Apologies to BK. You were right about gay marriages.

[giblets]

Asher, I don't think I've advocated gay people having to stay in the closet even once. I don't see how gay marriage is going to improve the acceptance of gays in the short run though. I'm fairly confident that there are a number of people who aren't homophobes but really don't like gay marriage. Forcing the issue of gay marriage surely turns away some people who would otherwise have no problem with rights for homosexuals.

you are such a tool

[Hauldren Collider]

you are such a tool

1. I didn't say I agreed with the position of the people I described. To be clear, I don't really care one way or another about gay marriage. I do care about reducing AIDS infection rates and reducing homophobia.
2. When I say "I don't see" I'm inviting somebody to explain to me if I am missing something.

[Thoth]

xpost, so rewriting

So darkies are ok, so long as they stay at the back of the bus and don't cause problems? 'Cause if the darkies want to sit at the front of the bus it might turn away some people who would otherwise have no problems with rights for darkies.

Gay marriage and Jim Crow laws are not equivalent issues. Not even a little bit. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to disagree with gay marriage that isn't rooted in homophobia.

Bull****.

[loinburger]

Of course not. Why the hell would you need an equal rights amendment for gays? (Answer: you don't)

Meaning that gay people are not discriminated against in e.g. hiring practices, or that it is acceptable for gay people to be discriminated against in e.g. hiring practices?

[Hauldren Collider]

does not require an amendment. but I suppose that is being a bit pedantic.

At any rate, I'm pulling out of this discussion. It's never been a very important issue to me, but my opinion is basically that if it will make people's lives better then I'm all for it.

[loinburger]

does not require an amendment. but I suppose that is being a bit pedantic.

:barfffffffff:

[Wiglaf]

HADRLLDREN COLLIDERR IS RIGHT , More posters on this site need to be like him. His argument is no different from the one offered by the New York Court of Appeals in 2006:

Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.

New York is frankly the gayest place in the universe that isn't in California. The only reason they still have pay phones is so you can get the blow jobs services in them. THE FACT THAT THE TWINK COURT OF APPEALS THERE HAS MORE OF A REALISTIC GRASP ON THIS ISSUE THAN APOLYTON SUJJESTS THAT APOLYTON IS THE SECOND GAYEST PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE.

Anyone want my number we can get to gether for a SUCK FEST :B:

So darkies are ok, so long as they stay at the back of the bus and don't cause problems? 'Cause if the darkies want to sit at the front of the bus it might turn away some people who would otherwise have no problems with rights for darkies.

IT IT'S LIKE CIVIL RIGHTS ALL OVER AGAIN BUT WITH THE COCKS! OH NO WAIT ITS NOT! YOU ARE WRONG! BECAUSE THE 14TH AMENDMENT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT GAY PEOPLE! IT'S PURPOSE IS TO COMBAT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION! NOT GAY DISCRIMINATION! SORRY! PLEASE GO TO THE BACK OF THE SHORT BUS! I AM DONE WITH YOU!

[notyoueither]

In the Anglosphere this means not favouring one religion over another. It does not mean banishing religion from the public sphere.

You do stop favouring any religion from any religion if you lift it completely from the religions and do it as the state yourself.

The state does do it with civil ceremonies. The state also allows people to choose to have other services. Why should people have to jump through the government's hoops by having two ceremonies? We do not serve the state. The state serves us, where I come from.

The limit is the government says people need a licence first. That is reasonable, but once people have their licence the government can piss right off and keep their nose out of peoples' most intimate moments.

People do not even need a ceremony to be married. Live together for a significant amount of time and *poof* they're married, at least around here.

Religion should be banned from the public square.

No. It shouldn't be, but none should be favoured over any other.

The church is not there to perform the job of the government.

It should not be the job of the government to force people to conform to the ideas of pointy-headed social engineers.

Marriage ceremonies are not the business of government, unless people want a civil ceremony. Forcing people to have a civil ceremony to be married is authoritarian horse hockey more suited to Stalin's Russia than a free society.

And the church should have no influence on the job of the government.

Of course they should, just like any other organised group in society should. These groups are made up of people. The government serves people, not the other way around in any well constituted society.

Then the church can ban gay marriages, without stopping gays to be married. And people can yell at churches for banning gay marriages. That's freedom.

Once again, you are confusing conservative opposition to gay marriage with religious opposition to gay marriage. They are not the same.

There are established churches where gay marriage is welcome and couples can have religious ceremonies when wedding a member of the same sex. In other words, religion is not opposed to gay marriage. Some religious people are.

The same social conservatives who would not want a gay ceremony in their own church do not want gays to marry no matter where the ceremony takes place, religious, civil, common law, or in front of a goat. Not all of them are religious, although I would guess that many or most are.

The bottom line is that the issue is not about religious ceremonies. It is about excluding or including gay couples from/in the institution of marriage religious, civil, or common law.

[Thoth]

IT IT'S LIKE CIVIL RIGHTS ALL OVER AGAIN BUT WITH THE COCKS! OH NO WAIT ITS NOT! YOU ARE WRONG! BECAUSE THE 14TH AMENDMENT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT GAY PEOPLE! IT'S PURPOSE IS TO COMBAT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION! NOT GAY DISCRIMINATION! SORRY! PLEASE GO TO THE BACK OF THE SHORT BUS! I AM DONE WITH YOU!

No. Your silly country's constitutional amendments have nothing to do with this.


The issue is equal rights for all, regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation. If your second rate constitution allows for discrimination on any of the above grounds it needs to be either changed, or your government needs to be overthrown.

****.

[Elok]

I'm respectful to most Christians here. Just not Ben.

Ben is no Christian.

Actually, there was this time a couple of weeks back where you said a "Christian" was defined as a hateful monster obsessed with gays, or something like that. Can't be arsed to dig it up, but that definitely qualifies as not too respectful.

Now for something completely different: I had the Beatles' "Come Together" in my head the other day when it occurred to me that "come together, right now, over me" could be given a very puerile, giggle-inducing meaning. Has this meaning struck anyone else on Poly, and if so, did you find it funny? Alternatively, do you suppose that's a sort of hidden message Lennon had in mind in the first place?

[Hauldren Collider]

We have an equal protection clause. The government itself does not discriminate. The government shouldn't start going around trying to figure out if individual people are bigots or not. Governments have a habit of using those for harm more often than for good.

The first amendment gives you the RIGHT to be an ignorant, bigoted dumbass. Because why the **** would we want those hamfisted morons up in Washington figuring out who is and isn't a dumbass? They'd either have to censure themselves (I don't see much of an issue there) or brutally repress people (bit more problematic).

Discriminatory employment is already banned. Don't need a constitutional amendment for it. Most states if not all already have a provision in their constitutions anyways (oh yeah, states have constitutions too, surprise!)

[Asher]

Actually, there was this time a couple of weeks back where you said a "Christian" was defined as a hateful monster obsessed with gays, or something like that. Can't be arsed to dig it up, but that definitely qualifies as not too respectful.

I don't remember saying that, so if I did I was drunk and was probably trolling.

I have the utmost respect for Christian guys, because they are the kinkiest. The seminaries train them well.

[giblets]

I don't remember saying that, so if I did I was drunk and was probably trolling.

I have the utmost respect for Christian guys, because they are the kinkiest. The seminaries train them well.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showpost....6&postcount=83
http://apolyton.net/forums/showpost....9&postcount=92

[Asher]

Yep, definitely drunken trolling.

[Thoth]

Yep, definitely drunken trolling.

Drunk posting. The reason why the internet was invented.