Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:It's an annoying thing for some of the more obnoxious people say far too often, I agree.

Then again, we're working on the technology that will allow homosexuals to breed, too, so it's not like it'll be accurate for long.

We're also working on technology that will eliminate homosexuals before birth. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

Can't we accept that the people who yell "[see forum posting rules]!" and the people who yell "breeder!" are both gakheads?
My dad always used to say you should never pack an eejit, because there'd always be one there waiting for you, wherever you went. Well, actually he said something a little less family friendly than eejit, but you get my meaning.

Aye the point is boss, sure it pisses us off, It certainly does me, when you see double standards.. I mean, you remember when those two Somalian chicks were beating that lass up and shouting "Kill the white slag!" but they got off with a slapped wrist?

Of course it does annoy me that minorities can expect to be far better treated with regards to "racism" but at the end of the day, it DOES kinda make sense doesn't it?

The minorities are the ones that have took alot of gak.. well.. their ancestors anyway. The majority never needs looking after because everyone sees things their way!

Ergo, I do find it annoying yes, but it is less of a deal if a black bloke calls me a white bastard than if I start throwing racial slurs at him, and the same goes for that whole breeder thing.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying I don't get irritated by the fact that clearly a Somalian bloke would get away with racially abusing me.. and he clearly would lets have it right.. but, well.. he does have more of a right to have a chip on his shoulder than me doesn't he?

Im not saying people that are proper militant gays aren't douche bags.. and I especially hate angry lesbians as I had to throw one down some stairs in a nightclub once after she hit me with a bottle of WKD.....

But... you know.. it IS less of a deal isn't it!?

And white, straight Christian majorities really have no place claiming otherwise as far as I'm concerned.. are we such big babies that we cant take a little gak?!

mattyrm wrote: Aye the point is boss, sure it pisses us off, It certainly does me, when you see double standards.. I mean, you remember when those two Somalian chicks were beating that lass up and shouting "Kill the white slag!" but they got off with a slapped wrist?

Of course it does annoy me that minorities can expect to be far better treated with regards to "racism" but at the end of the day, it DOES kinda make sense doesn't it?

The minorities are the ones that have took alot of gak.. well.. their ancestors anyway. The majority never needs looking after because everyone sees things their way!

Ergo, I do find it annoying yes, but it is less of a deal if a black bloke calls me a white bastard than if I start throwing racial slurs at him, and the same goes for that whole breeder thing.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying I don't get irritated by the fact that clearly a Somalian bloke would get away with racially abusing me.. and he clearly would lets have it right.. but, well.. he does have more of a right to have a chip on his shoulder than me doesn't he?

Im not saying people that are proper militant gays aren't douche bags.. and I especially hate angry lesbians as I had to throw one down some stairs in a nightclub once after she hit me with a bottle of WKD.....

But... you know.. it IS less of a deal isn't it!?

And white, straight Christian majorities really have no place claiming otherwise as far as I'm concerned.. are we such big babies that we cant take a little gak?!

What happens when "white, straight Christian majorities" are no longer majorities? Thats the case in several US states and growing.

Don't worry, Frazzled, white folk will still be the majority in every position of power.

TheHammer wrote:Don't worry, Frazzled, white folk will still be the majority in every position of power.

The words of a bigot right there.

Don't worry, Frazzled, white folk will still be the majority in every position of power.

I did raise a eye brow on that to

I don't want to go off topic with this. So the child, without commiting a single crime, is going to pay the death penalty for the woman's choice. How is it bigotted to protect the right to life of the child?

I am assuming you never use birth control, then?

Those poor innocent sperms and eggs!

Never play with yourself, either. It's wasting genetic material.

This thread really is going places.

Now we're getting into the life/choice debate? Awesome.

Melissia wrote:Moreover, gay marriage cannot be denied on religious reasons because that would violate freedom of religion-- not every religion, and indeed, not even every church within Christianity, is against gay marriage.

So if one wants to claim that marriage is a religious thing, then they've already lost the fight against gay marriage in the first place.

So the argument instead becomes a civil liberties issue.

Well, that argument can be used to generate support for opposing gay marriage, but the law as written cannot include explicit mention of religion.

Basically, a law stating that the US is a Christian nation, and that gay marriage is illegal because Christianity forbids it is unconstitutional. But a law that defines marriage as a contract between a man and a woman without mention of religion would not be.

The biggest sticking point is that many people, on both sides of the debate, have difficulty clearly separating the idea of marriage as a religious concept from marriage as a legal concept. In part this is due to the emotive nature of the issue, and in part its due to either side attempting to stick it to the other. On the conservative side this takes the form of basic unwillingness to see homosexual unions granted the same standing as heterosexual ones; hence the absence of support for stripping marriage from legal parlance. On the liberal side its about forcing conservatives to accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones, both present, past, and future; hence the absence of support for stripping marriage from legal parlance.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:Moreover, gay marriage cannot be denied on religious reasons because that would violate freedom of religion-- not every religion, and indeed, not even every church within Christianity, is against gay marriage.

So if one wants to claim that marriage is a religious thing, then they've already lost the fight against gay marriage in the first place.

So the argument instead becomes a civil liberties issue.

Well, that argument can be used to generate support for opposing gay marriage, but the law as written cannot include explicit mention of religion.

Basically, a law stating that the US is a Christian nation, and that gay marriage is illegal because Christianity forbids it is unconstitutional. But a law that defines marriage as a contract between a man and a woman without mention of religion would not be.

The biggest sticking point is that many people, on both sides of the debate, have difficulty clearly separating the idea of marriage as a religious concept from marriage as a legal concept. In part this is due to the emotive nature of the issue, and in part its due to either side attempting to stick it to the other. On the conservative side this takes the form of basic unwillingness to see homosexual unions granted the same standing as heterosexual ones; hence the absence of support for stripping marriage from legal parlance. On the liberal side its about forcing conservatives to accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones, both present, past, and future; hence the absence of support for stripping marriage from legal parlance.

That whole statement is laced with intolerance. How dare they want the 1000's of benefits the government grants to married couples. And the funny part is the christians gave up the "marriage is a religious thing" back when they were trying to keep inter racial marriages from happening. That's when they gave the government the right to decide who can marry with the marriage license. As it is today, religions have no say in who can and can't get married, you can get your license from the government, and get married in the court house. As the government now runs marriages as even if you get married in a church you still need the governments license. The government can not discriminate against anyone, ergo its only a matter of time before anyone can marry anyone.

here's a short list of government benefits:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

"Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.?"

its about smaller government and allowing any American the same rights to choose who they want to marry. The only ones trying to force the issues are the christians who think america is a christian nation, and should pass laws based on their holy book. Because for some reason the majority of christians in the US can not Live and let live.

So either remove all government rights granted to married couples, or allow anyone to marry anyone they can get to say yes.

Frazzled wrote:What happens when "white, straight Christian majorities" are no longer majorities? Thats the case in several US states and growing.

Which ones?




The gay marriage debate really does boil down to one simple concept: social control.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The Christian churches generally seem to be under the impression that marriage is their exclusive domain, and as such they are, as always, attempting to excercise their control over that realm. However, as they have been on many things throughout history, they are wrong.

There are two very easy solutions to the issue:
1) Make it clear that you can be married by the state without the involvement of the curch. Simple.

or...

2) Create the status of "civil union" aka "common-law spouse", which is something we have in Canada. It grants all the rights that a traditionally-married couple get, except you only need to be co-habiting for at least 1 year with a person of whom you share a conjugal relationship.

I like solution #2. It let's the fundamentalists smile while they shut up, and it grants all legal rights to those who should have them (but perhaps currently don't in the US system)

Problem solved.

You might like it, but since "separate but equal" is not equal, homosexual couples don't.

Frazzled wrote:

What happens when "white, straight Christian majorities" are no longer majorities?

Celebrate?

It's gonna be one hell of a Fiesta!!!

If gay marriage is allowed, can polygamy be aloud?

Frazzled wrote:

TheHammer wrote:Don't worry, Frazzled, white folk will still be the majority in every position of power.

The words of a bigot right there.

Hey man, it's true; white people (esp. white males) hold a disproportionate number of political offices. It's bad, but it's true.

It's bigoted to point out that straight white men hold a disproportionate amount of power? It isn't just political, but in business, finance, civil society, religious institutions, the military, and every other facet of society where this is true.

But, as long as you can feel good about the strange accident that leads you to have political views that hurt nonwhites, homosexuals, and women!

It would almost be like the Family Research Council calling the Southern Poverty Law Center bigoted. Oh.... :(

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What happens when "white, straight Christian majorities" are no longer majorities? Thats the case in several US states and growing.

Which ones?




The gay marriage debate really does boil down to one simple concept: social control.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The Christian churches generally seem to be under the impression that marriage is their exclusive domain, and as such they are, as always, attempting to excercise their control over that realm. However, as they have been on many things throughout history, they are wrong.

There are two very easy solutions to the issue:
1) Make it clear that you can be married by the state without the involvement of the curch. Simple.

or...

2) Create the status of "civil union" aka "common-law spouse", which is something we have in Canada. It grants all the rights that a traditionally-married couple get, except you only need to be co-habiting for at least 1 year with a person of whom you share a conjugal relationship.

I like solution #2. It let's the fundamentalists smile while they shut up, and it grants all legal rights to those who should have them (but perhaps currently don't in the US system)

Problem solved.

This I can agree with... (but prefer option 1)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Nobody wrote:If gay marriage is allowed, can polygamy be aloud?

Yup and it should be...

But, why the feth would a dude want more than one wife at the same time is beyond me.

But, why the feth would a dude want more than one wife at the same time is beyond me

Perfect example would be the crazy GF thread on why not.

TheHammer wrote:
Or do you not read, know anything, or think about click-clacking on the internet machine?

You can stop with the personal attack thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Yes, but the voter registration card is more than enough. [/qoute]

that's to assume that everyone that votes actually show there voter registration card.

broodstar wrote:that's to assume that everyone that votes actually show there voter registration card.

Which, for the most part, is the case. Most of the time voter fraud is done through absentee ballots.

Jihadin wrote:

But, why the feth would a dude want more than one wife at the same time is beyond me

Perfect example would be the crazy GF thread on why not.

Reminds me of this song:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/fivefingerdeathpunch/thebleeding.html

dogma wrote:
That's actually the proper way to use the word, so I'm not sure what you're on about. Personal attacks are perfectly acceptable in the course of argument, so long as they're relevant to the subject.

Ad hominem - short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Fallacies are something that everyone does on accident, They're most commonly found in the media and politics and it's easy to understand why, fallacies aspecially Ad Hominem is just fething entertaining.

Would you also then say that its acceptable to require ID to purchase a gun?

Acquiring from dealers

An individual 21 years of age or older may acquire a handgun from a dealer federally licensed to sell firearms in the individual's state of residence.

An individual 18 years of age or older may purchase a rifle or shotgun from a federally licensed dealer in any state. However, the applicant may not purchase a pistol gripped long gun that does not have a shoulder stock until he or she is 21 years of age.

It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm unless the federal firearms licensee receives notice of approval from a prescribed source approving the transfer.

Sale of a firearm by a federally licensed dealer must be documented by a federal form 4473, which identifies and includes other information about the purchaser, and records the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. Sales to an individual of multiple handguns within a five-day period require dealer notification to the ATF. Violations of dealer record keeping requirements are punishable by a penalty of up to $1000 and one year's imprisonment.

An individual holding a Curio and Relics License (officially a Type 03 Federal Firearms License (FFL); also called a C&R) may directly purchase firearms that are 50 or more years old from anyone AND any firearm officially recognized by the ATF as a Curio and Relic (C&R).

Sales between individuals

In a private transaction, federal law prohibits the transfer or the sale of a handgun or ammunition, for use only in handguns, to individuals under 18 years of age. Although, there are certain exceptions in federal law, that if met, would allow an individual to transfer a handgun or ammunition, for use only in handguns, to someone under 18 years of age.

There is no federal law concerning minimum age for the transfer or sale of a firearm that is not defined as a handgun, such as rifles, semiautomatic rifles, short-barreled rifles, shotguns, short-barreled shotgun, machineguns, etc., for transactions that don't involve federal firearms licensees.

An individual who does not possess a federal firearms license may not sell a modern firearm to a resident of another state without first transferring the firearm to a dealer in the purchaser's state. Firearms received by bequest or intestate succession are exempt from those sections of the law which forbid the transfer, sale, delivery or transportation of firearms into a state other than the transferor's state of residence. Likewise, antique firearms are exempt from these sections of the law in most states. (Antique firearms are defined as those manufactured pre-1899 by US federal law, or modern replicas thereof that do not use cartridges. State law definitions on antique firearms vary considerably from state to state.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

Yeah, you do.

Its interesting that you would refer to Muslims as a race, seeing as one could argue that the tendency to view Islam as monolithic is the direct result of the manner in which that religion has been demonized by many.

As far as refering to Muslims as a race, that was a slip. As far as the religion being demonized, you got me there dude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Moreover, gay marriage cannot be denied on religious reasons because that would violate freedom of religion-- not every religion, and indeed, not even every church within Christianity, is against gay marriage.

So if one wants to claim that marriage is a religious thing, then they've already lost the fight against gay marriage in the first place.

So the argument instead becomes a civil liberties issue.

That's to say the exception disproves the rule. Does a Preacher who refuses to perform get sued for refusing the religious service? Where is that line drawn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AegisGrimm wrote:I am assuming you never use birth control, then?

You are correct, Sir. This is off topic let's end this now.

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What happens when "white, straight Christian majorities" are no longer majorities? Thats the case in several US states and growing.

Which ones?




The gay marriage debate really does boil down to one simple concept: social control.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The Christian churches generally seem to be under the impression that marriage is their exclusive domain, and as such they are, as always, attempting to excercise their control over that realm. However, as they have been on many things throughout history, they are wrong.

There are two very easy solutions to the issue:
1) Make it clear that you can be married by the state without the involvement of the curch. Simple.

or...

2) Create the status of "civil union" aka "common-law spouse", which is something we have in Canada. It grants all the rights that a traditionally-married couple get, except you only need to be co-habiting for at least 1 year with a person of whom you share a conjugal relationship.

I like solution #2. It let's the fundamentalists smile while they shut up, and it grants all legal rights to those who should have them (but perhaps currently don't in the US system)

Problem solved.

Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. Thats a fact now. Its fine by me but this majority bs is trully bs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Nobody wrote:If gay marriage is allowed, can polygamy be aloud?

I don't know about aloud, but definitely allowed.

There is no limit. As a libertarian who thinks government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place, fine by me.

That's to say the exception disproves the rule.

Don't use phrases when you don't know what they mean.

Does a Preacher who refuses to perform get sued for refusing the religious service?

They are not legally required to do anything, stop scaremongering.

TheHammer wrote:It's bigoted to point out that straight white men hold a disproportionate amount of power? (

Only in the world of make believe that people like Frazzled are lost in...

Melissia wrote:

That's to say the exception disproves the rule.

Don't use phrases when you don't know what they mean.

Does a Preacher who refuses to perform get sued for refusing the religious service?

They are not legally required to do anything, stop scaremongering.

They could be. Churches have been sued for not renting out their facilities to parties they don't like. Photographers who didn't want to do same sex weddings on religious grounds were sued (and lost) for discrimination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:
The religius institutions generally seem to be under the impression that marriage is their exclusive domain, and as such they are, as always, attempting to excercise their control over that realm. However, as they have been on many things throughout history, they are wrong.

Corrected your typo.

There are two very easy solutions to the issue:
1) Make it clear that you can be married by the state without the involvement of the curch. Simple.

or...

2) Create the status of "civil union" aka "common-law spouse"

Bongo! Give the man a CeeGar!

Actually I'm down with the state creating a simple civil union status for ease of use. "Marriage" is a personal thing. You can call yourself married, hitched, or whatever, its irrelevant as the laws are found in the civil union contract.

Separate but equal still remains... not equal.

In places where such legislation is put in place, it has never been de facto equal to marriage even when it was de jure, which was not every time.

That solution simply won't work.