NationStates

Franco-Philia wrote:

Wikkiwallana wrote:
What if I bring quiche? I also know a delightful recipe for a plantains with spice and syrup, and another for a rather humorous dessert called a strawberry wobbler that I'm sure all the boys will love.

You can come. But you have to sit in a specifically designated chair...it will not match the rest of the room's decor.

I will endure my dishonor with dignity.

I fully support gay marriage, and I'm Catholic!!

Distruzio wrote:

Euroslavia wrote:
Damn those gays, with their superior fashion sense, their impeccable work ethic, and their incredibly amazing ability to dance to any song and make it look good.

This is spot on.

Also, I'm waiting for the federal gov't to get its head out of its ass and realize that having a position on marriage is unconstitutional.

Well SCOTUS interprets the constitution and here is a quote from Loving vs. Virginia:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival..."

Let them marry.

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:

Wikkiwallana wrote:You're gay? I always thought you pelosexual.

*looks up pelosexual*

Hair???

When I was younger, I considered myself bisexual. But I sort of drifted away from that. I don't believe that people need to pick a sexual orientation anymore. There are really only two states of being; craving lots and lots of sex, and being in a loving honest relationship... with lots and lots of sex. I'm currently in the latter.

Hair???

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.

Get the State out of marriage and let people freely create voluntary contracts of whatever sort they prefer with one another.

I didn't know it was libertarian hour...

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

Libertarian hour is best hour.

LGBT people are people not unlike you and me*. And thus I don't see why they shouldn't marry someone their own gender.

Although not everyone can be like me.

Ifreann wrote:

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I'm already happily married, thanks.

Sure, you've got a wife, but what about poor Mrs. Goofballs? Doesn't she get a wife?

Well, there's always roleplaying night.

Ifreann wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Since when did marriage become a right?

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)

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.

Wikkiwallana wrote:

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
*looks up pelosexual*

Hair???

When I was younger, I considered myself bisexual. But I sort of drifted away from that. I don't believe that people need to pick a sexual orientation anymore. There are really only two states of being; craving lots and lots of sex, and being in a loving honest relationship... with lots and lots of sex. I'm currently in the latter.

Hair???

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.

Wow! I'm a pelophile!

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Sure, you've got a wife, but what about poor Mrs. Goofballs? Doesn't she get a wife?

Well, there's always roleplaying night.

It's a start

Wikkiwallana wrote:

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
*looks up pelosexual*

Hair???

When I was younger, I considered myself bisexual. But I sort of drifted away from that. I don't believe that people need to pick a sexual orientation anymore. There are really only two states of being; craving lots and lots of sex, and being in a loving honest relationship... with lots and lots of sex. I'm currently in the latter.

Hair???

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.

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)

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.

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.

Xsyne wrote:Someone who was sexually attracted to hair

Is that possible?

In Germany gay marriage has been legal for years and civilisation is still standing. That people make such a scare about it is just sad.

Samuraikoku wrote:

Xsyne wrote:Someone who was sexually attracted to hair

Is that possible?

Yes.

Xsyne wrote:

Samuraikoku wrote:
Is that possible?

Yes.

It seems I still have a lot to learn.

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."

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."

I searched his posts, and he doesn't seem like a troll. However, that comment was unfortunate.

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.

Do you dislike Flemish heterosexual people as well?

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.

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?