NationStates Jolt Archive

The key is the homosexual behaviour, and not the sexual orientation
<snip>

Obviously, that is not true, because if it was, there would be no grounds for prohibiting gays from doing anything unless you could prove they were engaging in certain specific actions. No such proof or evidence is required by governments that disallow same sex marriage, or fail to honor the wills or health care proxies of gay people, or ban gays from military service. Further, employers who discriminate against gays do not wait for videos of job applicants engaging in gay sex before giving someone else the promotion.

In fact, even sexual orientation does not have to be proven. All it takes is for the bigoted person to suspect that someone is gay for them to start discriminating against them.

So, obviously, "homosexual behavior" has nothing to do with it, since bigots start discriminating as soon as they learn about or even just suspect the orientation.

Dying is natural. Death makes life that much more special. Besides, it isn't blankness after you die. There is an afterlife.
Of all forums to state that as thought it were a fact, you picked NSG.

Human creations are unnatural because man created them, not nature. Any way of achieving immortality through technology would be artificial.
Since when is humanity not part of nature?

Gays legally have the same rights as straight people in the USA anyway, straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.

Oy vey, not this shit again.

Oy vey, not this shit again.

Ay caramba! That shit again.

I and many others spend most of our time not talking about homosexuality, so the title question is invalid.

I'm kind of a fan of talking about sexuality, het or homo or variations of the two. I don't want to shut up about it.

There is no need to shut-up about homosexuality because it's as normal as heterosexuality (and bisexuality). It is a fact of life and there is nothing unnatural about it, even if the people who are of that 'orientation' may not seem natural (kind of like those straight nerds who say they have girlfriends at other schools).

Why do we need to shut up about sexuality? Those who don't want to speak about it and are hush-hush hide because they don't want their fragile existence challenged by those bold enough to have explored themselves and sought to understand themselves better.

And even if most of you don't like his style, Fass is right. There is a great dominance of heterosexuality in our culture. We just don't notice it because it is background noise for us given the climate of our culture.

Gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and the transgendered are denied a host of rights, not simply the right to same-sex marriage. They face hate crimes, they face legal discrimination in employment, the face anti-sodomy laws, etc., etc. etc.
Ok, fair enough, it's just that when the OP seemed to be talking about gay marriage not being that big a deal and people responding with analogies about racism, I got the impression that they were comparing the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman to racism.

While I agree with you in principle I need to point out that anti-sodomy laws were declare unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Oh really? Nice! This I was unaware of.

In an odd way, this demonstrates that the OP is quite wrong. People can indeed shut up about homosexuality ... by talking about something else.

Interesting little diversion you start up here :)
Agreed.

I'm glad to see I get to talk about artificial immortality and affection-induced nausea in a topic where I was almost hesitant to talk about ideology labels because of how off topic it was.

Is Sel Appa still here?

In many states there are anti-sodomy laws in place.

While I agree with you in principle I need to point out that anti-sodomy laws were declare unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), holding that "the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections" and that "the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,"

Ok, fair enough, it's just that when the OP seemed to be talking about gay marriage not being that big a deal and people responding with analogies about racism, I got the impression that they were comparing the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman to racism.

Well, even there though, it's still partially bigotry. Sure, there are levels, but most tend not to see much of a difference.

I can't shut up about how much I hate fags because fags can't shut up about how much they hate hetero-"breeders".

I can't shut up about how much I hate fags because fags can't shut up about how much they hate hetero-"breeders".

Ah, the last refuge of the bigot: "They do it too!"

As usual, neither truthful nor an excuse.

Is Sel Appa still here?

He said not really.

I can't shut up about how much I hate niggers because niggers can't shut up about how much they hate "crackers".

Yup. Still smells like bigotry.

Yup. Still smells like bigotry.

More like self-defense.

More like self-defense.

AH! THE FAGS ARE COMING!

:rolleyes:

More like self-defense.

Yeah, cuz gays just love to rape and beat hetero men.

Get a grip. No one is coming to make you gay.

AH! THE FAGS ARE COMING!

:rolleyes:

*arms zombie shotgun*

Yeah, cuz gays just love to rape and beat hetero men.

Get a grip. No one is coming to make you gay.

You have no sources to back up your claim. :eek:

*runs to anti-zombie barricade* :p

You have no sources to back up your claim. :eek:

Basic reason and a little familiarity with reality are good enough.

Before you know it, straight men will be forced into marriages with other straight men...

Like seriously? What is the fear here?

You have no sources to back up your claim. :eek:


No source to show that straight men are not being gang raped by gay men?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

No source to show that straight men are not being gang raped by gay men?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I just assumed he was trying to make a joke.

No source to show that straight men are not being gang raped by gay men?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

So you can't take a fucking joke? What are you some sort of heartless robot? :rolleyes:

So you can't take a fucking joke? What are you some sort of heartless robot? :rolleyes:

Oh hush you. With some of the insane things you say, it's not hard to see why people would assume you were being serious.

So you can't take a fucking joke? What are you some sort of heartless robot? :rolleyes:

Your words are interpreted in the context of your reputation. You have a reputation for saying some rather inane things.

Why should anyone have to shut up about it?

Don't want to hear it? don't discuss it.

Tell that to Fassitude. He's the one who refuses to shut up about it, and he even says so in this post:
How schizophrenic. And no, I will not shut up. Your ilk will never be able to shut us up ever again. We will be in your bigoted little face until you die. And our cause will outlive you.

Ah, the last refuge of the bigot: "They do it too!"

As usual, neither truthful nor an excuse.

It IS truthful in some cases, such as Fassitude; see the above quote from him.

Tell that to Fassitude. He's the one who refuses to shut up about it, and he even says so in this post:




It IS truthful in some cases, such as Fassitude; see the above quote from him.

He has an absolutely valid point. While people like (I assume) you feel it necessary to tell gays how evil they are, and decry their existence or...barring that their OBVIOUS existence, 'people like' Fass need to keep talking. Your bigotry absolutely should be called into question, ridiculed and hopefully made as socially unacceptable as open racism is.

It IS truthful in some cases, such as Fassitude; see the above quote from him.

Those cases are few and far inbetween, and result due to bigotry aimed at homosexuals in the first place. Pulling a childish "They're all doing it!" excuse doesn't reflect well on someone, especially for something like this.

Pulling a childish "They're all doing it!" excuse doesn't reflect well on someone, especially for something like this.

Especially when the ones that go "they're doing it too" did it FIRST!

Especially when the ones that go "they're doing it too" did it FIRST!

No really, it's the niggers' fault for being so uppity.

Oh wait, I mean the fags.

He has an absolutely valid point. While people like (I assume) you feel it necessary to tell gays how evil they are, and decry their existence or...barring that their OBVIOUS existence, 'people like' Fass need to keep talking. Your bigotry absolutely should be called into question, ridiculed and hopefully made as socially unacceptable as open racism is.

at times yes, however at the same time, gays themselves aren't immune to bigotry. Yes, it is true that gays have, and continue to be, discriminated against. however not every straight person does this.

And there are members of the gay community who function on the presumption that a straight person is a bigot, or biased against homosexuality. And those who assume so make them just as bad bigots as the ones they denounce. What makes it worse is that many of them seem to operate that being gay somehow cloaks them in a shield of "special protection" that because they belong to a repressed minority that somehow makes it ok to be the very thing they decry. Not all of course, but it does exist.

No matter how much people like fass want to pretend otherwise, or try to justify it away that it's somehow "ok" when they do it.

Actually, gay men do rape. But I feel pretty confident that they'd rape a lot less frequently than straight men. So confident in fact, I can't be bothered even going to look for one source.

And rape being what it is, I imagine such rape would sometimes be on a straight man.

EDIT: I see this has been done already. Forgot to refresh before posting.

at times yes, however at the same time, gays themselves aren't immune to bigotry. Yes, it is true that gays have, and continue to be, discriminated against. however not every straight person does this. No group is immune to having bigots amongst them.

And there are members of the gay community who function on the presumption that a straight person is a bigot, or biased against homosexuality. And those who assume so make them just as bad bigots as the ones they denounce. What makes it worse is that many of them seem to operate that being gay somehow cloaks them in a shield of "special protection" that because they belong to a repressed minority that somehow makes it ok to be the very thing they decry. Not all of course, but it does exist.

No matter how much people like fass want to pretend otherwise, or try to justify it away that it's somehow "ok" when they do it. Funny thing is...Fass doesn't actually assume every straight person is a bigot. It does, however, tickle people to no end to believe he does...and he doesn't really go out of his way to disprove them.

*shrugs*

That's his thing.

Actually, gay men do rape.

of course, the question is of course whether it's statistically relevant or not.

Actually, gay men do rape. But I feel pretty confident that they'd rape a lot less frequently than straight men. So confident in fact, I can't be bothered even going to look for one source.

And rape being what it is, I imagine such rape would sometimes be on a straight man.

EDIT: I see this has been done already. Forgot to refresh before posting.Hahahaha, the idea was to address what seems to be an underlying fear among certain anti-gays. That perhaps the horrid gays will force THEM to be gay as well...or...unrestrained, might force them to have gay sex.

Is this really what people are afraid of? Well I still haven't heard any other reasons to be so opposed to teh gayz.

Ahh, so then it's ok for my "thing" to be that I act like I assume all mexicans are inferior, and all women are stupid?

Huh, I wonder how long I'd last around here.

Well, can't find out unless you try.

Also note I said that he isn't the one pretending...others are the ones assuming. But if you've got beef with Fass, I'll let you take it up with him.

Funny thing is...Fass doesn't actually assume every straight person is a bigot. It does, however, tickle people to no end to believe he does...and he doesn't really go out of his way to disprove them.

*shrugs*

That's his thing.

Ahh, so then it's ok for my "thing" to be that I act like I assume all mexicans are inferior, and all women are stupid?

Huh, I wonder how long I'd last around here.

It IS truthful in some cases, such as Fassitude; see the above quote from him.

Um, he was talking to Sel Appa... not to all straight people.

So now we can't even hate loathsome bigots?

No group is immune to having bigots amongst them.
Funny thing is...Fass doesn't actually assume every straight person is a bigot. It does, however, tickle people to no end to believe he does...and he doesn't really go out of his way to disprove them.

*shrugs*

That's his thing.

Sin, there was a time I agreed with you, but enough is bloody enough. The man is self-centred, utterly horribly rude, childish, bigoted, and a freaking fool. He is not defendable anymore. His methods will never work and he embarrasses all homosexuals, and all Swedes as well.

Yes, bigotry should be called out, and confronted. Yes, it should be shown to be what it is. But we cannot allow ourselves to make excuses for bigotry aimed in the other direction. Fass's bigotry(not just his beef with heterosexuals, but his apparent belief that all United States citizens are gun-toting red-necked maniacs, and his nigh-unity with UB on how stupid anyone with a religious belief is) is no more tolerable than the bigotry aimed at him. I don't care about his excuses. I don't care about why he is the way he is. He is a grown man and should learn how to get past it. Should he be angry? Fuck yes. But should he use it the way he does? Absolutely not.

You remember Skaladora's "Ask a homosexual" thread? Within it he called Ska a TRAITOR. He attacked Ska because Ska was trying educate against the ignorance that forms most of the bias against homosexuals. He considered that unworthy behavior and thought that Ska should just act like him instead.

Sin, you need to truly examine his behavior before you continue to call him friend, because right now you're lying to yourself about him.

Soheran, do you like Stewart Lee?

Soheran, do you like Stewart Lee?

I'm not familiar enough with him to have an opinion.

*snip*
Like I give a rat's ass what you think about him, or in any way believe that your perception of him should cause me to do anything like 'reconsider my friendship' with him. I have no problem with there being internal divisions, whether that's within the 'homosexual group' or not. There is never going to be a 'united front' in any cause and there shouldn't be. Fass holds what some people consider to be extreme viewpoints. It's a useful insight...and he isn't nearly as bad as his persona here on NSG.

and he isn't nearly as bad as his persona here on NSG.

As I have said before, one can only be judged by what is presented. You have had very little difficulty forming judgements about people in the past based soley on the image they present here, I might note.

As I have said before, one can only be judged by what is presented. You have had very little difficulty forming judgements about people in the past based soley on the image they present here, I might note.

...

Alright then. Of course, this thread really isn't about Fass, or about my opinions of him. So.

Night.

Like I give a rat's ass what you think about him, or in any way believe that your perception of him should cause me to do anything like 'reconsider my friendship' with him. I have no problem with there being internal divisions, whether that's within the 'homosexual group' or not. There is never going to be a 'united front' in any cause and there shouldn't be. Fass holds what some people consider to be extreme viewpoints. It's a useful insight...and he isn't nearly as bad as his persona here on NSG.

You'll forgive me for judging based on what I know of him.

But to be honest, I don't think his viewpoint IS valid! Why is his bigotry acceptable, Sin?! It's the same stupid shit that homophobic bigots spout only it's aimed at heterosexuals instead. It's not valuable. It doesn't help. All it does is harm the cause of homosexuals. I don't see how you can call it a useful insight at all. You certainly don't look at homophobia as a useful insight. Why should we look at his heterophobia as useful insight?

*snip*

*sigh*
Take it up with Fass, willya? I'm not my brother's keeper.

*sigh*
Take it up with Fass, willya? I'm not my brother's keeper.
Okay. I'm not saying you are. I'm just saying this stuff so you think, that's all. What conclusion you come to is ultimately irrelevant, because ultimately the important thing is that you keep an open mind.

So now we can't even hate loathsome bigots?

I think it's still OK to snicker about them behind their backs. But we'd better get to it, because that won't be PC much longer.

It's the same stupid shit that homophobic bigots spout only it's aimed at heterosexuals instead.

Except it isn't... not even remotely.

I disagree with Fass at least half the time, and I think what he did on Skaladora's thread was obnoxious, unnecessary, and unjustified, but I haven't seen any indication that he's actually bigoted... just militant in ways that make some people (often deservedly) uncomfortable.

It's telling, I think, the kinds of responses he gets sometimes.

But then, I have no dog in this fight.

Okay. I'm not saying you are. I'm just saying this stuff so you think, that's all. What conclusion you come to is ultimately irrelevant, because ultimately the important thing is that you keep an open mind.

And I'll point out once again...that the bulk of interaction I have with Fass is not on NSG, so my opinion of him is not formed much by his posting here.

Alright. We done?

If they ban all hetro stuff in public then its cool with me if they ban all gay stuff .... but man they would have to ban everything for straight people as sod going to all the brazialian street parties and stuff if i cant perv on the odd hot woman and nighton the town with out checking out the scantly clad women ... and gah would it mean i couldnt snog a future Mrs Sofar when not in the house??? i might as well go religious lol

(though if no gay parades mean i dont have men perving over me .. and i am so hot they cant resit lololol .... then thats way cool :D)


(and the only people to be annoyed with imo are the bi men lol as there greedy feckers with no benifit for the straight male lol)

(and awe at the colours in your first post :D atleast you gave both sides equal 'STFU' lol though the death bit is a bit harsh compared to the weeee bit ... but only pointed that out to be annoying lolol)


You sir, are officially my hero. :p


Seriously though, it's a shock to me, to see so much hatred poured out towards any specific group. African Americans, gays, caucasians, and any other group that's been mentioned. Why can't we just 'live and let live'? You're free to live your own life the way you'd like. Why can't others? It's a simple, yet effective approach to life. It'll also make you more friends, and less enemies through your life.

I have no right to tell a straight man what he should do. On the same notion, I don't feel that any straight man should be able to tell me (a gay man) what I do in my life.

Perhaps that's just too easy...

But to be honest, I don't think his viewpoint IS valid!

What? Why not? What on Earth could possibly be wrong with a viewpoint that causes someone to attack (a) anyone who doesn't happen to be homosexual or (b) any homosexual who happens to be less acerbic and more willing to talk to the "breeders" for oppressing him with their "heteronormativity" if they dare to mention sexuality on a public forum?

I think it's still OK to snicker about them behind their backs. But we'd better get to it, because that won't be PC much longer.

Fuck that shit.

If I can't hate bigoted assholes, I don't want your revolution. :)

Perhaps that's just too easy...
It's the inherent need to make SOMEONE your bitch.

I work it out by treating stuffed animals like second class citizens.

Why can't people just shut up?

I fixed the thread for you!

Fuck that shit.

If I can't hate bigoted assholes, I don't want your revolution. :)

Nice :D

But dancing too. :P

"heteronormativity"

"Breeders" you can argue about, but "heteronormativity" is a perfectly good and legitimate term.

"Breeders" you can argue about, but "heteronormativity" is a perfectly good and legitimate term.

Not the way Fass uses it.

When a simple interest in the biology of sexuality becomes "heteronormativity", the term has lost pretty much all value.
When a homosexual person is apparently giving into "heteronormativity" for daring to talk to people who are not homosexual about his sexuality, it has becomes uesless.

In Fass' vocabulary, "heteronormativity" seems to mean, "Any viewpoint on sexuality held by anyone who is not gay or any gay person who doesn't totally agree with Fass being an asshole."

But dancing too. :P

That too. Dancing is awesome.

Not that I'm any good, or actually know anything about it... but it's fun. :)

Except it isn't... not even remotely.

I disagree with Fass at least half the time, and I think what he did on Skaladora's thread was obnoxious, unnecessary, and unjustified, but I haven't seen any indication that he's actually bigoted... just militant in ways that make some people (often deservedly) uncomfortable.

It's telling, I think, the kinds of responses he gets sometimes.

But then, I have no dog in this fight.
To be honest, it's hard to tell sometimes. But considering the way he likes to toss around the term breeder and his other behavior(specific examples are not coming to mind at the moment) I have concluded he is bigoted against heterosexuals, however mildly.

But, that is only my conclusion based on my observation. I might be wrong.

What? Why not? What on Earth could possibly be wrong with a viewpoint that causes someone to attack (a) anyone who doesn't happen to be homosexual or (b) any homosexual who happens to be less acerbic and more willing to talk to the "breeders" for oppressing him with their "heteronormativity" if they dare to mention sexuality on a public forum?
While I think you're being a bit too sarcastic Dem, you point out exactly what I mean.


And I'll point out once again...that the bulk of interaction I have with Fass is not on NSG, so my opinion of him is not formed much by his posting here.

Alright. We done?

We're done.

While I think you're being a bit too sarcastic Dem, you point out exactly what I mean.

Bah! No such thing as "too sarcastic". =)

Not the way Fass uses it.

Maybe. I can't really bring myself to care very much.

Just as long as you grant that it has its legitimate place... it's a favorite term of mine.

"God, this party is so heteronormative."

"God, this party is so heteronormative."

I thought I was the only one who said that...I then follow up by making out with some random girl. Cuz that's what straight chicks do when they want male attention. :P

Oh wait...that's not anti-heteronormative at all is it?

Except it isn't... not even remotely.

I disagree with Fass at least half the time, and I think what he did on Skaladora's thread was obnoxious, unnecessary, and unjustified, but I haven't seen any indication that he's actually bigoted... just militant in ways that make some people (often deservedly) uncomfortable.

It's telling, I think, the kinds of responses he gets sometimes.

But then, I have no dog in this fight.

I've always viewed him as sort of the gay-rights version of Bottle.

In your face, terse to the point of being insulting, but hardly bigoted.

I've always viewed him as sort of the gay-rights version of Bottle.

In your face, terse to the point of being insulting, but hardly bigoted.

Bottle certainly has an in-your-face style, but she also knows when to act nicer and more respectful, and certainly wouldn't spit vitriol at other feminists for not being more sexist towards men.

For fuck sake, Kyronea. Stop hijacking threads because you don't like someone.

For fuck sake, Kyronea. Stop hijacking threads because you don't like someone.

It's not a thread hijacking, nor was I the only one to push things along this direction. Please read posts more thoroughly next time.

Besides, why do you care anyway?

It's not a thread hijacking, nor was I the only one to push things along this direction. Please read posts more thoroughly next time.

Besides, why do you care anyway?

Because it's the second time this happens in less than a week, because it's annoying...

Because it's the second time this happens in less than a week, because it's annoying...

As I said, it followed the thread's course.

Bottle certainly has an in-your-face style, but she also knows when to act nicer and more respectful, and certainly wouldn't spit vitriol at other feminists for not being more sexist towards men.

Except that you're missing the point. For one thing, where does respect come into this? When I enter a debate with someone on this forum, friend or no, the venom usually starts dripping from post 1. This is a debate and discussion forum, and a certain level of derision is almost expected.

Secondly, the whole point is that Bottle isn't sexism towards men. That's the whole point of being feminist, it's not about reverse-sexism, it's about equality.

The problem with heterosexual pride parades as that straight people already have them all the time - they just don't notice how up in your face heterosexual they are every single day. In this omnipresent noise of heterosexuality we're all surrounded by every day, they can only pick out the non-heterosexual.
Wouldn't the "omnipresent noise of heterosexuality" simply be due to the *fact that there are, on average, more heterosexuals than homosexuals on Earth?
I hardly think its something intentional... at least, I don't go around tossing my heterosexuality at the nearest bystander.


*I have no idea if it is a fact and all polls are rigged by Martians.

Also, the people who fail to see how heterosexuality permeates society like wet on a rag and thus go on about starting a "straight pride parade" never want to start it for other reasons than to be anti-gay, and show that they can't stand one day of the year when they're not in the centre.
Thats hardly a bad thing, though the population is growing a bit fast right now.

Yes, that is the likely motivation, stemming from personal/religious beliefs, feelings of unease, and the belief that homosexuality is unnatural.

Except that you're missing the point. For one thing, where does respect come into this? When I enter a debate with someone on this forum, friend or no, the venom usually starts dripping from post 1. This is a debate and discussion forum, and a certain level of derision is almost expected.

By that I'm talking about the, err...the general respect and consideration one has for being polite. Cordial activity, if you will.

Secondly, the whole point is that Bottle isn't sexism towards men. That's the whole point of being feminist, it's not about reverse-sexism, it's about equality.
EXACTLY. Hence my point.

For fuck sake, Kyronea. Stop hijacking threads because you don't like someone.

Because it's the second time this happens in less than a week, because it's annoying...

... and it's starting to look like griefing.

Kyronea, in Moderation you said this (quote won't work, thread closed):

"I want to take this opportunity to apologize both to the moderators and Fass for my actions. I am wholly to blame for this incident and it was absolutely unnecessary."

Holding your peace for the rest of the thread would be an entirely appropriate proof of good faith in your apology.

HotRodia's thread-closing statement seems appropriate, too:

It's a rare pleasure to see someone own up to wrongdoing. Quite admirable.

In any case, let's close this file and get on with the life of the forum, preferably sans the needless drama.

Right, I'm done spamming. Now I go kick ass at Scrabble.

EDIT: I did, too. 265 against 220 and 217. "QUOtE" for 68 and a seven for 74. No blanks or biggies but the Q.

lets just take a moment to think,

Stephen Fry=Gay
Sir Ian Mckellen=Gay


TWO OF THE GREATEST MEN ALIVE AT THE MOMENT ARE GAY


and I respect them for it.

lets just take a moment to think,

Stephen Fry=Gay


If I were in the personal presence of Stephen Fry, I'd rather suddenly become gay. I'm not gay much, but yeah I would have a strong urge to please him lots and without wasting time!

My name was invoked, and thus do I appear!

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as you keep it to yourself. I'm sick and tired of both sideso f the fence acting like jerks. "DEATH TO FAGS!" vs. "WEEEEE PRETTY COLORS!"

Why can't you keep your own jerkishness to yourself?


The main reason I don't like homosexuals is the gay pride parades and stuff. They can have their protests for equal rights, but does it really have to be cross-dressing colored wigs? On the other side, would you put your bogeyman's preachings to use and fix the suffering of the world as good ole Jesus supposedly plead?

Oh noes other people are so loud! They are walking on my streets and offending my tender eyes with their brightly-colored clothings!


It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides.

No, it won't. Just like it wouldn't have satisfied "both sides" if they'd defined marriage as a union between two people of the same race, and said that interracial couples had to settle for "civil unions." See, some of us aren't willing to settle for gross injustice.


I don't want to see men kissing, but I don't really want to see a man and woman kissing either...

Funny, I don't see anybody pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to watch.


Yeah, so that's about it. I at least plan not to take part in the coming homosexual debate. It's not worth it. My opinions are all in theory and are hard for my unarticulated self to defend adequately.
So you have lousy opinions that you can't defend, and you want everybody else to just shut up and accomodate you?

Booooooorrrring.

The popular method for "taking the highground" these days is the path of the false moderate. This is based on the false premise that all issues have two equally radical and equally incorrect sides, and the moral high ground is obtained by finding a point directly between the two sides.

Of course, this is really just the lazy man's way of feeling superior. "Ooh, I'm above the petty, mean behavior of all those great big jerks with their poopy arguments!"

Gays legally have the same rights as straight people in the USA anyway, straight people can't marry people of the same sex either.
Actually, anti-same sex marriage laws are invalid because they discriminate based exclusively on sex. They state that a male person may marry a female person but a female person may not marry a female person, and (likewise) that a female person may marry a male person but another male person may not.

This, despite the fact that nobody has ever offered one single reason why a female person would be unable to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of spouse to another female person, nor a male person to another male person.

It is completely arbitrary and unjust discrimination on the basis of sex.

Actually, anti-same sex marriage laws are invalid because they discriminate based exclusively on sex. They state that a male person may marry a female person but a female person may not marry a female person, and (likewise) that a female person may marry a male person but another male person may not.

This, despite the fact that nobody has ever offered one single reason why a female person would be unable to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of spouse to another female person, nor a male person to another male person.

It is completely arbitrary and unjust discrimination on the basis of sex.

Anti-same sex marriage laws also violate the First Amendment by recognizing certain's religion's definition of marriage above others'.

Anti-same sex marriage laws also violate the First Amendment by recognizing certain's religion's definition of marriage above others'.
This is also true, though homophobes tend to shift the target the instant you bring this up, by trying to come up with "secular" reasons for their homophobia. Slippery little buggers, those homophobes.

This is also true, though homophobes tend to shift the target the instant you bring this up, by trying to come up with "secular" reasons for their homophobia. Slippery little buggers, those homophobes.

They get very uncomfortable when the constitutional amendment that lets them spout their rhetoric ad nauseam is turned against them. :p

They get very uncomfortable when the constitutional amendment that lets them spout their rhetoric ad nauseam is turned against them. :p
Well, as we've seen on this very thread, many of them are under the impression that "separation of church and state" means "churches don't have to pay taxes, and the government isn't allowed to pass laws that hurt the feelings of people who belong to my religion."

I'm not a huge fan of "pretty colours/sex in the city/ABBA" stereotypical gays. This owes little to their being homosexual, and much more to a suspicion on my part that they are conciously seeking to conform to a stereotype and make a fashion statement. Given that it is such homosexuals who tend to squak loudest at any percieved injustice, I'm not wholly against the OP's general point.

Well, as we've seen on this very thread, many of them are under the impression that "separation of church and state" means "churches don't have to pay taxes, and the government isn't allowed to pass laws that hurt the feelings of people who belong to my religion."

Which is all well and good as long as you're in the select few religions with friends in high places.

...

Of course, that negates the purpose of the amendment entirely. ;)

I'm not a huge fan of "pretty colours/sex in the city/ABBA" stereotypical gays. This owes little to their being homosexual, and much more to a suspicion on my part that they are conciously seeking to conform to a stereotype and make a fashion statement. Given that it is such homosexuals who tend to squak loudest at any percieved injustice, I'm not wholly against the OP's general point.
I assume you feel the same about the Uber Manly Men who dedicate their every waking moments to reaffirming their masculinity, then? I mean, talk about consciously seeking to conform to stereotypes!

Although such chaps invariably turn out to be Republican closeted homosexuals, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here...

I assume you feel the same about the Uber Manly Men who dedicate their every waking moments to reaffirming their masculinity, then? I mean, talk about consciously seeking to conform to stereotypes!

*grows a bunch of chest hair, learns to strut and buys some roofies( :eek: oops!)*

;)

I'm not a huge fan of "pretty colours/sex in the city/ABBA" stereotypical gays. This owes little to their being homosexual, and much more to a suspicion on my part that they are conciously seeking to conform to a stereotype and make a fashion statement. Given that it is such homosexuals who tend to squak loudest at any percieved injustice, I'm not wholly against the OP's general point.
*nods* What Sel Appa seems to be complaining about is not about something necessarily related to homosexuality but to people acting the stereotype of homosexuals, and people acting a stereotype can apply to all sorts of other things.

I assume you feel the same about the Uber Manly Men who dedicate their every waking moments to reaffirming their masculinity, then? I mean, talk about consciously seeking to conform to stereotypes!
Yeah that one's bad too but I'm guessing society is just a bit more used to that one.

I assume you feel the same about the Uber Manly Men who dedicate their every waking moments to reaffirming their masculinity, then? I mean, talk about consciously seeking to conform to stereotypes!

Although such chaps invariably turn out to be Republican closeted homosexuals, so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here...

Erm, yes I do actually.

I think gays and lesbians should have all rights that "straight: people have. But who defines marriage the church or the government? If the government defnies it then gays should have the ability to marry. But if the church defines marriage then gays will have to have a "civil union". Although i am not gay i think that all the people that hate gays can just :upyours:.

I think gays and lesbians should have all rights that "straight: people have. But who defines marriage the church or the government? If the government defnies it then gays should have the ability to marry. But if the church defines marriage then gays will have to have a "civil union". Although i am not gay i think that all the people that hate gays can just :upyours:.

Who decides which church's definition to honor? If one church decides that marriage is a union between two loving people regardless of gender then how can the government refute that?

*snip replies to Sel Appa*

Of course, this is really just the lazy man's way of feeling superior. "Ooh, I'm above the petty, mean behavior of all those great big jerks with their poopy arguments!"

Hey! U's sezist, so 4 me 2!

My brain always slurs SA's name into "Slappa."

Then it drops thirty years, and starts giggling at the fat fishwife from the Asterix comics, the one who loses her temper so easily and starts throwing fish.Unhygeinix? Something like that.

Er, I was going to say something but plainly I'm too drunk.

Oh! Hey, I like you (as a poster here) and I like Fass (as a poster here) but I totally disagree with whoever it was that said Fass was a gay-rights version of you. None of us are any kind of version of any other.

*deep breath*
*read over for spelling*
*pull plug*

Drunken posting is truly an art.

If everyone simply accepted gay marriage and gave them the rights they should have, what would replace this issue for debate? Life would simply be that much more boring. :p

Well, after gay marriage is the green debate.

If everyone simply accepted gay marriage and gave them the rights they should have, what would replace this issue for debate? Life would simply be that much more boring. :p

Don't worry, we'd find other people to hate.

Homophobia, like racism, shows the mass stupidity of the human race.

It's just sad to watch. All of the people walking into their churches and reading a thousand year old, multiple authored, edited with half lost in translation book that dictates their morality.

It's not that big of a deal. There are more important things in the world than "gay mairrage".

People who dislike homosexuals just remind me how stupid and pathetic some of the human race it.

Don't worry, we'd find other people to hate.

Oh goody. Nice to know we can count on human nature to keep us all entertained.

If I were in the personal presence of Stephen Fry, I'd rather suddenly become gay. I'm not gay much, but yeah I would have a strong urge to please him lots and without wasting time!
Stephen Fry is awesome. I'd nearly pretend to be gay and English just to be more like him.
My name was invoked, and thus do I appear!
She's like C'thulhu, but instead of tentacles she's got......wait, she does have tentacles!

Anti-same sex marriage laws also violate the First Amendment by recognizing certain's religion's definition of marriage above others'.
So it is. Awesome.
Don't worry, we'd find other people to hate.

Hating brown people is popular these days. Especially when they leave their own country.

I assume you feel the same about the Uber Manly Men who dedicate their every waking moments to reaffirming their masculinity, then? I mean, talk about consciously seeking to conform to stereotypes!

I agree with your point, but it's worth noting that the dislike of "effeminate" gay men seems to have more to do with the social enforcement of gender roles than any concern that they're playing up the stereotype.

I mean... ABBA is awesome. So are pretty colors. And I'm not gay (well, bi--does that count?) nor stereotypical ("What, you aren't straight?").

I agree with your point, but it's worth noting that the dislike of "effeminate" gay men seems to have more to do with the social enforcement of gender roles than any concern that they're playing up the stereotype. Well yeah...just look at how effeminate het men are treated.

Well yeah...just look at how effeminate het men are treated.

Yeah, tell me about it...I used to be mocked all the time for it. I'm only not now because of who I associate with.

Yeah, tell me about it...I used to be mocked all the time for it. I'm only not now because of who I associate with.

Well that's not why people mock you now.

Well that's not why people mock you now.

Indeed.

Well that's not why people mock you now.

Indeed.

Well that's not why people mock you now.

Indeed.

Let's all do it!

Can you feel the love, folks?

c-c-c-c-combo breaker!

(edit: damn, ifreann beat me to it!)

Can you feel the love, folks?

*feels your "love"*

*feels your "love"*

>.>
<.<

>.>
<.<

*licks*

Omg Semi-homosexual Love!

Omg Semi-homosexual Love!

I'm dressed in pink and orange fluffles.

Omg Semi-homosexual Love!

Quick, we need some heterosexual love to offset it!

Quick, we need some heterosexual love to offset it!

You're on your own. I'm too busy faghagging Fass, and although it might look like het love at first glance it most certainly is not.

Quick, we need some heterosexual love to offset it!

*gets dressed up*

*licks*

You're on your own. I'm too busy faghagging Fass, and although it might look like het love at first glance it most certainly is not.
Oh damn.

*gets dressed up*

*licks*
You are not woman!

This thread is officially finished.

You're on your own. I'm too busy faghagging Fass, and although it might look like het love at first glance it most certainly is not.

I would like to take this opportunity to deny that Neesika is my faghag. Faghags are usually horrible, corpulent women with no self-esteem, steeped in a sadness over their own pathetic lives which drives them to live vicariously through gay m... wait. I guess Neesika is my faghag after all.

You are not woman!

Oh? Prove it...

This thread is officially finished.

Pfffft. The fun is just starting!

>.>

I would like to take this opportunity to deny that Neesika is my faghag. Faghags are usually horrible, corpulent women with no self-esteem, steeped in a sadness over their own pathetic lives which drives them to live vicariously through gay m... wait. I guess Neesika is my faghag after all.

Bitch.

You're just mad that I surprised you with hot nude pictures of me.

Oh? Prove it...

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/2.jpg

Don't be silly. You can't surprise me with images you yourself keep sending me and everyone else on your contact list.

You don't have to keep accepting them...

Closet case.

Bitch.

You're just mad that I surprised you with hot nude pictures of me.

Don't be silly. You can't surprise me with images you yourself keep sending me and everyone else on your contact list.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/2.jpg

Pffft. Outward appearances mean nothing...

You don't have to keep accepting them...

Closet case.

I wouldn't have, if you hadn't lied and promised they were scary pics of other NSers cocks.

Pffft. Outward appearances mean nothing...

Well if that's the case I'm transgendered.

Well if that's the case I'm transgendered.

*licks again*

I wouldn't have, if you hadn't lied and promised they were scary pics of other NSers cocks.
*whistles innocently*

I think gays and lesbians should have all rights that "straight: people have. But who defines marriage the church or the government? If the government defnies it then gays should have the ability to marry. But if the church defines marriage then gays will have to have a "civil union". Although i am not gay i think that all the people that hate gays can just :upyours:.

How could any given church define civil marriage in a nation with freedom of religion?

Both the church and the government define marriage as they will recognize it. The difference is that the church can discriminate on any old premise they want to, but the law must treat everyone equally.

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as you keep it to yourself. I'm sick and tired of both sideso f the fence acting like jerks. "DEATH TO FAGS!" vs. "WEEEEE PRETTY COLORS!" The main reason I don't like homosexuals is the gay pride parades and stuff. They can have their protests for equal rights, but does it really have to be cross-dressing colored wigs? On the other side, would you put your bogeyman's preachings to use and fix the suffering of the world as good ole Jesus supposedly plead?

It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides. I don't want to see men kissing, but I don't really want to see a man and woman kissing either...

Yeah, so that's about it. I at least plan not to take part in the coming homosexual debate. It's not worth it. My opinions are all in theory and are hard for my unarticulated self to defend adequately.
We will possibly think about shutting up around the time where we are actually treated like first class citizens ... if that takes long then this lifetime and a whole lot of throwing it in peoples faces even if you dont like it ... so be it

You are not woman!
He's not Liberace (http://futility.typepad.com/futility/images/1liberace_3.jpg) either!

He's not Liberace (http://futility.typepad.com/futility/images/1liberace_3.jpg) either!

So much death hanging off him, yet so... fabulous.

Don't be silly. You can't surprise me with images you yourself keep sending me and everyone else on your contact list.

Hmm....I need to get on that list...

Hmm....I need to get on that list...

What he didn't mention is that there are only three people on that list, including him.

Who decides which church's definition to honor? If one church decides that marriage is a union between two loving people regardless of gender then how can the government refute that?

*nods*
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster accepts same-sex marriages. Just because most pirates are into wenches and most wenches into pirates, doesn't mean that we should deny rights to pirates into other pirates and wenches into other wenches.

Just think, if the anti-gay Christians stopped campaigning against gays, and actually put that time into doing something charitable/good for humanity, how much good they could do!

Actually, anti-same sex marriage laws are invalid because they discriminate based exclusively on sex. They state that a male person may marry a female person but a female person may not marry a female person, and (likewise) that a female person may marry a male person but another male person may not.

This, despite the fact that nobody has ever offered one single reason why a female person would be unable to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of spouse to another female person, nor a male person to another male person.

Keeping oneself unto the other and all that tosh. Yes you are quite right.

A funny thing has just occurred to me. A gay couple can't procreate together (yet, anyway) but the definition of marriage seems to leave that implicit. Be faithful to each other, it's OK to have sex now, the Church owns your relationship. They didn't quite have the guts to make explicit the next step: have kids and bring them up in our Church.

So now they don't have a leg to stand on. Bwwaahaha!

It is completely arbitrary and unjust discrimination on the basis of sex.

Absolutely.

Anti-same sex marriage laws also violate the First Amendment by recognizing certain's religion's definition of marriage above others'.

WE know it does. It's blindingly obvious.

But a lot of people don't realize it's a religious ceremony which is recognized by the state.

And shouldn't be.

Well yeah...just look at how effeminate het men are treated.Yeah, tell me about it...I used to be mocked all the time for it. I'm only not now because of who I associate with.

And there is a great logic and goodness in that. By at least being allowed to behave effiminately without giving up legal rights or being in fear of your life, you've met people who accept you for how you are. Those are the people you need to meet and form relationships (of friendship or whatever) with, and there's no reason why you shouldn't go on meeting good people like that.

Yes, I believe in respect. But I don't believe in people faking tolerance, or in laws that force them to fake it. If they're bigots, they need curing or ostracism. And if they are fellow souls, it's OK that they stand out from others so we can find our real friends.

This thread is officially finished.

News alert! NSG mods killed in freak taco accident!! New mods needed urgently!

Hey, where's your avatar, Hydes?

Mostly people won't shut up because of bigots who think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned and who want to define marriage as one man and one woman.

What the hell? Are you comparing this to racism? How the hell is how they can't marry NEAR as bad as racism?

They're also prone to being beaten to death (cf Mathew Shepard), or being denied jobs/fired for their sexuality.

They're also prone to being beaten to death (cf Mathew Shepard), or being denied jobs/fired for their sexuality.

But they're gay, so it doesn't matter.

What the hell? Are you comparing this to racism? How the hell is how they can't marry NEAR as bad as racism?

Well I have been stabbed almost to death for it ... seems to be not all that far off the mark to me ...

But they're gay, so it doesn't matter.

Yeah, maybe they should have thought about their job security before choosing to be gay.

Edit::), this is not a flamebait.

What he didn't mention is that there are only three people on that list, including him.

That just means you've got plenty of room. :p

WE know it does. It's blindingly obvious.

But a lot of people don't realize it's a religious ceremony which is recognized by the state.

And shouldn't be.

Maybe that's because marriage is not "a religious ceremony which is recognized by the state." Some religious organizations perform wedding ceremonies, after which a couple is married according to that religion. This has nothing at all to do with whether or not the government recognizes it as a civil marriage - which is its own construct, without any need whatsoever for the involvement of religion.

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as you keep it to yourself. I'm sick and tired of both sideso f the fence acting like jerks. "DEATH TO FAGS!" vs. "WEEEEE PRETTY COLORS!" The main reason I don't like homosexuals is the gay pride parades and stuff. They can have their protests for equal rights, but does it really have to be cross-dressing colored wigs? On the other side, would you put your bogeyman's preachings to use and fix the suffering of the world as good ole Jesus supposedly plead?

It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides. I don't want to see men kissing, but I don't really want to see a man and woman kissing either...

Yeah, so that's about it. I at least plan not to take part in the coming homosexual debate. It's not worth it. My opinions are all in theory and are hard for my unarticulated self to defend adequately.

If you're sick and tired of people talking about homosinuality*, then why did you start this thread?

In a sense, I actually agree with you about the whole "gay pride" thing; I think it's more than a bit counterproductive, and inconsistent to boot: "We want you to stay out of our bedrooms! But we're going to publicly display our pride in what we do in our bedrooms...." And being proud of one's homosexuality makes about as much sense as being proud of the fact that you love chocolate ice cream....mmmmmm....chocolate ice cream parade......

That being said, I'm tired of the whole thing as well, but neither homo nor breeder seems to want to shut up about it.


*for Mr. Show watchers

Maybe that's because marriage is not "a religious ceremony which is recognized by the state." Some religious organizations perform wedding ceremonies, after which a couple is married according to that religion. This has nothing at all to do with whether or not the government recognizes it as a civil marriage - which is its own construct, without any need whatsoever for the involvement of religion.

I disagree. Where is the constitutional debate about the government granting marriage? Where's the economic debate about the benefits of marriage? The legal justification for granting an individual legal benefits because of a contract they willingly entered with another individual?

Show me history, law history, constitutional history, political philosophy, anything ... which shows the state (any modern democracy) making laws of marriage for a specific public purpose. You know I have an open mind, I'll read anything you offer.

The whole lot was lifted (in our western law anyway) from religious marriage.

It's a contract between two people. The state should not offer inducements or penalties, nor treat either of those two people differently, unless that's been debated and decided. It wasn't.

There's been no debate, no decision. Marriage comes right out of the dark and selfish heart of organized religion, and if we were writing the law from scratch, it wouldn't even be a starter for something the government should have a stake in.

If you're sick and tired of people talking about homosinuality*, then why did you start this thread?

It's an NSG style point. Clueless OP ==> Long and vigorous debate.

That being said, I'm tired of the whole thing as well, but neither homo nor breeder seems to want to shut up about it.


You should be aware that "breeder" is a very offensive term.
I can't even think of a comparably offensive term for gays. I'll try.

First, I'll think of something about gay sex which isn't present in straight sex.

Nope, can't think of anything. AIDS can be transmitted by straight sex. Straight sex can involve anal penetration, oral sex, all those things I can think of which characterize gay sex.

"Shitpumper." "HIV-incubator." "Girl-shy" or "Boy-shy." They're all pretty lame. They don't address the only essential difference between gay sex and straight sex: one can produce offspring, the other not.

"Dead-ender" ... how's that?

You really think Christianity is going to outlive homosexuality as a viable religion? Maybe you should try looking at history, friend, before making such ridiculous statements.

And yes, Fass is a bigot, but he's not typical of homosexuals nor should you judge them by him. If you want anyone to judge homosexuals by, look at Mirkai, or Skaladora.

Aww, really? You're sweet.. most people think I'm creepy and depraved.

Omg Semi-homosexual Love!

You're on your own. I'm too busy faghagging Fass, and although it might look like het love at first glance it most certainly is not.

Pffft, you're just jealous that Kiryu's licking me, not you.

What the hell? Are you comparing this to racism? How the hell is how they can't marry NEAR as bad as racism?

***By my hands I summon Setzer. Reveal yourself and finish my opponent. Let's gamble.***

***7th Flush!!!***

It's based and founded on prejudice. Like racism.

It prevents people from doing something on the basis of a meaningless difference. Like racism.

It's based on a wish to prevent different people from being happy. Like racism.

It attacks a group as "unworthy". Like racism.

It's held dear as a "principle" by people for no reason at all. Like racism.

It's pseudo-justified as "God's will". Like racism.

It intends to force itself into law. Like racism.

Like racism.

You should be aware that "breeder" is a very offensive term.
I can't even think of a comparably offensive term for gays. I'll try.Is it? Apart from being inaccurate (I haven't, at least not yet/as far as I know), I don't think that I'd be offended by the term.

I might be offended by the tone of the term, so if it's usually said accompanying by the drip of verbal venom I'd probably understand it's meant to be an insult (nonsensical though that my be).

I've been called loads of things in my life, my nickname at primary school was a word synonymous to "masturbation"[1] but I had no idea what it was, I'm fairly sure most of my fellow 8yos didn't know that it was anything to do with that, and it was never considered an insult by me so I never got insulted and it was never used to insult me.

As a 'breeder' myself (above disclaimer notwithstanding) I don't call (or even think of calling) people "homo", even in jest, because it has been irreversibly linked to certain negative attitudes. Well, maybe it can be reclaimed by those it is targeted at, but while the term is still loaded I'd be far more offended (by proxy) for someone using the term "homo" than I would to see "breeder" used.

YMMV, and perhaps the situation is different in your culture, social group, whatever.


[1] Not one of the top few candidates that'll come immediately to your dirty little minds... ;)

Why can't people just shut up about homosexuality?

It seems that you can’t either, isn’t ?

Aww, really? You're sweet.. most people think I'm creepy and depraved.

Well, most people who seem creepy and depraved are really just misunderstood.

*Talks about the joys of sexuality*

Hey look!

A Hetero Parade !

Hey look!

A Hetero Parade !

Meh it's been going on for the last couple millennia, the novelty wears off quickly.

I disagree. Where is the constitutional debate about the government granting marriage? Where's the economic debate about the benefits of marriage? The legal justification for granting an individual legal benefits because of a contract they willingly entered with another individual?

Show me history, law history, constitutional history, political philosophy, anything ... which shows the state (any modern democracy) making laws of marriage for a specific public purpose. You know I have an open mind, I'll read anything you offer.

The laws surrounding marriage are there both for the protection of the married couple and for the protection of those the couple interacts with. One need only look at them to see that.

Edit/disclaimer: The bulk of them anyways. I'm sure there are some pretty inane marriage laws out there.

It's a contract between two people. The state should not offer inducements or penalties, nor treat either of those two people differently, unless that's been debated and decided. It wasn't.

It isn't simply a contract between two people. It is granting that couple a legal status that matches the way they have chosen to live - recognizing them in most things as a single legal entity, rather than as two. A marriage affects, not just the couple involved, but anyone with economic ties to that couple. It also affects the legal familial status of the two people within that couple.

While the law may originally have been a matter of recognizing a religious union (although even that is debatable, as there was no separation of the two to make that clear), it has not been that for quite some time. No religious recognition is necessary in civil marriage, nor are the legal protections associated with marriage tied to religion. They are tied to the way that married people generally live - and the legal issues that are invoked by that situation.

Let's give equal rights to homosexuals (including marriage, not "civil unions"; the right to adopt children; etc.), then we can all shut up.

The laws surrounding marriage are there both for the protection of the married couple and for the protection of those the couple interacts with. One need only look at them to see that.

Edit/disclaimer: The bulk of them anyways. I'm sure there are some pretty inane marriage laws out there.



It isn't simply a contract between two people. It is granting that couple a legal status that matches the way they have chosen to live - recognizing them in most things as a single legal entity, rather than as two. A marriage affects, not just the couple involved, but anyone with economic ties to that couple. It also affects the legal familial status of the two people within that couple.

While the law may originally have been a matter of recognizing a religious union (although even that is debatable, as there was no separation of the two to make that clear), it has not been that for quite some time. No religious recognition is necessary in civil marriage, nor are the legal protections associated with marriage tied to religion. They are tied to the way that married people generally live - and the legal issues that are invoked by that situation.
Just to comment in support of the above:

Legal marriage -- the reason you need a marriage license/certificate issued by a governmental office -- is NOT about the relationship of the people involved, nor even about the people themselves. Legal marriage is about money and property -- always has been, for thousands of years. The legal status of "married couple" creates a new householding unit (consider the word "household"; the connotation of property is clear). It sets apart, as independent from other households, everything that this couple will acquire or build together, and it restricts anyone outside the legally married couple from making a priori claims on their property/money. It then sets out a set of criteria for letting people into that unit and giving them varying degrees of authority to make a priori claims upon it -- children, parents, people named in wills, etc. It also allows the government to identify units of wealth that it can tax, and identifies who is responsible for paying those taxes and who is not.

Marriage as we know it today has its roots in the Middle Ages, in the wake of the Black Plague, when the destruction of established family structures by the plague left countless very young people in possession of family properties with no authorities to protect them from being essentially robbed of them by distant relatives or total strangers. Dating from the late 1400s, there are many reports, especially, of young girls being forced into marriages, stripped of the properties/wealth that came with them, and then abandoned, so the grifters could move on to the next young orphan. As social order reestablished itself, governments create laws that sought to stop any old scam artist from absconding with family fortunes, denying the government tax revenues and burdening the land with destitute teens.

Modern marriage laws took more defined shape again during the 18th century, when social and political changes led to the invention and refinement of forms of law. The concept of the civil rights of the people within marriages began to be debated, at the same time that more refinements were being made to property and financial law in general.

So, you see, marriage is not about people. It's about stuff and money. And I see no reason whatsoever for a government to claim that one kind of person's stuff and money are more legitimate than another kind of person's stuff and money. All households can be taxed equally, and all households, no matter who makes them, should be protected equally.

Let's give equal rights to homosexuals (including marriage, not "civil unions"; the right to adopt children; etc.), then we can all shut up.

Ditto. Unfortunately some people think that gay rights will somehow affect their own personal lives in such a dramatic way that the only solution is to rabidly protest homosexuality and cause a ruckus.

Ditto. Unfortunately some people think that gay rights will somehow affect their own personal lives in such a dramatic way that the only solution is to rabidly protest homosexuality and cause a ruckus.

I'm not sure about that. Listening to the rhetoric of bigots, I suspect that no one really thinks their own, personal lives will be affected in any way at all by gay rights. I really think it's more a matter of some people being strongly, psychologically invested in a social order based on a hierarchy of privilege, which, if it is to thrive, requires that there must always be someone lower down on the social ladder, that people higher up are allowed to shit on. What use is there in being in the approved group, the mainstream, the in-crowd, if there is no out-crowd, no one for you to be better than?

This is why we typically see the exact same people supporting different kinds of bigotry -- against other races, or against gays, or against Jews, or against foreigners, etc. They're not allowed to segregate races anymore, nor deny jobs and housing to Jews, nor abuse and harass women, so they're going to do that to gays instead. Protect the rights of gays, and it will be some other group next.

really there is nothing wrong with being gay. two of my closest friends are
bi-sexual, i've got a friend who just graduated who was gay. and my friend
(who is a girl) girlfriend just graduated. they are perfectly wonderful people. much of the world is just too blind to see that. personnally im straight. and i know people who like me but hate my gay friends and i think that they are just being ridiculous.

Snip.

Any guess as to which might be the next group?

Any guess as to which might be the next group?
Furries.

Any guess as to which might be the next group?

I say we turn the tables and make the bigots themselves the target of public scorn and hatred.

...

The universe would probably orgasm from the karmic irony of it all.

Any guess as to which might be the next group?In the US, atheists. It's the one group the majority of folk feel no sympathy for. It's a "choice" and it can be argued that they are intentionally evil.

In the US, atheists. It's the one group the majority of folk feel no sympathy for. It's a "choice" and it can be argued that they are intentionally evil.

Atheists have all the rights everyone else has... I mean, gays can't marry right now, but atheists can.

Just to comment in support of the above:

Legal marriage -- the reason you need a marriage license/certificate issued by a governmental office -- is NOT about the relationship of the people involved, nor even about the people themselves. Legal marriage is about money and property -- always has been, for thousands of years. The legal status of "married couple" creates a new householding unit (consider the word "household"; the connotation of property is clear). It sets apart, as independent from other households, everything that this couple will acquire or build together, and it restricts anyone outside the legally married couple from making a priori claims on their property/money. It then sets out a set of criteria for letting people into that unit and giving them varying degrees of authority to make a priori claims upon it -- children, parents, people named in wills, etc. It also allows the government to identify units of wealth that it can tax, and identifies who is responsible for paying those taxes and who is not.

Marriage as we know it today has its roots in the Middle Ages, in the wake of the Black Plague, when the destruction of established family structures by the plague left countless very young people in possession of family properties with no authorities to protect them from being essentially robbed of them by distant relatives or total strangers. Dating from the late 1400s, there are many reports, especially, of young girls being forced into marriages, stripped of the properties/wealth that came with them, and then abandoned, so the grifters could move on to the next young orphan. As social order reestablished itself, governments create laws that sought to stop any old scam artist from absconding with family fortunes, denying the government tax revenues and burdening the land with destitute teens.

Modern marriage laws took more defined shape again during the 18th century, when social and political changes led to the invention and refinement of forms of law. The concept of the civil rights of the people within marriages began to be debated, at the same time that more refinements were being made to property and financial law in general.

So, you see, marriage is not about people. It's about stuff and money. And I see no reason whatsoever for a government to claim that one kind of person's stuff and money are more legitimate than another kind of person's stuff and money. All households can be taxed equally, and all households, no matter who makes them, should be protected equally.

Wow! I had a contrary view until I started reading that. Very persuasive!

I am a proud bisexual, enough said.

Any guess as to which might be the next group?

Your guess is as good as mine. Since 9/11, we see a (disturbingly enthusiastic) resurgence of broad-based anti-immigrant nativism. I think there are some people randomly trying out different "demonizations" to see what will take -- i.e. the demonization of "liberals." Sometimes I think the bigots are searching for fresh targets.

I say we turn the tables and make the bigots themselves the target of public scorn and hatred.

...

The universe would probably orgasm from the karmic irony of it all.
That's what I do.

Muravyets -- diddling the universe every night. ;)

Atheists have all the rights everyone else has... I mean, gays can't marry right now, but atheists can.

In itself, evidence that marriage is not an inherently religious institution, no matter what churches might claim.

Wow! I had a contrary view until I started reading that. Very persuasive!

Glad I could help. ;)

An additional comment in re church involvement in marriage. The fact is, the need to establish the boundaries of the household -- who is a part of it, who is in charge of it, and most important, who isn't -- is so vital that, back in the day (edit: and to this very day), it was desirable to make the marriage under a public announcement, with a statement of intention by the participants so strong that no one would dare to challenge it. An oath sworn before a god is typically considered strong enough.

You'll notice that in common speech, we say that churches "sanctify" marriage. Well, churches can sanctify just about anything. They can sanctify crackers and wine for ritual purposes. That doesn't mean the religious ritual created the crackers and wine, or that unsanctified crackers and wine are not edible. Likewise, it does not mean that a civil marriage, performed before a judge instead of a priest, is not legitimate. There is NO inherent requirement for marriage to be religious, nor for it to conform to any given religion's social requirements.

Mostly people won't shut up because of bigots who think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned and who want to define marriage as one man and one woman.

Actually, I'd like to see them define marriage at all.
A bit further up the thread, Murayvets gives a definition of marriage which would send them up to the attic to find their teddy-bear.

EDIT: No, I'm not really that smart. The post order was plain good luck! :D

I'll add: not having seen a post by AnarchyEl in a while, Muravyets is now my #1 hero!

Muravyets -- diddling the universe every night. ;)

Oh *hell* yeah!

In itself, evidence that marriage is not an inherently religious institution, no matter what churches might claim.

Yes, yes, what I meant was that gays are trying to get rights that were denied to them so far. Atheists aren't, so I don't think there's much the far-right bigots can do against the Atheists without trying to pursue something impossible to achieve - like outlawing Atheism.

Furries.

Furries are already getting quite a bit of hassle on the interwebs.

I am fed up with the discussing of gay rights, animal rights, woman rights, 3rd world, human rights and every single rights one can ever think about. Saying again, again, again and once again the things that have been said a million times already starts to make me sick. Things are wrong in the world, but just talking and talking doesn´t help anything. From words to actions, do something real instead of spamming these forums. And btw, gays do deserve the right to get married. Actually when I now think about it, I see nothing wrong with the gays´ situation. If they don´t have right to get married in a church it is totally depending from the religion, homosexuality is a sin according to bible. So I sincerely hope that people would calm down, stop offending others in these forums and everywhere else. Thank you.

I am fed up with the discussing of gay rights, animal rights, woman rights, 3rd world, human rights and every single rights one can ever think about. Saying again, again, again and once again the things that have been said a million times already starts to make me sick. Things are wrong in the world, but just talking and talking doesn´t help anything. From words to actions, do something real instead of spamming these forums. And btw, gays do deserve the right to get married. Actually when I now think about it, I see nothing wrong with the gays´ situation. If they don´t have right to get married in a church it is totally depending from the religion, homosexuality is a sin according to bible. So I sincerely hope that people would calm down, stop offending others in these forums and everywhere else. Thank you.

You put forth a very convincing argument.... for your opponents. Congratulations. :)

I am fed up with the discussing of gay rights, animal rights, woman rights, 3rd world, human rights and every single rights one can ever think about. Saying again, again, again and once again the things that have been said a million times already starts to make me sick. Things are wrong in the world, but just talking and talking doesn´t help anything.

Actually, talking does help.


From words to actions, do something real instead of spamming these forums.

You seem to think the two are mutually exclusive. You are wrong again.


And btw, gays do deserve the right to get married. Actually when I now think about it, I see nothing wrong with the gays´ situation. If they don´t have right to get married in a church it is totally depending from the religion, homosexuality is a sin according to bible. So I sincerely hope that people would calm down, stop offending others in these forums and everywhere else. Thank you.
I thank the universe every day that there are people who continue to be "offensive" as they loudly defend liberty and equality for all persons.

If you're offended by my vocal support of full civil and human rights for gays, women, people in the 3rd world, and all other human beings, then that's a great reason for me to turn up my volume. :D

I am fed up with the discussing of gay rights, animal rights, woman rights, 3rd world, human rights and every single rights one can ever think about. Saying again, again, again and once again the things that have been said a million times already starts to make me sick. Things are wrong in the world, but just talking and talking doesn´t help anything. From words to actions, do something real instead of spamming these forums. And btw, gays do deserve the right to get married. Actually when I now think about it, I see nothing wrong with the gays´ situation. If they don´t have right to get married in a church it is totally depending from the religion, homosexuality is a sin according to bible. So I sincerely hope that people would calm down, stop offending others in these forums and everywhere else. Thank you.

You put forth a very convincing argument.... for your opponents. Congratulations. :)

Actually, talking does help.


You seem to think the two are mutually exclusive. You are wrong again.


I thank the universe every day that there are people who continue to be "offensive" as they loudly defend liberty and equality for all persons.

If you're offended by my vocal support of full civil and human rights for gays, women, people in the 3rd world, and all other human beings, then that's a great reason for me to turn up my volume. :D

See? :)

I am fed up with the discussing of gay rights, animal rights, woman rights, 3rd world, human rights and every single rights one can ever think about. Saying again, again, again and once again the things that have been said a million times already starts to make me sick. Things are wrong in the world, but just talking and talking doesn´t help anything. From words to actions, do something real instead of spamming these forums. And btw, gays do deserve the right to get married. Actually when I now think about it, I see nothing wrong with the gays´ situation. If they don´t have right to get married in a church it is totally depending from the religion, homosexuality is a sin according to bible. So I sincerely hope that people would calm down, stop offending others in these forums and everywhere else. Thank you.

1. Paragraphs
2. This is a discussion forum. We discuss things. That's it. If you want to actually do something about human rights, well then good for you, but don't try to criticise us because you think we don't.

If you bring religion or politics into this argument, you have no penis.

If you bring religion or politics into this argument, you have no penis.
Whew. Glad I did so, then.

Mum, dad, I have to confess…



I’m heterosexual!

Whew. Glad I did so, then.

A sense of humor. I knew those were still out there.

I think that the homosexual community should have full equality. I don't think it should be illegal to discriminate against them, however, nor do I think it should be illegal to discriminate against anybody, God bless the 1st Ammendment. Marrage and adoption, however, should be options.

I think that the homosexual community should have full equality. I don't think it should be illegal to discriminate against them, however, nor do I think it should be illegal to discriminate against anybody, God bless the 1st Ammendment. Marrage and adoption, however, should be options.

The 1st Ammendment says that discrimination is ok?

The 1st Ammendment says that discrimination is ok?

It also gives the VP the power to police temporal paradoxes. You gotta read the section written in invisible ink.

It also gives the VP the power to police temporal paradoxes. You gotta read the section written in invisible ink.

Dick Cheneny: Vice President by day, Time Cop by night

Yes, yes, what I meant was that gays are trying to get rights that were denied to them so far. Atheists aren't, so I don't think there's much the far-right bigots can do against the Atheists without trying to pursue something impossible to achieve - like outlawing Atheism.

You might think that's impossible to achieve, but it's not, not in this country. I guarantee you that if put up to a referendum vote right now more than enough people would willingly pass a law that outlaws atheism.

You might think that's impossible to achieve, but it's not, not in this country. I guarantee you that if put up to a referendum vote right now more than enough people would willingly pass a law that outlaws atheism.

Thanks God for the First Amendment, if Bush doesn't outlaw it.

Thanks God for the First Amendment, if Bush doesn't outlaw it.

Not even Bush could do that, but sadly there are plenty of arguments one could make using the First Amendment to show that you HAVE to believe in a religion. It gives you freedom of choice between religions but not freedom of not believing.

Sound like bullshit? I've heard that argument tons of times and I'm sure that it would be attempted--with appropriate legalease--in court if such a law ever came into effect.

Although...I have to wonder what would happen if such a law did come into effect. How would they enforce it? Jail every atheist who speaks up? And what about tourists from other countries? Would you be barred due to atheism? Would atheism bar you from immigrating? And so on and so forth.

So I wouldn't actually worry about it.

Not even Bush could do that, but sadly there are plenty of arguments one could make using the First Amendment to show that you HAVE to believe in a religion. It gives you freedom of choice between religions but not freedom of not believing.

Sound like bullshit? I've heard that argument tons of times and I'm sure that it would be attempted--with appropriate legalease--in court if such a law ever came into effect.

Although...I have to wonder what would happen if such a law did come into effect. How would they enforce it? Jail every atheist who speaks up? And what about tourists from other countries? Would you be barred due to atheism? Would atheism bar you from immigrating? And so on and so forth.

So I wouldn't actually worry about it.

Well, still, as the world evolves, it becomes more liberal, not less. But the Church of the SubGenius WOULD be an option. :p

Well, still, as the world evolves, it becomes more liberal, not less.

Not entirely in the way one might think. The actual liberalization when it comes to social freedoms only really heated up once economies became quite powerful.

In other words, capitalism is responsible for social freedoms. It's rather ironic considering how people on both sides want to preserve one and get rid of the other, but it's simply not doable. They require each other to coexist. You cannot have a fully productive economy if the people are not free enough to enjoy working in it, and the people cannot be free if they do not have a powerful enough economy to encourage them to seek freedoms.

Of course that still leaves quite a large amount of wiggle room...it is better to have regulated capitalism than pure capitalism, after all, and many social programs such as welfare and universal health care benefit everyone and make the economy more productive in the long run.

The only way for this to not hold true would be to eliminate scarcity, and unless you have some blueprints for a Star Trek replicator that's simply not doable.

The only way for this to not hold true would be to eliminate scarcity, and unless you have some blueprints for a Star Trek replicator that's simply not doable.

*Looks in pockets*

The only way for this to not hold true would be to eliminate scarcity, and unless you have some blueprints for a Star Trek replicator that's simply not doable. Considering to create a gram of matter from energy would take as much power as a nuclear bomb, I'm thinking those wouldn't ever work. Can you imagine the amount of power needed to make anything useful?

Atheists have all the rights everyone else has... I mean, gays can't marry right now, but atheists can.

Not wanting to hijack anything, but this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg) would seem to refute your claim.

You might think that's impossible to achieve, but it's not, not in this country. I guarantee you that if put up to a referendum vote right now more than enough people would willingly pass a law that outlaws atheism.

There are a lot of crappy people out there, but I really don't think this is true.

Considering to create a gram of matter from energy would take as much power as a nuclear bomb, I'm thinking those wouldn't ever work. Can you imagine the amount of power needed to make anything useful?You don't create matter from energy alone (although given that at the heart of your ship is a matter/anti-matter collider that's already producing enough power to warp the structure of space, I'm sure some could be leached off).

What you're doing is taking a stock of 'base' matter and essentially transporting it into the replicator to recreate the form of the desired object. It doesn't even need to be a 1:1 match with the mix of atoms you're taking from the feed-stock given the (essentially 'mythical') capability of transforming the matter-stream in transit, a kind of 23rd Century 'alchemy' upon the 'essence of the matter', in the kind of way that (with the exception of really sophisticated processes) is actively avoided in normal transporter use.

There's also some issue with the material 'latinum', which is why "gold-pressed latinum" is a currency (where hard-currency is used, rather than whatever system of wealth division the Federation largely implements) that is not subjected to being replicated and 'debased', with a flooded economy.

(Note that I'm not entirely sure [i]why[/] latinum doesn't 'transport' and/or replicate, for that you need to look up some Trek Technobable information source, which probably has a lot more 'accurate' information on how the above 'actually' works. ;))

I hereby Lol at this thread.

You don't create matter from energy alone (although given that at the heart of your ship is a matter/anti-matter collider that's already producing enough power to warp the structure of space, I'm sure some could be leached off).

What you're doing is taking a stock of 'base' matter and essentially transporting it into the replicator to recreate the form of the desired object. It doesn't even need to be a 1:1 match with the mix of atoms you're taking from the feed-stock given the (essentially 'mythical') capability of transforming the matter-stream in transit, a kind of 23rd Century 'alchemy' upon the 'essence of the matter', in the kind of way that (with the exception of really sophisticated processes) is actively avoided in normal transporter use.

There's also some issue with the material 'latinum', which is why "gold-pressed latinum" is a currency (where hard-currency is used, rather than whatever system of wealth division the Federation largely implements) that is not subjected to being replicated and 'debased', with a flooded economy.

(Note that I'm not entirely sure [i]why[/] latinum doesn't 'transport' and/or replicate, for that you need to look up some Trek Technobable information source, which probably has a lot more 'accurate' information on how the above 'actually' works. ;))

Carrying stock matter to break down and recreate into other stuff is actually even more ludicrous than just using straight up energy. You waste power breaking it down and then more rebuilding it. Why not just carry rations? Also what happens if there's a malfunction? You're sending massive, immense levels of power throughout your replicator system, power enough to blow up a city to replicate a sandwich.

Who cares whether you fuck the same sex or the opposite sex. It's such a non-issue.

According to some book I heard about, this dude called GOD cares. He will smite all the gay-bos and lesbies one of these days, mark those words from that book by that guy.

Carrying stock matter to break down and recreate into other stuff is actually even more ludicrous than just using straight up energy. You waste power breaking it down and then more rebuilding it. Why not just carry rations? Also what happens if there's a malfunction? You're sending massive, immense levels of power throughout your replicator system, power enough to blow up a city to replicate a sandwich.Blame Roddenbury, not me... ;)

Mind you, you do have a lot of energy available, as mentioned[1], and so routing a little to 'energise' the stock into routeable energy before 'dropping it out' as normal matter at the replicator terminal (or pad, for large spare parts for the ship) isn't much of an issue.

Given everything else.


[1] Why was the energy source of Voyager's Holodeck not compatible with the normal ship systems, again? Must have been something to do with how it used the by-product of Narrativium, or something... ;)

(The same must also have applied to the amazing Shuttlecraft Replication System, which worked uncomplainingly behind the scenes well except when the plot demanded that it didn't exist!)

Considering to create a gram of matter from energy would take as much power as a nuclear bomb, I'm thinking those wouldn't ever work. Can you imagine the amount of power needed to make anything useful?
Not really, not being an energy expert. I didn't say it would actually be feasible, mind. It was merely a statement thrown out as an emphasis on how impossible it is to eliminate scarcity.

There are a lot of crappy people out there, but I really don't think this is true.
Perhaps not. Let's hope it never comes to a test, eh?

Atheists have all the rights everyone else has... I mean, gays can't marry right now, but atheists can.You are apparently unaware that several US states have articles in their constitutions that prohibit atheists from holding public office.

Carrying stock matter to break down and recreate into other stuff is actually even more ludicrous than just using straight up energy. You waste power breaking it down and then more rebuilding it. Why not just carry rations? Also what happens if there's a malfunction? You're sending massive, immense levels of power throughout your replicator system, power enough to blow up a city to replicate a sandwich.

I'm not exactly a trekkie, but I AM a semi-trekkie with a solid base in physics so I'll do my best to explain:

Apparently, the base matter that they use is a mixture of simple common organic molecules and compounds. I imagine there's a lot of simple sugars, alcohols and amino acids rich in the four major ingredients; Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen along with traces of heavier elements.

From that, it's just a matter of building the matter you need. The amount of energy needed for any given object replicated would probably depend on how much molecular assembly is necessary. Even with that, they have made it very clear that for anything but foodstuffs, replication is far less efficient than stocking replacement parts.

You are apparently unaware that several US states have articles in their constitutions that prohibit atheists from holding public office.

I'm pretty sure this is not true. If you have proof of this that would be good, but even if it is in the state constitution, I don't think states can actually prohibit atheists from holding public office.

EDIT: I looked it up. There is a link here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm)of religious discrimination in state constitutions.
But, like the article and I said, these are all invalidated by the First Amendment of the national Constitution.

Carrying stock matter to break down and recreate into other stuff is actually even more ludicrous than just using straight up energy.

You produce "stock matter" when you use the bathroom, clip your nails, trim your hair . . .

I'm not exactly a trekkie, but I AM a semi-trekkie with a solid base in physics so I'll do my best to explain:

Apparently, the base matter that they use is a mixture of simple common organic molecules and compounds. I imagine there's a lot of simple sugars, alcohols and amino acids rich in the four major ingredients; Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen along with traces of heavier elements.

From that, it's just a matter of building the matter you need. The amount of energy needed for any given object replicated would probably depend on how much molecular assembly is necessary. Even with that, they have made it very clear that for anything but foodstuffs, replication is far less efficient than stocking replacement parts.

Well wait a second...why would foodstuffs somehow be less difficult to replicate than other parts? Especially since replication is mentioned in many instances throughout Star Trek as being used to create new parts and other such things.

Well wait a second...why would foodstuffs somehow be less difficult to replicate than other parts? Especially since replication is mentioned in many instances throughout Star Trek as being used to create new parts and other such things.

Because assembling any matter consisting primarily of other than carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and/or nitrogen would used drastically more energy. Making something make of tritanium or whatever their trek metal is would require disassembly and reassembly of atoms on a large scale.

Might be useful for making an out-of-stock part or two, but it's the reason why they just don't fabricate entire starships(or even significant parts of one) with matter replicators.

Because assembling any matter consisting primarily of other than carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and/or nitrogen would used drastically more energy. Making something make of tritanium or whatever their trek metal is would require disassembly and reassembly of atoms on a large scale.

Might be useful for making an out-of-stock part or two, but it's the reason why they just don't fabricate entire starships(or even significant parts of one) with matter replicators.

Oh, okay. Damn. So much for the idea that the Star Trek universe uses replicators to eliminate scarcity...

I'm pretty sure this is not true. If you have proof of this that would be good, but even if it is in the state constitution, I don't think states can actually prohibit atheists from holding public office.

EDIT: I looked it up. There is a link here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm)of religious discrimination in state constitutions.
But, like the article and I said, these are all invalidated by the First Amendment of the national Constitution.My home state of Texas, quote from article four of the constitution "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
bold mine.

Texas is one of seven states barring atheists from office.So I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

My home state of Texas, quote from article four of the constitution "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
bold mine.

Texas is one of seven states barring atheists from office.So I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Like I said in the edit, the First Amendment makes this illegal. If an atheist ran for public office, there's nothing Texas could do about it.

Oh, okay. Damn. So much for the idea that the Star Trek universe uses replicators to eliminate scarcity...

Think of the element Iron as the balancing point. Any elements lower on the periodic table than Iron could probably be manufactured using smaller atoms and reasonable(in a star trek universe) amounts of energy. Anyhing heavier than Iron becomes very difficult and expensive to make from lighter materials. It starts to become more efficient to make them by breaking down heavier materials(elements higher on the periodic table). Since heavier elements are considerably scarcer and too valuable to use, you are for the most part stuck using abundant light elements and drastic amounts of energy for the small stuff and classic manufacturing technques for the big stuff.

Like I said in the edit, the First Amendment makes this illegal. If an atheist ran for public office, there's nothing Texas could do about it.
Point is, though, that atheists are the group in the US that it's socially acceptable to view as "bad." So okay to depise that no one complains that our state constitutions single them out as unworthy to hold public office. Our President says they shouldn't be considered citizens and the mainstream doesn't utter a peep. 'Cuz they agree.

Point is, though, that atheists are the group in the US that it's socially acceptable to view as "bad." So okay to depise that no one complains that our state constitutions single them out as unworthy to hold public office. Our President says they shouldn't be considered citizens and the mainstream doesn't utter a peep. 'Cuz they agree.

Okay, I agree with that (that discrimination exists, not that it's true). As a minority, atheists are not treated as well as white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or many other people. But legally, atheists have equal rights, and in that way they as a group are better off than gays, who face both social and political discrimination.

Think of the element Iron as the balancing point. Any elements lower on the periodic table than Iron could probably be manufactured using smaller atoms and reasonable(in a star trek universe) amounts of energy. Anyhing heavier than Iron becomes very difficult and expensive to make from lighter materials. It starts to become more efficient to make them by breaking down heavier materials(elements higher on the periodic table). Since heavier elements are considerably scarcer and too valuable to use, you are for the most part stuck using abundant light elements and drastic amounts of energy for the small stuff and classic manufacturing technques for the big stuff.

Right then...understood. Thanks, Lunatic.

Right then...understood. Thanks, Lunatic.

:D When something doesn't make sense, ask someone who doesn't make sense. :)

You might think that's impossible to achieve, but it's not, not in this country. I guarantee you that if put up to a referendum vote right now more than enough people would willingly pass a law that outlaws atheism.

What a depressing thing to say! I'd challenge the inference that such a thing is possible though. A referendum isn't just going to pop into existence for one thing, and there'd be debate.
A real hot debate, and I'd like to think freedom of religion and of speech would prevail over "OMG atheists! Commies, atheists, baby-killers OMG!"

Not even Bush could do that, but sadly there are plenty of arguments one could make using the First Amendment to show that you HAVE to believe in a religion. It gives you freedom of choice between religions but not freedom of not believing.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or ..."

Let's see one of these arguments then ...

Not entirely in the way one might think. The actual liberalization when it comes to social freedoms only really heated up once economies became quite powerful.

In other words, capitalism is responsible for social freedoms.

Oh, waffle.

You go on to mention the elimination of scarcity, sparking another interesting diversion which only narrowly avoided the words "dilithium crystals" ... argh! :headbang:

The elimination of scarcity is such a profound concept that I don't think any of us can imagine the consequences.

There are a lot of crappy people out there, but I really don't think this is true.

Yeah. "Ban atheism" might have wide support, but there are two questions which would utterly undermine any attempt to do so: "why?" and "how?"

You are apparently unaware that several US states have articles in their constitutions that prohibit atheists from holding public office.

Oh no. Oh no. That is appalling!

My home state of Texas, quote from article four of the constitution "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
bold mine.

Texas is one of seven states barring atheists from office. So I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Do you know if it's ever been tested?

I guess anyone seriously wanting a sheriff's job or whatever the lowest level of elected office is, would simply answer 'yes' if they really wanted the job and they were asked.

"No religious test" seems to suggest that no-one can ask the candidate "do you acknowledge the existence of a supreme being?" and then predicate their candidacy (or appoinment?? in the very unlikely event of election) on the answer. But if the candidate volunteers that they think God is a load of hooey, where does it go from there?

If one wanted to keep that cute little wedge-of-established-religion on the Texas books, the thing to do would be never risk it in court by trying to enforce it.

Curious if it's ever been challenged.

Like I said in the edit, the First Amendment makes this illegal. If an atheist ran for public office, there's nothing Texas could do about it.

Don't you mean "the Texas law would be overturned in SCOTUS" or something? It's not like the Fed Constitution is some magic shield that makes certain things physically impossible.

:D When something doesn't make sense, ask someone who doesn't make sense. :)

That's funny. But you make an extraordinary amount of sense when you aren't making nonsense!

That's funny. But you make an extraordinary amount of sense when you aren't making nonsense!

I am nonsensically sensible. :)

That's funny. But you make an extraordinary amount of sense when you aren't making nonsense!

You kind of have to be crazy in the sensible way to survive four years as a Physics UG.

Don't you mean "the Texas law would be overturned in SCOTUS" or something? It's not like the Fed Constitution is some magic shield that makes certain things physically impossible.


Mumbles something about "that's what he meant..."
You're right, of course. But I assume that it won't even come to that, because if an atheist ran, I don't think Texas would even bother enforcing this law. If anything, they'd probably change it. But if they didn't, the Supreme Court would.

I think that the homosexual community should have full equality.

Bully for you.

I don't think it should be illegal to discriminate against them, however, nor do I think it should be illegal to discriminate against anybody, God bless the 1st Ammendment.

Certain types of discrimination --such as in employment -- should be illegal. The First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with it.

Marrage and adoption, however, should be options.

It's not clear what you mean. I hope you mean that marriage and adoption should be an option for any couple regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Not even Bush could do that, but sadly there are plenty of arguments one could make using the First Amendment to show that you HAVE to believe in a religion. It gives you freedom of choice between religions but not freedom of not believing.

Sound like bullshit? I've heard that argument tons of times and I'm sure that it would be attempted--with appropriate legalease--in court if such a law ever came into effect.

Meh. That argument has been raised and it has been uniformly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. See, Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html ), 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (emphasis added):

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.

See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/577.html ), 505 US 577 (1992) ("The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference."); Torcaso v. Watkins (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&invol=488#495), 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) ("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person `to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs"); Everson v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=330&page=15#15), 330 US 1, 18 (1947) (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers").

(BTW, I copied the citations above from an earlier post of mine. I didn't dig all this up from scratch).

I'll add: not having seen a post by AnarchyEl in a while, Muravyets is now my #1 hero!

Now, now, don't get carried away. I'll disappoint you eventually. ;)

Yes, yes, what I meant was that gays are trying to get rights that were denied to them so far. Atheists aren't, so I don't think there's much the far-right bigots can do against the Atheists without trying to pursue something impossible to achieve - like outlawing Atheism.
Since when are they put off by their goals being impossible? Look how some of them insist they can turn gays hetero. I mean, really.

Since when are they put off by their goals being impossible? Look how some of them insist they can turn gays hetero. I mean, really.

At least heterosexualizing isn't put in law. Alan Turing did himself in after he was forced to take estrogen or go to prison. (In England, I believe it was.)

Marriage is religious and defined: One man and one woman.
Civil Union is the governments marriage.

Since most (all?) religions think being gay is a sin, then why would the legal definition of marriage be changed to appease a few while angering many? Take Civil Union and shut up.

Marriage is religious and defined: One man and one woman.
Civil Union is the governments marriage.
No, it isn't. All marriage is the "government's marriage" and it is not religious. No matter what the religion, it still has to qualify for its marriage ceremonies to be recognized as legal by local governments. Depending on the country, some religions may have an easier time getting that qualification than others, but regardless -- although most governments will recognize church/temple marriages, you are actually legally married only if your local government says you are, no matter what your church might say.

Since most (all?) religions think being gay is a sin, then why would the legal definition of marriage be changed to appease a few while angering many?
Who are you to speak for all, or even most, religions? In the US alone, there are several Christian churches, Jewish congregations, and other religions that disagree with you. (And then, there are always the Mormons to throw a wrench into that "one man, one woman" definition.) Yet, according to you, there's no, or almost no, disagreement. :rolleyes:

Take Civil Union and shut up.
Yeah, that's the way to get people to agree with you. Whatever.

At least heterosexualizing isn't put in law. Alan Turing did himself in after he was forced to take estrogen or go to prison. (In England, I believe it was.)

The point I was trying to make is that bigots will always try to get laws passed that would have the effect of outlawing the very existence of the people they don't like. Sometimes they succeed, more often (I hope), they fail. But the one thing that will never stop them from trying it is the logical argument that you cannot use law to stop people from being what they are. You may force people to hide themselves, but you can't force them not to be gay, or not to be someone who doesn't believe in a god, or not be black or female or Jewish or whatever the target of the moment might be.

Marriage is religious and defined: One man and one woman.
Civil Union is the governments marriage.Pure bollox. Marriage predates all existing religions by thousands of years. It is and always has been a contractual relationship, and until very recently (the last century), was not much different from purchasing a horse or a slave. Indeed the fucked up tome of vileness called the Bible outlines how to go about purchasing a wife, or marrying a slave.

The "woman" bit of the arrangement stems from the common practice of treating women as livestock, nothing more, and until those vicious Abrahamites managed to subjugate the majority of the planet, men marrying men was not exceptional. It was only practiced amongst the rich, however, and women have never married women. And again, the explanation is men are traditionally considered fully human beings, and are thus valuable, while women are not. Hell if it weren't for gender discrimination, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Then again, if your basic education hadn't been an epic failure, we wouldn't have this conversation either. Because you'd know just how fucking stupid the shit you're saying is.

Angering the many should never be a concern, when it happens because the many are abusing the few. If you and your fifty fucked up mates block an ambulance from getting to the scene of a car crash, because you're getting off on the view, kicking you out of the way and spoiling your fun shouldn't be a problem either. You can go home and watch snuff without hurting anyone, just like you can join some fucked up homophobic, woman hating cult and get them to marry, you without dragging anyone else into your sad world.

Finally, since the inception of organised city states, states and countries, any and every religious sect capable of doing it, has inseminated themselves into the political infrastructure. This explains why you're suffering under the misconception that marriage has anything to do with religion. Through their monopoly on force, states define and maintain things like contracts, and thus marriage, and since religion, if you'll forgive the pun, has married the state, it suddenly becomes difficult for history-less tossers to figure out what's what.

The solution to all this is very simple: separate marriage and religious ceremonies. States then certifies marriage, and individuals, including cult leaders, can then simply apply for the right to organise whatever mumbo-jumbo they feel like in connection with marriages.

No more civil unions, no more religious outrage, no more inequality before the law. Just a simple set of rules anyone can apply to themselves in the manner of their own choosing. The only downside is it doesn't oppress the fuck out of the religious males who so richly deserve it. But then, the goal is equality, not justice.

The point I was trying to make is that bigots will always try to get laws passed that would have the effect of outlawing the very existence of the people they don't like. Sometimes they succeed, more often (I hope), they fail. But the one thing that will never stop them from trying it is the logical argument that you cannot use law to stop people from being what they are. You may force people to hide themselves, but you can't force them not to be gay, or not to be someone who doesn't believe in a god, or not be black or female or Jewish or whatever the target of the moment might be.

I get what you meant. My post was more of a, "Look what New Limacon knew on Jeopardy" moment, nothing really useful.

I have a huge list of thoughts on this, being a Christian conservative, so I won't post those unless you guys want me to, but I think the issue here is people think Christians especially think that gay people are the ones we speak out against, but really, it's their actions... so yeah, I know that's not much, but some people might prefer me to be out of this debate ;)

I have a huge list of thoughts on this, being a Christian conservative, so I won't post those unless you guys want me to, but I think the issue here is people think Christians especially think that gay people are the ones we speak out against, but really, it's their actions... so yeah, I know that's not much, but some people might prefer me to be out of this debate ;)

"Hate the sin, not the sinner." mentality?

*shrugs*

Since most (all?) religions think being gay is a sin,

I count three. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism don't count as most religions let alone all. There might be more I'm not aware of but I'm not aware of most non-Abrahamic religions giving a fuck which gender you choose to fuck.

Their actions of daring to fall in love with someone you don't approve of? Since their actions don't affect you in any way why do you feel the need to speak out against them at all?

Assumption.

I have a huge list of thoughts on this, being a Christian conservative, so I won't post those unless you guys want me to, but I think the issue here is people think Christians especially think that gay people are the ones we speak out against, but really, it's their actions...

Their actions of daring to fall in love with someone you don't approve of? Since their actions don't affect you in any way why do you feel the need to speak out against them at all?

Their actions of daring to fall in love with someone you don't approve of? Since their actions don't affect you in any way why do you feel the need to speak out against them at all?
That seems to me to be a bit like saying someone that has murdered someone else doesn't deserve to go to jail because since he did not murder me, it does not affect me... No one is discriminating gays, but in a way they are discriminating straight marriage... I wish I could word my thoughts a little better right now though.

That seems to me to be a bit like saying someone that has murdered someone else doesn't deserve to go to jail because since he did not murder me, it does not affect me.

Uhm. No.

No one is discriminating gays, but in a way they are discriminating straight marriage... I wish I could word my thoughts a little better right now though.

And no.

Their actions of daring to fall in love with someone you don't approve of? Since their actions don't affect you in any way why do you feel the need to speak out against them at all?

I don't think it's the loving part, I think it's the, *cough*, um, er, well, yes, I'm glad we've had this talk, Redwulf.

Hey Bann-ed, I really like how you expand on your statements. I think it was back in Kindergarten when I reasoned with simple statements such as no and yes.

Hey Bann-ed, I really like how you expand on your statements. I think it was back in Kindergarten when I reasoned with simple statements such as no and yes.

ooh you're a smart one ain't ya?

Hey Bann-ed, I really like how you expand on your statements. I think it was back in Kindergarten when I reasoned with simple statements such as no and yes.

I thought it was obvious.

Murdering harms someone.
Consentual sexual intercourse does not.

You should be concerned about the first if it happens, but not the second.

Homosexuals are discriminated against in many ways, many of which were explained by others in this thread.
'Straight' marriage is allowed and accepted. How is it discriminated against?

I count three. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism don't count as most religions let alone all. There might be more I'm not aware of but I'm not aware of most non-Abrahamic religions giving a fuck which gender you choose to fuck.

Hinduism is rampantly homophobic, and the Dalai Lama has specifically spoken out against homosexuality, though I don't know how much of an authority on Buddhism in general he would be, as much as an authority on Tibetan Buddhism.

Let's be honest; if homosexuals and their ilk would just disappear there really wouldn't be an issue.

Let's be honest; if homosexuals and their ilk would just disappear there really wouldn't be an issue.
Hear Hear.