NationStates Jolt Archive

In many parts of the American empire, it isn't even legal to have sex with someone as the same sex as you are (just like those Middle-eastern nations we all think are so bad). This is the freedom republicans value so much? They must be joking or at least have adopted the slogan "Freedom is slavery".

In many parts of the American empire, it isn't even legal to have sex with someone as the same sex as you are (just like those Middle-eastern nations we all think are so bad). This is the freedom republicans value so much? They must be joking or at least have adopted the slogan "Freedom is slavery".

Yeah. I don't even have the freedom to kill people that I don't like.

Yep. In fact, my slaves, Toby and Calpurnia, better get their asses back to work afore I tan their hides.

:rolleyes:

Honestly, why should it be legal? It's absolutely revolting, and at the very least should be illegal in public.

There is no such thing as true freedom. The ruling bodies just put in the laws they deem fit, other bodies see things differents and allow different (although not necessarily more) freedoms.

No one is ever truly free. You still have responsibilities to youeself (to earn money to eay) to others (not to harm them) and to society (to pay taxes).

In many parts of the American empire, it isn't even legal to have sex with someone as the same sex as you are (just like those Middle-eastern nations we all think are so bad). This is the freedom republicans value so much? They must be joking or at least have adopted the slogan "Freedom is slavery".

Your sources - which you haven't provided, but I can guess anyway - are a bit dated. SCOTUS overturned all anti-sodomy laws in the US in recent years.

Homosexual sex is legal in all 50 States and US Territories.

There is no such thing as true freedom. The ruling bodies just put in the laws they deem fit, other bodies see things differents and allow different (although not necessarily more) freedoms.

No one is ever truly free. You still have responsibilities to youeself (to earn money to eay) to others (not to harm them) and to society (to pay taxes).

I hate to say this, but that's a shitty justification for blatant oppression of homosexuals.

Honestly, why should it be legal? It's absolutely revolting, and at the very least should be illegal in public.

I think capitalism is absolutely revolting. That alone isn't enough to back up a law against it.

Honestly, why should it be legal?

It already is. OOPS! Looks like you missed a vote. :p

Honestly, why should it be legal?
Because people want to do it, and it hurts nobody
It's absolutely revolting
I find the concept of eating mushrooms terribly revolting. Does that give me a reason to push for its illegalization?
and at the very least should be illegal in public.
...as is all sex already...Unless I don't know what I'm talking about here, which is entirely possible

Honestly, why should it be legal? It's absolutely revolting, and at the very least should be illegal in public.
I think any sex in public is technically illegal.

I don't see how two men going at it is any more revolting than seeing anyone else go at it.

Your sources - which you haven't provided, but I can guess anyway - are a bit dated. SCOTUS overturned all anti-sodomy laws in the US in recent years.

Homosexual sex is legal in all 50 States and US Territories.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Note the legal ages for male/male sex for many US states. It says Illegal on them.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Note the legal ages for male/male sex for many US states. It says Illegal on them.
I started a thread about that a while ago, everybody says the site's info is obsolete.

EDIT:
Aha, Keru posted a link.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Note the legal ages for male/male sex for many US states. It says Illegal on them.

That site is outdated. :)

SCOTUS handed down the case in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

I think any sex in public is technically illegal.

I don't see how two men going at it is any more revolting than seeing anyone else go at it.

After seeing two lesbians make out in the middle of the hallway yesterday, I think I'm prepared to say : Eww. There's not many things that gross me out, but that is definetely one of them.

I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but please, not in public. I knew it was illegal in public, I just misunderstood and thought the thread starter wanted it to be legal in public.

In many parts of the American empire, it isn't even legal to have sex with someone as the same sex as you are (just like those Middle-eastern nations we all think are so bad). This is the freedom republicans value so much? They must be joking or at least have adopted the slogan "Freedom is slavery".so you want freedom without restraint... If someone wants to have sex with children, it's ok with you as long as the child says ok? what about sex with animals? or hey, what about my freedom to enter your home and take your stuff... where does the line get drawn?

Lets talk about other things as well... why restrict alcoholic beverages from minors? or remove the age of consent? hey why penalize Seniors by taking away their licence? That's being Agiests... and why not allow cigerette ads to be televised... and why not fight to get more Nudity, Violence and Sex on the airwaves... why not fight against censorship? isnt this the Freedom you think the Democrats want?

Hey Letila... be honest... you really want anarchy right... Freedom without responsibility.

I hate to say this, but that's a shitty justification for blatant oppression of homosexuals.

Hello, bi-sexual here, gay relatives!

I'm not giving justification, just telling it like it is. it wont change any time soon if ever.

Yeah. I don't even have the freedom to kill people that I don't like.
Comparing homosexuality to murder... Geez, how mature :rolleyes: .

After seeing two lesbians make out in the middle of the hallway yesterday, I think I'm prepared to say : Eww. There's not many things that gross me out, but that is definetely one of them.
One word: Tough. What's the f---ing difference between heterosexuals kissing and homosexuals kissing? If heterosexual making-out is allowed in location x, homosexual making-out has to be, as well. End of story.

Some people find skirts offensive, let's ban those, too :rolleyes: .

Seriously, though, if something hurts no one and is not meant to do so, then the fault lies with you for disliking it.

so you want freedom without restraint... If someone wants to have sex with children, it's ok with you as long as the child says ok? what about sex with animals? or hey, what about my freedom to enter your home and take your stuff... where does the line get drawn?

You know that putting words in peoples' mouths is an extremely childish way to debate, right :D ? Grow up, dangit, and debate maturely like the teen or adult you are, not like a whiny 6-year old.

so you want freedom without restraint... If someone wants to have sex with children, it's ok with you as long as the child says ok? what about sex with animals? or hey, what about my freedom to enter your home and take your stuff... where does the line get drawn?

Lets talk about other things as well... why restrict alcoholic beverages from minors? or remove the age of consent? hey why penalize Seniors by taking away their licence? That's being Agiests... and why not allow cigerette ads to be televised... and why not fight to get more Nudity, Violence and Sex on the airwaves... why not fight against censorship? isnt this the Freedom you think the Democrats want?

Hey Letila... be honest... you really want anarchy right... Freedom without responsibility.

You can't be that dumb. Homosexual sex is NOT the same thing as beastility. I am not just an anarchist, but an existentialist, so I believe strongly in personal responsibility. Anarchism means a lack of hierarchy, anyway, not chaos, you bigot.

That site is outdated.

SCOTUS handed down the case in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

So its legal in Texas, but what about the other states like Missouri, where it is a felony?

You can't be that dumb. Homosexual sex is NOT the same thing as beastility. I am not just an anarchist, but an existentialist, so I believe strongly in personal responsibility. Anarchism means a lack of hierarchy, anyway, not chaos, you bigot.

Naturally, with a lack of hierarchy comes a lack of order, and chaos.

After seeing two lesbians make out in the middle of the hallway yesterday, I think I'm prepared to say : Eww. There's not many things that gross me out, but that is definetely one of them.

I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but please, not in public. I knew it was illegal in public, I just misunderstood and thought the thread starter wanted it to be legal in public.
Well, for one thing, seeing couples make out in public really only grosses me out if they're either excessively doing so, i'm single or if they're hideous.

So if two guys gave each other a little kiss, it wouldn't bother me any more than a guy girl couple. Same goes with whether two women are gropign each other in public..

And sex in public is illegal... I think it falls under public nudity or indecent exposure or something. Not that that doesn't always prevent people from trying and succeeding... hell, the thrill of getitng caught and all probably drives more people to do so.

So its legal in Texas, but what about the other states like Missouri, where it is a felony?

SCOTUS made the decision. That's the Supreme Court of the United States. They declared *all* anti-sodomy laws to be unconstitutional.

I know you're an Anarchist, but I'm sure you know how SCOTUS works. ;)

so you want freedom without restraint... If someone wants to have sex with children, it's ok with you as long as the child says ok? what about sex with animals? or hey, what about my freedom to enter your home and take your stuff... where does the line get drawn?
Children can't give consent.
Animals can't give consent.
You did not give consent for such a random person to go in and take your stuff, et c.

Lets talk about other things as well... why restrict alcoholic beverages from minors?
Lack of responsability? I dunno, it is pretty stupid, if kids want booze, they'll get it.

or remove the age of consent?
Emotional and physical maturity are required to make informed decisions.

hey why penalize Seniors by taking away their licence?
If they fail the tests and can't prove they'll be safe drivers...?
My grandpa has alzheimer's, he can't drive anymore, if he were perfectly healthy for a man his age, he would be able to drive still.

and why not fight to get more Nudity, Violence and Sex on the airwaves... why not fight against censorship?
Good idea. Parents should censor what their kids watch, not the government.

You know that putting words in peoples' mouths is an extremely childish way to debate, right :D ? Grow up, dangit, and debate maturely like the teen or adult you are, not like a whiny 6-year old.
In many parts of the American empire, it isn't even legal to have sex with someone as the same sex as you are (just like those Middle-eastern nations we all think are so bad). This is the freedom republicans value so much? They must be joking or at least have adopted the slogan "Freedom is slavery". Hey, I didn't start it.

and I'm using the views that this person is adopting. if this person is for sexual freedom, why have any restrictions placed on it? we allow one form of sexual preference, we should allow all! Think of the arguments presented here.

You can't be that dumb. Homosexual sex is NOT the same thing as beastility. I am not just an anarchist, but an existentialist, so I believe strongly in personal responsibility. Anarchism means a lack of hierarchy, anyway, not chaos, you bigot. so you want some freedoms... but not all? you will allow some sexual choices but not others... why not? If you believe so strongly about Personal Responsibility, then in what form is Beastiality, Necophilia and pedophila different than Homosexuality. again where does the line get drawn and once you move the line, when does it stop moving.

I hate to say this, but that's a shitty justification for blatant oppression of homosexuals. and where does the Oppression end. why not allow all of the sexual deviations legal status? You call for freedom for homosexuals but none for the others? that's being a hypocrite.

Honestly, why should it be legal? It's absolutely revolting, and at the very least should be illegal in public.
OMG WEAKEST ARGUMENT EVER!

It should be legal because people want to do it and it doesn't harm other people.

After seeing two lesbians make out in the middle of the hallway yesterday, I think I'm prepared to say : Eww. There's not many things that gross me out, but that is definetely one of them.
I call bullshit. What straight man would not like to see two girls going at it?

so you want freedom without restraint... If someone wants to have sex with children, it's ok with you as long as the child says ok? what about sex with animals? or hey, what about my freedom to enter your home and take your stuff... where does the line get drawn?
None of those things involve consent, and children and animals cannot legally give consent. That's why sex between them and adults is illegal.

You call for freedom for homosexuals but none for the others? that's being a hypocrite.
...because we all know a corpse or an animal can have a consenting relationship with someone...
:rolleyes:

so you want some freedoms... but not all? you will allow some sexual choices but not others... why not? If you believe so strongly about Personal Responsibility, then in what form is Beastiality, Necophilia and pedophila different than Homosexuality. again where does the line get drawn and once you move the line, when does it stop moving.
The line for sex is drawn at consent.

If people want to donate their bodies to necrophiliacs after they die, then hey, go for it. Since people don't do that, the people whose bodies are being desecrated didn't give consent.

Two adult, living human beings can consent to have sex with each other. A child cannot, a dog cannot consent to sex with a human, a toaster cannot consent, though since it isn't being harmed, then well, what's the harm in that... but really. There is a huge difference here.

Children can't give consent.
Animals can't give consent.
You did not give consent for such a random person to go in and take your stuff, et c. actually, chilren can...it's just not legally binding. Animals cannot give consent because they are not considered sentient beings. and ever heard of criminal negligence... leave your house door open/unlocked and leagally you are inviting people in. But I am by no means for these things... Just pointing out the abserdity in her "freedom is slavery" thing.


Lack of responsability? I dunno, it is pretty stupid, if kids want booze, they'll get it. and get arrested for it. Alcoholic sales is ILLEAGAL in most states. with stiff fines and jail time to those who also sell them to minors.

Emotional and physical maturity are required to make informed decisions. and what determines Emotional and Physical Maturity... there really is no test... I know alot of "mature" minors and "immature" adults... Too bad there is no test for that...


If they fail the tests and can't prove they'll be safe drivers...?
My grandpa has alzheimer's, he can't drive anymore, if he were perfectly healthy for a man his age, he would be able to drive still. my point exactly... there is legisature and in some states, laws, that place an age cap on driver's licence because of their age.
Good idea. Parents should censor what their kids watch, not the government.Hear, hear... now if they can take the responsibility as well...

so you want some freedoms... but not all? you will allow some sexual choices but not others... why not? If you believe so strongly about Personal Responsibility, then in what form is Beastiality, Necophilia and pedophila different than Homosexuality. again where does the line get drawn and once you move the line, when does it stop moving.

They are nonconsensual! Don't you understand anything about ethics? Homosexuality is not nonconsensual in itself.

SCOTUS made the decision. That's the Supreme Court of the United States. They declared *all* anti-sodomy laws to be unconstitutional.

I know you're an Anarchist, but I'm sure you know how SCOTUS works.

It's pretty sad when the government supports freedom more than its own citizens.

Originally Posted by Haloman
After seeing two lesbians make out in the middle of the hallway yesterday, I think I'm prepared to say : Eww. There's not many things that gross me out, but that is definetely one of them.

Have you ever kissed in public?

Did you ever stop to think other people might not like it?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

(PS, you could've looked away. I'm guessing you took a good long look to know it wasnt just a kiss but a full "Make out")

[QUOTE=


and get arrested for it. Alcoholic sales is ILLEAGAL in most states. with stiff fines and jail time to those who also sell them to minors.

[/QUOTE]
Some people would say that it shouldn't be illegal and since Letila is an anarchist I would assume she is one of those.

Have you ever kissed in public?

Did you ever stop to think other people might not like it?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

(PS, you could've looked away. I'm guessing you took a good long look to know it wasnt just a kiss but a full "Make out")

Kissed, yes, but making out, no. And just a peck on the lips. Much, much different than tongue action.

Too many to quote So the argument is consent?

If an adult is proven to be mentally incompetant, then that restricts them from sex?

Granted Animals (alive and dead) cannot grant consent but they are not ment to give consent. they cannot vote, they are not considered citizens...
then there are innanimate objects... and before you say they are "made for that purpose." animals are trained for that porpose also.

age.... while the thought of Pedophilia turns my stomach... Just trying to be fair here... the Age of consent is different on a state by state basis. some it's 16, others 18. then there is being considered an adult when you turn 18 yet cannot drink/see porn until 21, why the age difference?

Don't you understand anything about ethics? Homosexuality is not nonconsensual in itself. Funny thing Ethics... they are personal views. not legal ruling of themselves... you can't argue Ethics under a leagal standing. for some, it's Ethical for women not to have jobs... to be housewives however, I won't be the one to try and tell that to some of my friends...

age.... while the thought of Pedophilia turns my stomach... Just trying to be fair here... the Age of consent is different on a state by state basis. some it's 16, others 18.
The inconsitancy of age of consent rules dosen't have much to do with homosexuality seeing as they apply to heterosexuality also, the inconsitancies would appear in both. So you come to the question of why two adults of the same sex that meet the age of consent laws shouldn't be able to have sex seeing as how they are undeniably capabel of consenting to having sex with each other if they are capabel of consenting to sex with members of the opposing sex?
[/QUOTE]then there is being considered an adult when you turn 18 yet cannot drink/see porn until 21, why the age difference?[/Quote]

That is a good question may be we should repeal it?

so you want freedom without restraint... If someone wants to have sex with children, it's ok with you as long as the child says ok? what about sex with animals? or hey, what about my freedom to enter your home and take your stuff... where does the line get drawn?

Lets talk about other things as well... why restrict alcoholic beverages from minors? or remove the age of consent? hey why penalize Seniors by taking away their licence? That's being Agiests... and why not allow cigerette ads to be televised... and why not fight to get more Nudity, Violence and Sex on the airwaves... why not fight against censorship? isnt this the Freedom you think the Democrats want?

Hey Letila... be honest... you really want anarchy right... Freedom without responsibility.

Observation: Your argument is a logical fallacy. You attempt to discredit your opponent by implying that Letila wants to engage in any number of loathesome activities, and that this is the basis for his argument. By your own logic, you're a facist who thinks no one should be able to make a decision for themselves.

You'd have done better by pointing out that his information was out of date, or that it was illegal because it was the will of the people. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Observation: Your argument is a logical fallacy. You attempt to discredit your opponent by implying that Letila wants to engage in any number of loathesome activities, and that this is the basis for his argument. By your own logic, you're a facist who thinks no one should be able to make a decision for themselves.

You'd have done better by pointing out that his information was out of date, or that it was illegal because it was the will of the people. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."no my argument is she calls the government (ie Republican's) slavers by using freedoms to restrict. yet, if that is her stance...That Homosexuality should be leagal because it "harms no one" and involves "consenting adults" there are alot of other sexual deviations that match her criteria yet she claims disgusts her and thus should not be included in her fight for "freedom."

to me, Freedom without restraint and responsibility is anarchy. if the people refuse to take responsibility and keep shoving it onto the Government's shoulders, then they cannot complain if the government rules against them.

It burns me when people cry I'm being oppressed and my constitutional rights are denied when it was put to the people and the people spoke. If they ignore the fact that the majority spoke, pointing it out to them won't make them see it.

In many parts of the American empire, it isn't even legal to have sex with someone as the same sex as you


Honestly, what are you talking about?

You may be too young to remember Lawrence v. Texas.

no my argument is she calls the government (ie Republican's) slavers by using freedoms to restrict. yet, if that is her stance...That Homosexuality should be leagal because it "harms no one" and involves "consenting adults" there are alot of other sexual deviations that match her criteria yet she claims disgusts her and thus should not be included in her fight for "freedom."

to me, Freedom without restraint and responsibility is anarchy. if the people refuse to take responsibility and keep shoving it onto the Government's shoulders, then they cannot complain if the government rules against them.

It burns me when people cry I'm being oppressed and my constitutional rights are denied when it was put to the people and the people spoke. If they ignore the fact that the majority spoke, pointing it out to them won't make them see it.

The majority opposed civil rights for along time does this mean we should go back to segregation hm? Common values once said that "them damn blacks oughtn be sleeping with our fair white dasiybells" does that that make it right?

Also, you never presented an argument that revealed pediphilia to match her criterias, nor animals, you merely said consent isn't necesary in that case which obviously dosen't meet the criteria SHE put forward.

Oh, and she didn't say that the Republicans were using freedoms to opresse us she says they are opressing us and calling it freedom, read up on your Orwell.

no my argument is she calls the government (ie Republican's) slavers by using freedoms to restrict. yet, if that is her stance...That Homosexuality should be leagal because it "harms no one" and involves "consenting adults" there are alot of other sexual deviations that match her criteria yet she claims disgusts her and thus should not be included in her fight for "freedom."

to me, Freedom without restraint and responsibility is anarchy. if the people refuse to take responsibility and keep shoving it onto the Government's shoulders, then they cannot complain if the government rules against them.

It burns me when people cry I'm being oppressed and my constitutional rights are denied when it was put to the people and the people spoke. If they ignore the fact that the majority spoke, pointing it out to them won't make them see it.

Statement: Letila is a male.

Unecessary Addendum: Many of the activities you cited are hardly "victimless". It is also possible for a person to think one thing is morally wrong while another thing is not. Otherwise, you would consider consenting sex between a married couple repugnant and loathesome.

Post script: The will of the people changes. Even very popular laws are repealed. If no one expresses a desire to change laws, then laws will not be changed, and the society dies of stagnation. Furthermore, not everyone capable of expressing an opinion was elligible to make their opinion heard when the issue was "put to the people". This is no reason why they cannot express themselves.

Statement: Letila is a male.

Unecessary Addendum: Many of the activities you cited are hardly "victimless". It is also possible for a person to think one thing is morally wrong while another thing is not. Otherwise, you would consider consenting sex between a married couple repugnant and loathesome.

Post script: The will of the people changes. Even very popular laws are repealed. If no one expresses a desire to change laws, then laws will not be changed, and the society dies of stagnation.
I thought Letila was a female?

I thought Letila was a female?

Recitation: He used to have a picture of women with big butts in his signature, with the notation, "I'm a man! I like WOMEN with big butts!"

Recitation: He used to have a picture of women with big butts in his signature, with the notation, "I'm a man! I like WOMEN with big butts!"
ah, my computer is vary tempermental with sigs, so I must have missed that, these forum ranks tend to throw me of also. Sorry for calling you a she Letila, not that thats a bad thing.

ah, my computer is vary tempermental with sigs, so I must have missed that, these forum ranks tend to throw me of also. Sorry for calling you a she Letila, not that thats a bad thing.

Note: He stopped using the sig a long time ago, when he received a large number of complaints about it. This was before the move to Jolt.

freedom (at least politically speaking) I think isn't the right to do what ever you want. What makes us a free society is that we choose the laws. The people are in charge.....and you have to abide by the laws that the people voted for. So if the people exercize their freedom and say that homosexual marriage should be illegal, then you do not have the freedom to have homosexual marriage. That is freedom (politically). You are not free to do anything....you must abide by the voice of the people. (which is better than abiding by the voice of the government or dictator).

In many parts of the American empire, it isn't even legal to have sex with someone as the same sex as you are (just like those Middle-eastern nations we all think are so bad). This is the freedom republicans value so much? They must be joking or at least have adopted the slogan "Freedom is slavery".

The words that flow forth from your keyboard have the same perfume as the air that flows forth from your anal cavity.

The words that flow forth from your keyboard have the same perfume as the air that flows forth from your anal cavity.

If you cannot argue your point without such commentary, then do not argue at all.

If you cannot argue your point without such commentary, then do not argue at all.

Just expressing my opinion of the thread. Tonight I'm in a cynical mood. So, I'll make you happy. Good night. :fluffle:

Thank who ever I believe in for not living in the stupid USA

It burns me when people cry I'm being oppressed and my constitutional rights are denied when it was put to the people and the people spoke. If they ignore the fact that the majority spoke, pointing it out to them won't make them see it.
Ever heard of "tyranny of the majority"? Just because the majority spoke, doesn't mean that they are not being oppressed and their constitutional rights denied.

How is gay marriage an irresponsible thing?

Homosexuality should be leagal because it "harms no one" and involves "consenting adults" there are alot of other sexual deviations that match her criteria yet she claims disgusts her and thus should not be included in her fight for "freedom."
For example?

freedom (at least politically speaking) I think isn't the right to do what ever you want. What makes us a free society is that we choose the laws. The people are in charge.....and you have to abide by the laws that the people voted for. So if the people exercize their freedom and say that homosexual marriage should be illegal, then you do not have the freedom to have homosexual marriage. That is freedom (politically). You are not free to do anything....you must abide by the voice of the people. (which is better than abiding by the voice of the government or dictator).
That's not a "free" society, it's a democratic society. Total democracy is dictatorship of the majority, which coincidentally is socialism.

The words that flow forth from your keyboard have the same perfume as the air that flows forth from your anal cavity.
That was probably the most eloquent, poetic flame I've ever read.

Thank who ever I believe in for not living in the stupid USA

No, thank your parents as they were the ones who insured you were not borne here. :D

That was probably the most eloquent, poetic flame I've ever read.

Thank you. (Accepts the award and bows to the accolades) :D

For christs sake letila, do some research before you make a post... as repeatedly stated, gay sex is legal... SCOTUS overturned those laws a few years ago. it won't be long before a good portion of the blue states start legalizing gay marriage, too. but still, is that truely blatant oppression? seriously, you seem to like to use the word oppression quite loosely. gays aren't being rounded up in concentration camps are they?

This whole thing reminds me of a song by Chumbawumba, Homophobia (The worst disease).

This whole thing reminds me of a song by Chumbawumba, Homophobia (The worst disease).

Then that song is an insult to all the people with AIDS, cancer, and other debilitating diseases.

I wonder if conservatives have ever realised that their desire to "protect the morality of society" is a form of socialism?

I wonder if conservatives have ever realised that their desire to "protect the morality of society" is a form of socialism?
SwimmingPool, they never will. That's why a lot of people laugh when they try to sell their "Less Government" story. I guess having the government in our bedrooms is their idea of less. :rolleyes:

Golly, I sure love reading posts by total idiots. I'm sure those familiar with my views on the subject will know exactly who I'm talking about.

In many parts of the American empire, it isn't even legal to have sex with someone as the same sex as you are (just like those Middle-eastern nations we all think are so bad). This is the freedom republicans value so much? They must be joking or at least have adopted the slogan "Freedom is slavery".

I'm what you might call a republican, and I reckon government has no right to dictate anything about sex, unless it has to step in to prevent rape and the like. I don't even think marriage should be a government concern, gay men, women, straight men and women, married or otherwise, should all have exactly the same rights and regulations apply to them under the law.

In many parts of the American empire, it isn't even legal to have sex with someone as the same sex as you are (just like those Middle-eastern nations we all think are so bad). This is the freedom republicans value so much? They must be joking or at least have adopted the slogan "Freedom is slavery".
Citations, please: state, law ... specifics.

In many parts of the American empire...
...and that's about where i zoned out. some posts are so clearly trolling that i can't even give them enough benefit of the doubt to finish reading.

The absence of knowledge and thought in this thread is abysmal, absolutely abysmal!

Is it too much to ask that each of you examine his/her own prejudices and biases before attacking those of others? When you don't, it makes you seem just as stupid and bigotted as those you attack.

It's pretty sad when the government supports freedom more than its own citizens.

Well, it is a government of the people and by the people. The government cannot really make any decisions without the will of the people involved.

The opinions of the "yuk factor" crowd are not the majority opinion of the US, just the majority opinion of the internet and, frankly, that doesn't count.

The absence of knowledge and thought in this thread is abysmal, absolutely abysmal!


Well it is the internet. :D

Well it is the internet. :D
Yes. It is. Sigh. I suppose I expect too much. :(