NationStates

Saiwania wrote:

Mefpan wrote:Is this attempting to be an argument saying that because one thing isn't done correctly yet, we shouldn't start doing all the other things right either?

It is an argument that slippery slopes do come true. Who knows what will come next after this, but I know it will be something.

People are hot about consent these days. Don't worry, we won't get people marrying pets or rocks or pet rocks unless we manage to teach them wield the awesome and terrifying power of reason and the ability to speak or provide them with a different form of consenting to things.

The 502nd SS wrote:

Liriena wrote:Dude, you already lost this fight. You're not going to get any compromises from us.

why do you think I stopped posting a few pages ago? Its pointless to argue with y'all because it won't accomplish anything in real life

Then why bother discussing anything at all, ever? That's a lazy copout and you know it. If you only ever had discussions in situations where you could effect change, then you'd throw out your modem.

Val Halla wrote:

Liriena wrote:Congrats.

Thank you

Was there anything about homosexuals not being able to give blood changing too?

No, but that's one of the many things that still need to be done.

The 502nd SS wrote:How about this:
Red states keep gay marriage illegal
Blue states have it legal
people can move to different states to have gay marriage if they want to, instead of forcing onto all of us

They're forcing people to become homosexual and marry? Geez, SCOTUS is to rule on one thing and it turns into a requirement? I'M NOT PAYING MY TAXES ANYMORE!

The 502nd SS wrote:

Liriena wrote:Dude, you already lost this fight. You're not going to get any compromises from us.

why do you think I stopped posting a few pages ago? Its pointless to argue with y'all because it won't accomplish anything in real life

That could be said for arguing with anyone on the Internet, really.

Saiwania wrote:I bet that 20 years or so from now, people will be absurd enough to want the right to marry their dog protected by law.

Too bad dogs are incapable of giving clear informed consent.

Val Halla wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
No.

That's kinda dumb, I hope this doesn't get overlooked.

That will happen. Remember, Brown vs. Board of Education only specifically desegregated schools, but it served as a springboard to eventually desegregate everything.

Neutraligon wrote:

Val Halla wrote:That's kinda dumb, I hope this doesn't get overlooked.

I think there was a change before this. Something about when they could give blood, think 1 year from last having sex.

I believe you can if you've not had sex. IDK, I'm not American.

Finally. This is a victory for America.

Des-Bal wrote:I like gay marriage and I hate arbitrary government restrictions but I understand the dissents. This is more like the court deciding something is good than deciding it's supported by the constitution. Of course the same could be said about interracial marriage or basically anything that the courts done recently.

They probably worked with the assumption that the Constitution was saying something all this time about equality.

Neutraligon wrote:

Val Halla wrote:That's kinda dumb, I hope this doesn't get overlooked.

I think there was a change before this. Something about when they could give blood.

IIRC - It was a ban and regulation on individuals who had sex during the AIDS era. Where I live at least, they don't ask about your orientation, they don't care. They ask if you have any diseases like AIDS or Hepatitis and always screen you for these infections plus others. It's not just diseases either, if you show up to have something like low iron (anaemia) - you can't be a blood donor just to name a particular example. However, that is my State for the most part.

IT IS SO FUCKING ORDERED
EVEN IN ARKANSAS' ARMPIT
SUCKS TO YOUR ASS MAR ANTONIN
SUCKS TO YOU
HATE LOSES LOVE WINS
FUCKIN FUCKERS
YeAAAAAR

The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:

The 502nd SS wrote:why do you think I stopped posting a few pages ago? Its pointless to argue with y'all because it won't accomplish anything in real life

Then why bother discussing anything at all, ever? That's a lazy copout and you know it. If you only ever had discussions in situations where you could effect change, then you'd throw out your modem.

I'm stopping before I get too angry and do something I'll regret

Saiwania wrote:I bet that 20 years or so from now, people will be absurd enough to want the right to marry their dog protected by law. :p

It doesn't take a genius to realize that there's a major difference between human adults marrying and a marriage between a human and a nonconsenting animal.

Trotskylvania wrote:

The 93rd Coalition wrote:Isn't this celebration a bit premature?

Edit: Still, cool beans.

Nope, the Supreme Court is the court-of-last-resort in the US. There can be no appeal of this decision. The only recourse opponents have is a constitutional amendment, a very difficult process made all the more difficult by the long history of jurisprudence that had long held that marriage is one of the fundamental rights of mankind.

That's fascinating, and I was thinking about something in the vein of an appeal at the back of my mind.. However, I was more concerned, along with a wiser man/woman/human than I, about the anger that this is going to inflame against the LGBT community.

Saiwania wrote:I bet that 20 years or so from now, people will be absurd enough to want the right to marry their dog protected by law.

Bro, do you even Google? People have married dogs, snakes, the Eiffel Tower and all sorts of non-people over the past few decades. And not one of those has been legally recognised yet.

If you're going to be fallacious, at least do your homework.

Keyboard Warriors wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:For their shit views?

Oh but hunting down heretics and unbelievers was the norm back then. Why are you being harsh?

1)Did they actually hunt down heretics and unbelievers back then? They personally engaged in witch hunts? 2)You hold your opinions because you're blessed to live in a time where you can listen and discuss plenty of different view points. 3)They didn't. Sometimes, people are bigots because they just don't know any better, not because they're fuckwits or whatever it was that you said before. 4)Their personal beliefs seem rather irrelevant to their accomplishments.

1) That was referring to your criticism of the Inquisition and the Crusades.
2) Yep.
3) Living in shit times with shit views doesn't really excuse said shit views. Understand them? Yep. Excuse? Nope.
4) Hence why I said the good and bad can/should be judged separately.

Val Halla wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
I think there was a change before this. Something about when they could give blood, think 1 year from last having sex.

I believe you can if you've not had sex. IDK, I'm not American.

Nope the FDA did indeed change guidelines, before men who had sex with men could not donate blood at all. Now they can wait a year after having sex to give blood.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/healt ... .html?_r=0

Maineiacs wrote:

Val Halla wrote:That's kinda dumb, I hope this doesn't get overlooked.

That will happen. Remember, Brown vs. Board of Education only specifically desegregated schools, but it served as a springboard to eventually desegregate everything.

This^

They'll go after Military Policy, that, among other things.

The 502nd SS wrote:

The Floating Island of the Sleeping God wrote:Then why bother discussing anything at all, ever? That's a lazy copout and you know it. If you only ever had discussions in situations where you could effect change, then you'd throw out your modem.

I'm stopping before I get too angry and do something I'll regret

Good. Go read the majority opinion then. It'll give you time to cool off and maybe you'll learn something. Like why your "compromise" was stupid.

Liriena wrote:

Val Halla wrote:Thank you

Was there anything about homosexuals not being able to give blood changing too?

No, but that's one of the many things that still need to be done.

Indeed. Not nearly equal yet.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:Marriage is not yet "equal". Bigots still do not allow people to marry their sister or mother. Hateful, polygamy-phobic people say you can only have one spouse. With homosexuality forced on the entire country, incest and polygamy are going to ask for the same.

This is only the beginning. Groups that refuse homosexual marriage will lose their tax-exempt status and be discriminated against when receiving federal charity grants. The Church will be painted as hateful and will be pushed out of the public square even more.

We live in an evil, evil world when three precent of the population can completely redefine an institution meant for reproduction and stability for children into an exhibitionist union meant for adults.

God have mercy on us all.

Cute.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:Marriage is not yet "equal". Bigots still do not allow people to marry their sister or mother. Hateful, polygamy-phobic people say you can only have one spouse. With homosexuality forced on the entire country, incest and polygamy are going to ask for the same.

This is only the beginning. Groups that refuse homosexual marriage will lose their tax-exempt status and be discriminated against when receiving federal charity grants. The Church will be painted as hateful and will be pushed out of the public square even more.

We live in an evil, evil world when three precent of the population can completely redefine an institution meant for reproduction and stability for children into an exhibitionist union meant for adults.

God have mercy on us all.

What if I told you - not needing to bold and making everything larger might get your opinion across a bit better - and not be ignored.

Yay! Win for America and the LGBT community

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:Marriage is not yet "equal". Bigots still do not allow people to marry their sister or mother. Hateful, polygamy-phobic people say you can only have one spouse. With homosexuality forced on the entire country, incest and polygamy are going to ask for the same.

This is only the beginning. Groups that refuse homosexual marriage will lose their tax-exempt status and be discriminated against when receiving federal charity grants. The Church will be painted as hateful and will be pushed out of the public square even more.

We live in an evil, evil world when three precent of the population can completely redefine an institution meant for reproduction and stability for children into an exhibitionist union meant for adults.

God have mercy on us all.

Keep the salt on your fries.