you could teach me. If it's right, I'm surprised you didn't know it.

2. It seems to me that people who rely on public funding would be more inclined to bias things towards the party with the most power over their checks.

3. Oh, cool. What do you do in Germany?

There are all sorts of biases in raw polling data from polls by ALL polling corporations.

But, they don't take those raw numbers and figure their job is done. They have sophisticated models which are used to translate their raw data into an understanding of the population in question. Their central business depends on their ability to do that, among other things. If they fail, they look stupid and disappear.

When you accept any of these polls, you are betting those organizations understand how their raw data over or under samples various parts of the population and that they know how to correct for that.