smh

all count

Yes.
I see that.
So am I.

But pride is a personal emotion.
The issue is not emotion, or merely speech, but public speech, such as that published on the Internet, and thus accessible by virtually anyone with internet access (except perhaps in China).

Our First Amendment affords limited free speech right.

However:

It's bad karma, as you are likely to eventually experience; even though you may not notice.

But by and large persons that need to be told this don't benefit from being told.

It seems you don't know what that means.

a) Splendid.

b) Psychologist Joy Browne says "Ideas are not for believing, ideas are for using."

c) The validity of the Shaw quotation is not based upon his expert authority, or whatever.
It's based simply on its own intrinsic articulate, insightful validity.

d) I posted the quotation. You didn't address the validity of the quotation. You assailed the character of the author.
The validity of the quotation thus remains unimpeached in this thread.

e) Horrid though Shaw clearly was; I post quotations from a variety of persons, from sinners, to saints.

PS

I should add, such quotation is not necessarily an endorsement of the source; or even an endorsement of the quotation.

For obvious example:
H.G. Wells called WWI "the war to end war".

I wish HG! If only!

I sometimes include Wells' comment to reinforce Plato's counterpoint:

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." Plato


I find ironies such as these can be quite didactic.

1. I don't see why my pride and patriotism offends you.

2. It appears YOU don't understand penis envy.

Your confusion may be invincible.
I never asserted your patriotism offends me.

That you mis-state the case suggests you have failed to comprehend the literal meaning of my posted words.

You're more than welcome to post a brief explanation.

I can't fathom how this thread about rate of seeming change in American society came to be dominated by two people arguing over patriotism. Especially since it's such a boring thing to fuss so much about.

More interesting, is the subject of Rate of Change, and whether it IS actually occurring at all.

My primary official area of life study, has been the discipline of History. Not just the stories of the past themselves, but the nature of how people come to believe those stories they tell themselves, as well.

In the case of the recent seeming Great Leaps of change, I can see from the Historians vantage point, that these "rapid shifts" took two-hundred and thirty nine years, from the time some of our most respected countrymen declared that all men are created equal, until we finally decided to force a large section of the nation to accept that this is true, at least in some ways.

I wouldn't call that "rapid," myself. Especially since, the moment the decisions were announced, an entire major political party declared them to be horrible, and dedicated themselves to overturning them.

And the history of the oppression of sexual variation amongst humans, goes back well beyond written history, thousands of years at least. Again, nothing rapid happening there.

Another interesting thing to consider about these changes:

Some of them have occurred because of actions taken by the very people who are now dramatically opposing them, though they didn't realize that they were doing so. For example, the right wing movements and groups in this country have been pushing for a very long time, to disassemble the Federal government for a very long time. Not to free all people, as they pretend, but to enable themselves to act without any regard to the consequences that they actions have, on their fellow citizens.

Ironically, this included pushing the notion that Governments should not be able to take sides in how we treat each other. The Right demanded that this notion be codified, not because they wanted everyone to be treated as equals, but because they wanted to stop the government interfering with their efforts to codify their prejudices, or from using the power of the police to promote their personal vendettas. It didn't occur to them that "no government enforcement of social ideas" would apply equally to Right wing social ideas, as it would to Left wing social ideas.

Igor' just ignore the off topic BS; there's no way to stop it or delete it!

But did you click on the link and LOOK at any of the graphs???

Regarding social issue rate of change:

We get change from various sources:
- Sometimes it's from a legislature

- In this recent case, from SCOTUS on same-sex marriage.

What's interesting about the ruling is, to some degree it's taken the issue off the table for the most part (reportedly some exception, such as that in Texas).

Since Reagan, the evangelical vote has been a staple of Republican electoral politics.

BUT:

Sucking up to them on this issue could only harm the party.
Thus:
this ostensibly liberal ruling from this ostensibly conservative court may benefit Republicans for 2016.

In addition to off the table

- In the general election, the majority favor the ruling outcome, &

- The young inside the Republican party also favor the ruling outcome.

But it is socially (& perhaps topically) relevant to note:
This same-sex marriage ruling, and other key rulings delivered by this court this term, were 5:4 decisions.

Our SCOTUS is unelected, is not term-limited, and is very difficult to impeach.

A 4:4 ruling is a draw, a finding for the status quo.

That means, for a nation of ~315 million, this public policy was effectively decided by one unelected government bureaucrat.

But I disagree with Huckabee & others that say it should have been settled by referendum.
The United States of America is not a democracy; it was deliberately Founded as a Constitutional republic.

These matters should be settled in accordance with law, and principle, as it was in this case.

Hmmm; here's my 2� worth on our SCOTUS and their rulings!

A.) perhaps the dissenting Judges allowed their 'FAITH' to over ride their ability to hear the context of our 'all men are created equal' and the 'separation of church and state'; and the reasoning behind those specific two terminology on our founding fathers mind

B.) if we {my generation - the largest voting block} have watched the segregation and moral dilemma for all these years of our media driven news and think & feel that this 'equality for all mankind' is what is right and legal

C.) we arrived here from an oppressed society and were treated like indentured servants to the King of England; don't you think we have {collectively} witnessed enough suffering/brow beating from the religious sects of this great nation

There's an irony about objectivity here.

When religious influence results in a ruling we oppose, some criticize the process, even if it was not decisive.

But when religious influence results in a ruling we approve, some think such religious influence isn't so bad, even if it WAS decisive.

Thus, for some, such opinions are outcome based, rather than being based on principle.

Then there's this:

I'm not sure it came up during oral argument, or in deliberation.
But I personally find the 14th Amendment fairly persuasive.

As the topic is rate of social change, I ask:

Do you think this now closing court session is the first in which a 5:4 decision would have been in favor of the human right?
That if it had addressed the issue in a previous session, it would have gone the other way, by whatever ratio?

And was the issue chosen for that timing reason?

note:
I forget what it takes to get SCOTUS to take a particular case. But iirc it merely requires that three out of nine agree to take the case (even if they do NOT agree on how to rule on it).
It may be more complicated than that.

I would love to be a mouse in the corner of this law chamber; really - really I would.


But since I don't know & and can only speculate according to the 'WORLDS' view of their discussion - while taking on these weighty matters!

IMHO - I'd be more apt to feel/think that because so many other non-3rd world countries have already taken on the 'EQUALITY of Marriage Issue' and they've approved of this issue - many of our states had given permission {see chart in the link}...the title wave of seeing the sound reasoning for this was most persuasive!
Marriage is a 'CIVIL CEREMONY' and shouldn't be based on FAITH. We have to purchase a 'permit' that makes it a government/state = legal determined matter.

Religious thinking/feeling has zero bearing on this matter!

Alright 2A. Makes sense.

So let's consider this angle:

There were great-grandparents whose lifestyle was much like their great-grandparents. Progress was so (comparatively) slow back then.
But our great-grandchildren's lives will be quite different from ours.

There is a parallel between technology, and social change.
The sexual revolution after all resulted from technological innovation: birth-patrol pills.

The sociological affects of social media (the proliferation of the smart-phone & "apps") couldn't have happened without the pocket-held devices.

Is it technology that's hurtling us forward? No longer a need to buy bales of hay to feed the family horses, because the Prius eats electricity from the wall?

Ohhhh, exactly; that's why those moving graphs impacted my thought process about those 6 'Hot Button Social Issues' so strongly!

The expedient way that 'WE ALL' are obtaining our social news and the ability to react to those issues; sans the old tried & true method of waiting for our local & states elected officials to bring that information back to us {with their own biased Opinions weighted to them} we get it within minutes of their voting on issues!

We are soooooo fortunate to be living in this day and age; and yet it's depressing how many of our population just don't 'VOTE' --- gut wrenching IMHO Wasn't like it has been in my late 19th century or the 20th century either --- we've become apathetic

IM supportive of that position IF religious institutions and organizations are not dragged into the process

let it apply to CIVIL matters, and there is no issue

let there be(There already is) the option to have a civil ceremony and lets not attack churches and pastors(including military chaplins) by seeking to force them to 'change' the religious values they hold to suit the masses,,,

See I can recall the 'DIVORCE' issue being utilized by many - many different Faith Based Churches during the late 60's early 70's; when so many of those Vietnam Veterans were coming home on leave or wanting to marry before they were shipped out for their tour of duty! So many of my older siblings friends were asked or involved in those 'RUSH ARRANGMENTS' and there were several {at least 5 in my area} that just flat out refused to allow that young couple to be wed within those sanctimonious church walls because the SOLDIER had been divorced! So they'd end up at the courthouse or having a judge preside over their wedding {off sight} --- so churches have been willing & able to push their morality code for years and it was just accepted and allowed to happen.

Amazing how that 'DIVORCE' issue isn't such a FLAMING HOT BUTTON anymore Churches have changed greatly about that 'SIN'

A2,
Specifically on divorce:

a) Just about everything we do is sinful.
My biblical consultant (a Jehovah's Witness) tells me "sin" means:
- to fall short of divine perfection.

So when you sign your check to pay a bill, your signature might not be as picturesque as god might forge it.

b) Humans live twice as long as before. Some outlast their marriage.

c) I heard a radio discussion / debate on this a few decades ago. One of the comments about clergymen was;
while in strict accordance with our formal religious traditions we're opposed to divorce; personally we know persons for whom divorce is really the best option.

I don't dismiss the sanctity of marriage.
But I acknowledge that, by the time he's cheating on her, and she's pulling kitchen cutlery on him; it's time to look at separate sleeping arrangements.

Granted and we agree that the 'WEIGHT' that churches place on that 'SIN OF DIVORCE' is not what they chose to react to back in the 60's & 70's...so as the social order of things changed so will this 'Gay Marriage' issue!

My sons generation are already sick & tired of hearing my mother's generation harangue him about the social ills of the world when he's got more racially diverse friends {as well as gay & lesbian} then I ever did growing up!

So the next generation might be more like what Jesus actually preached then the rigid/ever so suffering generation of 'Hell Fire & Brimstone' preachers that I was exposed to growing up!

but that is still at the church discretion,,,many still won't marry those who dont have a biblically sound divorce and many leave that to the couple and the creator without asking invasive questions about the reason for divorce

but divorce is not an abomination, and Jesus himself allowed for it under certain circumstances


in the bible, reasons for divorce are adultery or abandonment


there wasnt any allowance for a union between man and man or woman and woman,,, man was for woman and woman for man,, throughout the bible,, from the beginning,,,even in talking about the church relationship to jesus, the church was described as like the wife and jesus like the husband

Speaking of divorce.....

"" The first same-sex divorce in Louisiana
was granted about two hours before the
first legally sanctioned same-sex wedding
took place.
Two New Orleans women, Anna Wellman
and Stephanie Baus, who married in
Massachusetts in 2008, made bittersweet
history by filing for divorce in Orleans
Parish Civil District Court on Friday (June
26) -- something they couldn't have done
before the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
last week because Louisiana law did not
recognize same-sex weddings performed
out of state.
The divorce was made official Monday in
a proceeding that lasted just minutes and
concluded before 11 a.m., without the
fanfare and media attention of the
wedding ceremony that would take place
shortly before 1 p.m. in another
courtroom, Judge Paulette Irons said
Tuesday.""
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/orleans_parish_granted_states.html#incart_breaking

My people

The thread line was flowing about the 6 major issues of the link & graphs...
LTme and I were discussing the speed and reasons for the rapid changes; hence my thoughts about the way divorce was handled in the 60's - mid 70's!

Thank God our forefathers were brilliant to clearly state the 'division between Church & State' and kept it that way!