NATION

PASSWORD

Your stance on gay marriage

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Wikkiwallana
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22500
Founded: Mar 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Wikkiwallana » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:40 pm

Fatae wrote:I myself am often annoyed by those very flamish homosexuals, and I don't particularly like it when the non flaming ones stare at me all the time.


I'm indifferent to their cause, and don't particularly like them.

I don't like flamish anyone. It distresses me to see people on fire. People who like to get involved with their own gender don't bother me at all though.
Proud Scalawag and Statist!

Please don't confuse my country for my politics; my country is being run as a parody, my posts aren't.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Xenohumanity wrote:
Nulono wrote:Snip
I'm a pro-lifer who runs a nation of dragon-men...
And even I think that's stupid.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.

User avatar
Xsyne
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6537
Founded: Apr 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Xsyne » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:40 pm

Samuraikoku wrote:
Xsyne wrote:Yes.


It seems I still have a lot to learn.

The list of things that some human at some point was, is, or will be sexually attracted to consists of the list of things that exist. Not just in the physical realm, but in the realm of concepts. And including all the concepts that technically do not exist on account of being incoherent.
If global warming is real, why are there still monkeys? - Msigroeg
Pro: Stuff
Anti: Things
Chernoslavia wrote:
Free Soviets wrote:according to both the law library of congress and wikipedia, both automatics and semi-autos that can be easily converted are outright banned in norway.


Source?

User avatar
Rhodmhire
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17421
Founded: Jun 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rhodmhire » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:40 pm

Samuraikoku wrote:
Rhodmhire wrote:So many threads on the homosexual crowd lately. Kind of makes you wonder if there's some kind of plot that they are undertaking to convert us all to their evil ways to progress their agenda of hate, evil, and destruction of all that is good in our nation, let alone the world.

Just let them get married so that we can end this seemingly endless discussion.


So far most of us seem to agree that they should be able to marry, what discussion?


The discussion that has probably been ongoing since the problem of gay marriage ever became an issue.

I'm not just talking about this one thread, if you want to think small I'm talking about the General Forum, but really it's bigger than that too.
Part of me grew up here. But part of growing up is leaving parts of ourselves behind.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:41 pm

Franco-Philia wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:That was a ruling that anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause because they discriminated on race. The same cannot be said for gay marriage. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled on Lawrence v. Texas, which concerned sodomy laws. The Court ruled that mere moral disapproval of a group cannot be the basis for a law. In her concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor (at that time, one of the Court's moderates) indicated her belief that there could be constitutional reasons for limiting marriage to heterosexuals:

The best chance of legalizing gay marriages is to do it through state legislatures and statewide constitutional referenda. This is a political issue, not an issue that should be taken to the courts.


There is a lot wrong here...let's begin.

Almost every argument used for antimescegenation laws are used (practically verbatim) against same-sex marriage. "It's against nature. It's against God's will. It goes against historical tradition. There is no precedent." Ad nauseum...

We don't regulate civil rights in this country by a vote. We do it through the court system so as to avoid becoming a tyranny by majority. This is why we don't let counties vote in the deep south about whether or not black people should be allowed to run for city office. It's the same reason why we don't vote about free speech...

Also, the constitution stipulates that marriage licenses (and death cerficates and such things) issued by one state be recognized by ALL STATES in the union...so there is a giant hole in your idea of letting states figure this out. It flies in the face of our own constitution.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause allows Congress to regulate the manner in which proceedings in one state are recognized in others. Congress has determined that states do not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states (i.e., the Defense of Marriage Act). Even if DOMA were repealed, whether or not states would have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states still would be in question unless Congress passed a statute specifically requiring states to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Lunatic Goofballs
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 23565
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Lunatic Goofballs » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:42 pm

Xsyne wrote:
Wikkiwallana wrote:I just googled "ancient greek word for mud"for mud. So, you mean that's actually a word already? Well crap. Sorry, did not mean to offend or confuse.

Someone who was sexually attracted to hair would be pilosexual.


Interesting. So does pelosexual really mean someone sexually attracted to mud? If it does, then I don't fit the textbook definition. Pelophile would be closer. But it's good to know these things.
Life's Short. Munch Tacos.

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
Wikkiwallana
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22500
Founded: Mar 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Wikkiwallana » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:44 pm

Samuraikoku wrote:
Xsyne wrote:Yes.


It seems I still have a lot to learn.

You haven't heard of Rule 34 yet? Well, for the love of all that is holy, DO NOT GOOGLE IT!!
Proud Scalawag and Statist!

Please don't confuse my country for my politics; my country is being run as a parody, my posts aren't.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Xenohumanity wrote:
Nulono wrote:Snip
I'm a pro-lifer who runs a nation of dragon-men...
And even I think that's stupid.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.

User avatar
Rhodmhire
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17421
Founded: Jun 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rhodmhire » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:44 pm

Wikkiwallana wrote:I don't like flamish anyone. It distresses me to see people on fire.


Eh, I personally go with "To each his own," when it comes to people who are on fire.

You know what they say,

Some like it hot and some sweat when the heat is on.
Some feel the heat and decide that they can't go on.
Some like it hot, but you can't tell how hot till you try.
Some like it hot, so let's turn up the heat till we fry.
Last edited by Rhodmhire on Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Part of me grew up here. But part of growing up is leaving parts of ourselves behind.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 130713
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:45 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Ifreann wrote:In the US, a fair while ago.

That was a ruling that anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause because they discriminated on race. The same cannot be said for gay marriage. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled on Lawrence v. Texas, which concerned sodomy laws. The Court ruled that mere moral disapproval of a group cannot be the basis for a law. In her concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor (at that time, one of the Court's moderates) indicated her belief that there could be constitutional reasons for limiting marriage to heterosexuals:
That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations—the asserted state interest in this case— other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.

539 U.S. 558 (2003)

I don't see how someone can be a moderate, even in the US, and really believe that one of the "basic civil rights of man" can be restricted to opposite-sex couples. Denying people basic rights strikes me as decidedly immoderate.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm
He/Him

Dangerous this Jack o' Hearts.
With his kiss
the riot
starts

User avatar
Franco-Philia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 661
Founded: Feb 11, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Franco-Philia » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:45 pm

The Full Faith and Credit Clause allows Congress to regulate the manner in which proceedings in one state are recognized in others. Congress has determined that states do not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states (i.e., the Defense of Marriage Act). Even if DOMA were repealed, whether or not states would have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states still would be in question unless Congress passed a statute specifically requiring states to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.


Yes, and that clause makes a difference between laws and judgments. But that's beside the point really. DOMA is unconstitutional in my opinion. If glbt marriage passed federally, no the congress would not have to make a special law because if, at the federal level, glbt marriage was declared as a valid marriage then the states wouldn't be able to use the clause to try and discredit same-sex marriages performed out of state. And this is still not the point I was making. You actually made the point even stronger that working this out at the state level is not going to work and it must be federal/SCOTUS.
Last edited by Franco-Philia on Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"What is beautiful is moral; that is all there is to it." -Gustave Flaubert

Factbook
Embassy Program
Modern tech, real-world scenarios, homo sapiens only
Humanist, Social Democracy, Internationalism, Pro-Choice, LGBT Advocate, Secularist, Democrat

User avatar
Fatae
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 56
Founded: May 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Fatae » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:45 pm

Franco-Philia wrote:
Fatae wrote:I myself am often annoyed by those very flamish homosexuals, and I don't particularly like it when the non flaming ones stare at me all the time.


I'm indifferent to their cause, and don't particularly like them.


Yeah, whatever...because gay people want you so bad baby, mmmm, can't keep our lustful thoughts from zeroing in on your macho heteroness. Spare me, troll. Hating someone because of personal characteristics that have no effect on you is pathetic and small minded. I love how straight people think gay people are always after them. Narcissism to the umpteenth degree. "Why does everyone wanna do me? Am I really that good-looking? Well...guess so."


That's my opinion, make of it as you will.



...I still say I'm super sexy, though. :shepface:

Niur wrote:Do you dislike Flemish heterosexual people as well?


Eh, they're alright I guess.

User avatar
Galenaima
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1617
Founded: Mar 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Galenaima » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:45 pm

Wikkiwallana wrote:I don't like flamish anyone. It distresses me to see people on fire. People who like to get involved with their own gender don't bother me at all though.

Sigged.
***My nation does not represent my actual political beliefs***
Oterro wrote:I read it in Latest Forum Topics and was like; ''oho, some chap managed to keep himself seated for 2 years and finally stood up!''
But no. Morbidly obese man dies in chair, covered in shit.

Nationstatelandsville wrote:Is Hell North Korea off earth?

Wikkiwallana wrote:I don't like flamish anyone. It distresses me to see people on fire. People who like to get involved with their own gender don't bother me at all though.

User avatar
Wikkiwallana
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22500
Founded: Mar 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Wikkiwallana » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:46 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Franco-Philia wrote:
There is a lot wrong here...let's begin.

Almost every argument used for antimescegenation laws are used (practically verbatim) against same-sex marriage. "It's against nature. It's against God's will. It goes against historical tradition. There is no precedent." Ad nauseum...

We don't regulate civil rights in this country by a vote. We do it through the court system so as to avoid becoming a tyranny by majority. This is why we don't let counties vote in the deep south about whether or not black people should be allowed to run for city office. It's the same reason why we don't vote about free speech...

Also, the constitution stipulates that marriage licenses (and death cerficates and such things) issued by one state be recognized by ALL STATES in the union...so there is a giant hole in your idea of letting states figure this out. It flies in the face of our own constitution.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause allows Congress to regulate the manner in which proceedings in one state are recognized in others. Congress has determined that states do not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states (i.e., the Defense of Marriage Act). Even if DOMA were repealed, whether or not states would have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states still would be in question unless Congress passed a statute specifically requiring states to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

DOMA is unconstitutional. As is not recognizing the right for homosexual marriage.
Proud Scalawag and Statist!

Please don't confuse my country for my politics; my country is being run as a parody, my posts aren't.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Halt!
Just because these people are stupid, wrong and highly dangerous does not mean you have the right to make them feel sad.
Xenohumanity wrote:
Nulono wrote:Snip
I'm a pro-lifer who runs a nation of dragon-men...
And even I think that's stupid.
Avenio wrote:Just so you know, the use of the term 'sheep' 'sheeple' or any other herd animal-based terminology in conjunction with an exhortation to 'think outside the box' or stop going along with groupthink generally indicates that the speaker is actually more closed-minded on the subject than the people that he/she is addressing. At least, in my experience at least.

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51990
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Risottia » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:47 pm

Mektar wrote:
Risottia wrote:Why a religious figure? Now only priests can perform weddings? :eyebrow:

Because in my opinion, weddings and marriage should be a religious/spiritual venture, not a legal one.

Hm, considering that all countries recognise some kind of marriage, I'd say yours is a kind of wishful thinking, but hey, it's all yours.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.
SUMMER, BLOODY SUMMER!

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51990
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Risottia » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:47 pm

Fatae wrote:I myself am often annoyed by those very flamish homosexuals

I bet you have nothing to object to walloon homosexuals.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.
SUMMER, BLOODY SUMMER!

User avatar
Niur
Senator
 
Posts: 4018
Founded: Aug 01, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Niur » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:48 pm

Fatae wrote:
Niur wrote:Do you dislike Flemish heterosexual people as well?


Eh, they're alright I guess.

So you only dislike Dutch speaking Belgian's if their gay? Are you a gay frenchmen?
"In cahuitontli ca otopan, yehuantzitzin yollochipahuac tonaz, yeceh yehuantzitzin tica imanimanmeh tlahueliloc telchihualozque. In cahuitontli ca teuctlatolli ic otopan, auh yehuan quitzacua, in neltiliztli, onyezque huetztoc!"

User avatar
Franco-Philia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 661
Founded: Feb 11, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Franco-Philia » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:49 pm

Risottia wrote:
Fatae wrote:I myself am often annoyed by those very flamish homosexuals

I bet you have nothing to object to walloon homosexuals.


I once said something in college about wishing to major in gay and lesbian studies. My friend replied, "Didn't you major in the French language?" Me: "Yeah." Her: "So. Same thing."

Walloon homosexuals get the benefit of speaking French and having a..cough cough...cock, as their national symbol.
"What is beautiful is moral; that is all there is to it." -Gustave Flaubert

Factbook
Embassy Program
Modern tech, real-world scenarios, homo sapiens only
Humanist, Social Democracy, Internationalism, Pro-Choice, LGBT Advocate, Secularist, Democrat

User avatar
Esternial
P2TM RP Mentor
 
Posts: 51800
Founded: May 09, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Esternial » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:51 pm

Volatile compound according to any conservative.
Hot subject according to progressives.

To me: Do as thou pleaseth
Last edited by Esternial on Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lord Tothe
Minister
 
Posts: 2632
Founded: Dec 19, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Lord Tothe » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:52 pm

Ifreann wrote:I didn't know it was libertarian hour...

I'm sorry. I didn't realize the whole idea behind finding a solution was just to make more laws and regulations for lawyers to argue over instead of actually attacking the root of the problem. My bad. Government licensing of marriage has always been a means of control, primarily to prevent mingling between races or classes or families that some government official thought was inappropriate. Simply saying one more group is OK is not finding a solution. For example, polygamy would still be illegal under a system that allows same-sex couples to marry. Maybe you or I don't want multiple marriage partners, but fundamental mormons and many non-european cultures have plural marriage traditions.

I advocate removing all barriers to voluntary contract, while you seem to think we need new laws and regulations and codes and decrees and statutes for everything, and any group that wants a change needs to fight and squabble and petition and bicker in order to change the laws to suit themselves.
The Empire of Pretantia wrote:[...] TLDR; welcome to the internet. Bicker or GTFO.
"Why is self-control, autonomy, such a threat to authority? Because the person who controls himself, who is his own master, has no need for an authority to be his master. This, then, renders authority unemployed. What is he to do if he cannot control others? To be sure, he could mind his own business. But that is a fatuous answer, for those who are satisfied to mind their own business do not aspire to become authorities." ~ Thomas Szasz

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:54 pm

Wikkiwallana wrote:DOMA is unconstitutional.

How? (I hate unsupported arguments.)
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Hounddoggie
Secretary
 
Posts: 27
Founded: Jun 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Hounddoggie » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:55 pm

Gay people have just as much right to be as miserable as the rest of us. :D Thankfully Western world has that little thing about separation of Church and state to protect citizens from religious fanatics.

User avatar
Kiromo
Envoy
 
Posts: 219
Founded: Jun 23, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Kiromo » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:56 pm

I find it OK
Part of the Imperial Commonwealth of Greater Leepaidamba.
Undergoing various changes since hand-over.
Early PMT Japanese-Korean country
Tech:2025, Culture:2030, Military: 2020, Year: 2020

our national airport

User avatar
Franco-Philia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 661
Founded: Feb 11, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Franco-Philia » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:56 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Wikkiwallana wrote:DOMA is unconstitutional.

How? (I hate unsupported arguments.)


Loving vs. Virginia, a SCOTUS ruling, ruled that marriage was a basic fundamental human right between two people. DOMA also makes a federal ruling with no constitutional backing and no support from legal precedent. There is no definition in our higher laws as to what exactly marriage is so they pulled it out of their ass.
"What is beautiful is moral; that is all there is to it." -Gustave Flaubert

Factbook
Embassy Program
Modern tech, real-world scenarios, homo sapiens only
Humanist, Social Democracy, Internationalism, Pro-Choice, LGBT Advocate, Secularist, Democrat

User avatar
Osterveim
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1044
Founded: Jun 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Osterveim » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:58 pm

Placeburg wrote:Personally gays (the stereotypical flamer) annoy the living crap out of me.


Agreed.

As for my stance on Homosexuals getting hitched, I don't care if the goverment allows them to be legally married, so long as they don't force Gay Marriage on religious establishments. Religious Freedom is more important than Gay marriage. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

Also, the first Amendment, if anyone is thinking of bringing that up, doesn't say anything about having a secular state. It simply says the government cannot prevent people from having their religion and the Government cannot specify a state religion.
Last edited by Osterveim on Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Recently returned after some years away, cringing at my old forum posts

User avatar
America 51
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: May 24, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby America 51 » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:58 pm

Just the fact that the idea of gay marriage exists shows what level our society has dropped down to. Disgusting. Thank god it's illegal in California.

User avatar
Fatae
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 56
Founded: May 12, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Fatae » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:58 pm

Niur wrote:
Fatae wrote:


Eh, they're alright I guess.

So you only dislike Dutch speaking Belgian's if their gay? Are you a gay frenchmen?


Yes, I'm a gay Frenchman who speaks perfect english and who bashes Dutch Belgian homosexuals.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bluelight-R006, Dazchan, Heloin, Infected Mushroom, Marquisal, N7eternia, Nakena, Yannia

Advertisement

Remove ads