NATION

PASSWORD

Bill O'Reilly calls out same sex marriage opponents

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
The IASM
Senator
 
Posts: 3598
Founded: Jan 01, 2012
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby The IASM » Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:56 am

It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.
HUN-01

20:22 Kirav Normal in Akai is nightmare fuel in the rest of the world.
11:33 Jedoria Something convoluted is going on in Akai probably.
Transoxthraxia: I'm no hentai connoisseur, but I'm pretty sure Akai's domestic politics would be like, at least top ten most fucked up hentais"
18:26 Deusaeuri Let me put it this way, you're what would happen if Lovecraft decided to write political dystopian techno thriller
20:19 Heku tits has gone mental
20:19 Jakee >gone
05:48 Malay lol akai sounds lovely this time of never


User avatar
Samuraikoku
Post Czar
 
Posts: 31947
Founded: May 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Samuraikoku » Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:58 am

The IASM wrote:It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.


You'll source that, of course. Else we must conclude you're not to be taken seriously.

User avatar
Kvatchdom
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7993
Founded: Nov 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Kvatchdom » Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:58 am

The IASM wrote:It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

Elaborate? :o
boo
Left-wing nationalist, socialist, souverainist and anti-American. teeny bity authoritarian hehe

User avatar
The Emerald Dawn
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20824
Founded: Jun 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Emerald Dawn » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:01 am

The IASM wrote:It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

Jumpin' on the SOURCE-TRAIN!

CHOO CHOO MUFUKA! We be ridin' the rails, checkin' the trails, you get nothin' and your argument fails!

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

Postby Xsyne » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:02 am

The Emerald Dawn wrote:
Trotskylvania wrote:Too bad for you the law in this case is most emphatically unconstitutional, because it is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory.


DOMA could withstand a SC challenge though, with the current makeup of the court.

Rather unlikely. There are five justices who would most likely overturn it based on the reasons Trotskylvania gave, and the federalist argument against it could conceivably win over Roberts. Scalia and Thomas, of course, would never vote to overturn. I don't know enough about Alito to even guess as to how he'd rule.
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
Samuraikoku
Post Czar
 
Posts: 31947
Founded: May 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Samuraikoku » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:03 am

The Emerald Dawn wrote:
The IASM wrote:It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

Jumpin' on the SOURCE-TRAIN!

CHOO CHOO MUFUKA! We be ridin' the rails, checkin' the trails, you get nothin' and your argument fails!


Not to poison the well, but look at his sig.

User avatar
Northern Skatchbrod
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 419
Founded: Nov 18, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Skatchbrod » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:04 am

Samuraikoku wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:Jumpin' on the SOURCE-TRAIN!

CHOO CHOO MUFUKA! We be ridin' the rails, checkin' the trails, you get nothin' and your argument fails!


Not to poison the well, but look at his sig.

A real totalitarian would not mention 1984, as the book is extremely against the whole idea of totalitarianism.
Discipline is freedom

Left/Right: -3.4
Libertarian/Authoritarian: 8.6
Fascist, Ultra-Nationalist, Corporatist and Social Conservative.
Anti-Democrat, Anti-Communist, Anti-Racist and Anti-Capitalist.

User avatar
The Emerald Dawn
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20824
Founded: Jun 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Emerald Dawn » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:06 am

Xsyne wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:
DOMA could withstand a SC challenge though, with the current makeup of the court.

Rather unlikely. There are five justices who would most likely overturn it based on the reasons Trotskylvania gave, and the federalist argument against it could conceivably win over Roberts. Scalia and Thomas, of course, would never vote to overturn. I don't know enough about Alito to even guess as to how he'd rule.

See, I thought the states argument would keep Roberts on the DOMA side, and Alito and Kennedy would see little need to overturn it, specifically. But you could very well be more right than I am.

Samuraikoku wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:Jumpin' on the SOURCE-TRAIN!

CHOO CHOO MUFUKA! We be ridin' the rails, checkin' the trails, you get nothin' and your argument fails!


Not to poison the well, but look at his sig.


A man can hope.

User avatar
Oooghka
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Feb 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Oooghka » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:33 am

Ethel mermania wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:That seems more like a "come on team we have to try harder" than a concession.
"I think the states should do it" is the exactly the side that the conservatives have been on.


not really, i support same sex marriage, but i dont think it is a constitutional issue. i dont think the constitution protects sexual orientation. just cause a law is wrong does not make it unconstitutional.



I'm curious. Would this fall under no discrimination based on sex either? As in, the only reason why women can't marry women and men can't marry men is because of their sex. How legit is that?

User avatar
Wisconsin9
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35753
Founded: May 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Wisconsin9 » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:42 am

The IASM wrote:It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

Fortunately there's nothing anywhere that actually supports that claim, so I can sleep soundly completely ignoring you.
~~~~~~~~
We are currently 33% through the Trump administration.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 122188
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:44 am

Trotskylvania wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:
not really, i support same sex marriage, but i dont think it is a constitutional issue. i dont think the constitution protects sexual orientation. just cause a law is wrong does not make it unconstitutional.

Too bad for you the law in this case is most emphatically unconstitutional, because it is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory.


i dont think it is, and the court will decide that not you.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 122188
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:49 am

Oooghka wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:
not really, i support same sex marriage, but i dont think it is a constitutional issue. i dont think the constitution protects sexual orientation. just cause a law is wrong does not make it unconstitutional.



I'm curious. Would this fall under no discrimination based on sex either? As in, the only reason why women can't marry women and men can't marry men is because of their sex. How legit is that?


i dont think so, women or men as a group can marry. is sexual orientation a protected class? but we will find out what the court thinks in june or so.
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:53 am

The IASM wrote:It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

Source needed.

User avatar
The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9720
Founded: Jul 25, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:56 am

Divair wrote:
The IASM wrote:It is genetically, clinically and somewhat statistically a bad idea to legalise rights for Lesbian and Gay couples.

Source needed.

Can you post pictures of your ass here?
Founder of the Church of Ass.

No Homo.
TET sex chat link
Neo Art wrote:
The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace wrote:Ironic ain't it, now there really IS 47% of the country that feels like victims.

........fuck it, you win the internet.

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 39211
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:59 am

The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace wrote:
Divair wrote:Source needed.

Can you post pictures of your ass here?

Sure
Ain't it a cute one?
Image
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Northern Skatchbrod
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 419
Founded: Nov 18, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Skatchbrod » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:00 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace wrote:Can you post pictures of your ass here?

Sure
Ain't it a cute one?
Image

I call bullshit. That ass is animated.
Discipline is freedom

Left/Right: -3.4
Libertarian/Authoritarian: 8.6
Fascist, Ultra-Nationalist, Corporatist and Social Conservative.
Anti-Democrat, Anti-Communist, Anti-Racist and Anti-Capitalist.

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 39211
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:03 pm

Northern Skatchbrod wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:Sure
Ain't it a cute one?

I call bullshit. That ass is animated.


Sorry, I have no reason or desire to show you my BS. Maybe this one is a better picture

Image
Last edited by Neutraligon on Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30943
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:07 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:
i dont think so, women or men as a group can marry. is sexual orientation a protected class? but we will find out what the court thinks in june or so.


So could whites or blacks.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Northern Skatchbrod
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 419
Founded: Nov 18, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Skatchbrod » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:08 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
Northern Skatchbrod wrote:I call bullshit. That ass is animated.


Sorry, I have no reason or desire to show you my BS. Maybe this one is a better picture

Image

Much better.
Discipline is freedom

Left/Right: -3.4
Libertarian/Authoritarian: 8.6
Fascist, Ultra-Nationalist, Corporatist and Social Conservative.
Anti-Democrat, Anti-Communist, Anti-Racist and Anti-Capitalist.

User avatar
Ashmoria
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46718
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Ashmoria » Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:24 pm

Cannot think of a name wrote:Yeah, that's just the same bullshit 'third option' where they agree to only kinda hate the gays, only sort of restrict their rights and then sit smugly and wait to be patted on the head for their forward thinking.


Listening to the audio of the hearings yesterday I was flabbergasted that they sounded like the worst of the bullshit arguments made here. Kagan actually had to ask an attorney, "Would you say it was unconstitutional to forbid infertile couples to marry?" and "Whats the harm that's caused by gay marriage?" where the guy had to try and find a way to say there wasn't any but that it was still bad. Even the justices who we assume will be deciding against same sex marriage seemed to be leaning towards punting rather than actually trying to defend this bullshit.


there were some arguments yesterday that I wished I coulda put my 2 cents worth in on.

"when did banning gay marriage start to be unconstitutional" 1776 when the continental congress signed the declaration of independence positing the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. it was unconstitutional before we had a constitution!

"what if you forced a kid to call someone his friend when he wasn't his friend? don't you redefine the meaning of friend?" noooo mr justice you have it around the wrong way. its "what if you forced a kid to call a friend an acquaintance because of who the friend is?" THAT devalues the meaning of friendship. and THAT is what civil unions do.
whatever

User avatar
Disserbia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12012
Founded: Dec 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Disserbia » Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:01 pm

The Emerald Dawn wrote:
Disserbia wrote:This is the only issue for me as well. I think that American citizens who are not treated equal to other citizens is a crime against humanity. However, I think they should just reverse prop 8 and leave the rest of the US alone for the time being, not because I believe it should not be passed, but the way it is being passed (at the supreme court) is 9 old judges sitting in a room), not in Congress, not by elected or popular vote (at least not directly). To be sure I would not mind any way this gets passed, I think this is a perfectly good way to pass it, but I think we should be weary of the backlash this could cause if it is done this way. The uncooperative reactionary tea party response if the Supreme Court did this would be to throw this squarely on the shoulders of the Administration at the point because this is literally what we are dealing with in the tea party and some of the more reactionary republicans. They will see this as the Federal Government as being the big bad tyranical socialists they are infact not, and if it passes in this fashion they might be even more motivated to stand against any kind of progress Democrats and Reasonable Republicans (ugh I feel so bad for Boehner) try to make no matter how good it is for the sake of the country or the people, and while pulling shit like like this is in every way opposite of what America stands for, they will do it anyway because they are that goddamn desperate.

Good god man, carriage returns. Use them. Love them.

:eyebrow:
You can't spell scat fetish without catfish.
Mollary wrote:Hate and alcohol can unite most people.

Souriya Al-Assad wrote:One does not simply Mossad The Assad.

New Maldorainia wrote:Dissy likes touching my walruses.

The Blaatschapen wrote:Remember, birthdays are good for you. The more you have, the longer you'll live.
Funniest shit on this shite
fakbuk and other random shit
PC:
Economic Left/Right: 3.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.00
PS:
Right: 1.45
Libertarian: 6.22
Non-interventionist: 5.82
Cultural liberal: 2.23
PT:
democratic National Liberal
In a more sane world I'd be a moderate Republican.

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60885
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Liriena » Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:18 pm

I'm not really shocked. O'Reilly is an immature, cynical and disingenuous fellow, but he is not entirely unreasonable or deluded.

And, of course, he is 100% correct in his assessment.
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Desperate Measures
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10149
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Desperate Measures » Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:30 pm

The Right supports same-sex marriage. The Right has always supported same-sex marriage.
"My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft music."
- Vladimir Nabokov US (1899 - 1977)
Also, me.
“Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic”
- Fyodor Dostoyevsky Russian Novelist and Writer, 1821-1881
"All Clock Faces Are Wrong." - Gene Ray, Prophet(?) http://www.timecube.com
A simplified maxim on the subject states "An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

User avatar
Liriena
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60885
Founded: Nov 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Liriena » Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:32 pm

Desperate Measures wrote:The Right supports same-sex marriage. The Right has always supported same-sex marriage.


Let's be honest, it would have made a lot of sense if they had supported it from the start.
After decades of bitching and moaning about gay promiscuity and the health risks associated, you would have thought sex-frightened conservatives would jump with glee at the idea of marriage for same-sex couples.
be gay do crime


I am:
A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist
An aspiring writer and journalist
Political compass stuff:
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92
For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism
Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism,
cynicism


⚧Copy and paste this in your sig
if you passed biology and know
gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧

I disown most of my previous posts

User avatar
Fireye
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1245
Founded: Mar 27, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Fireye » Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:32 pm

Xsyne wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:
DOMA could withstand a SC challenge though, with the current makeup of the court.

Rather unlikely. There are five justices who would most likely overturn it based on the reasons Trotskylvania gave, and the federalist argument against it could conceivably win over Roberts. Scalia and Thomas, of course, would never vote to overturn. I don't know enough about Alito to even guess as to how he'd rule.


I really hope that it gets overturned.

Not because of the gay marriage thing, I really don't care about that either way, but because it's an attempt to legislate one groups morality.

Just like "Gun Control" is an attempt to legislate a different group's morality.
http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/235745/

Proud Member of the National Canine Association. We Defend Dogs and Dog Owners Alike

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Bukow, Google [Bot], Jewish Underground State, Karazicu, Mets Hayk, Port Caverton, Prima Scriptura, Riviere Renard, Rusozak, Saiwania, Spirit of Hope, Tarsonis, The Jamesian Republic, Thomasi, Untecna, Washington Resistance Army, Wayneactia, Yasuragi

Advertisement

Remove ads