Let's relax and calmly discuss homophobic people...

I suspect that part of the reason for Ireland holding a referendum on this matter is that the Catholic church would have raised an almighty ruckus if the government had just legalised gay marriage by itself. This way, the church has to shut up and accept that most people now think differently. I don't think it was intended to be a "lead by example" kind of thing.

I actually agree that an unelected judiciary is usually the best set of people to decide what is just. I think a good governmental system strikes a balance between elected and appointed power. If it's done well, you get the benefits of accountability from a constantly changing and evolving body of representatives, while the appointed members can step back from partisan politics and act on strictly ethical and moral principles. It's tricky to get right though - if done badly the unelected fall prey to corruption and the elected resort to pure populism. The US goes too far in the elected direction in my opinion - two elected houses, plus an elected judiciary. There aren't many opportunities for people to act on principle without being punished for it at the following election.

 

What's next? People marrying animals?

 

I hear Jojobobo has a fiancée. So, yes.

 

If I choose to shave an ape, pay for laser hair removal, pay for lip tattoos to give her a human looking mouth, forge a passport and birth certificate for her, buy her breast implants, make her a Facebook account and acquire over 150 friends on it, teach her sign-language so she has a way of communicating, give her contact lenses so she has human looking eyes, buy her designer lingerie and dresses, and forge a long-standing emotional bond with her that far surpasses anything I could feel for a human woman - then who are you to judge Smuel?

I swear, you're the worst kind of bigot. She's more of a human than you'll ever be.

 

Actually I was trying to imply that she was the person who was marrying an animal. But I guess now we know your true feelings towards your fiancée.

 

I like to think I have the literary capacity of at least a 5th grader, comparing my writing to a monkey or perhaps some sort of insightful parrot is cruel.

 

nah

 

Fuck that quote in your signature makes me laugh every time Wayne.

 

Look man, if you're going to discuss shit like this and then start pulling out strawman arguments like making a point of something obviously indefensible like "Japes is for marital rape" you aren't being constructive. All it does is make me want to avoid reading anything you post in this thread because it has no value.

Isn't that the whole point of government?

I want to dump toxic waste into the river because it makes manufacturing my products cheaper, so fuck everyone else. I want my neighbor's house and dog and car so I'm going to murder him and just take it. I could come up with more but you get the idea.

Laws and government exist to provide varying solutions to these problems. They exist because if people did and got what they wanted all the time it would be fucking chaos. Even the most staunch conservative wouldn't be able to admit that there should be NO government.

For the record, I'm against gay marriage for the same reasons I'm against marriage as a government-recognized entity at all. However, this is like, bottom 20% of issues I care about. We've got MUCH bigger problems to worry about than this shit.

 

Double post because I'm too lazy to edit again:

I'd agree for sure that there are parallels, but it isn't quite the same. Black people in the USA couldn't attend the same schools, were openly discriminated against in jobs and other areas, etc. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly made illegal this sort of nonsense. Today you can't (openly) discriminate against this sort of crap.

Nobody is saying homosexuals aren't discriminated against, but I have a hard time buying this "it's the new civil rights movement" stuff. Gays aren't going to separate schools or being made to give up their seats to breeders on the bus.

 

I'm not trying to say it's discrimination to the same degree; that's why all I did was compare marriage. On that basis it's an arguably similar situation. But - people are being beaten, sometimes to death, for their orientation; people have been fired for their orientation; there are colleges and high schools that banned homosexual behavior on religious grounds (similarly to how interracial relationships were banned in some of the same schools); and marriage happens to be a civil right possessed of all people. This leads me to think that yes, this is a civil rights movement.

 

Let's play What's The Difference!

- There's nothing in the constitution about marriage, so it's wrong to say "Marital rape is unconstitutional".
- There's nothing in the constitution about marriage, so it's wrong to say "Stopping gays from marrying each other is unconstitutional".

What's the difference?

- Nobody is saying blacks aren't discriminated against, but they aren't slaves any more, so what's the big deal about making them go to separate schools?
- Nobody is saying gays aren't discriminated against, but they aren't being made to go to separate schools, so what's the big deal about stopping them from marrying each other?

What's the difference?

Yeah, but the majority of people don't want you to do those things, so the government enforces the will of the majority. Minority rights only exist because the majority decides to give them those rights, whether directly (e.g. Ireland's recent referendum) or indirectly (e.g. by electing Presidents who nominate Supreme Court Justices who decide that gay marriage should be legalised). The right that would allow the minority consisting of "Philes" to freely pollute a river or kill his neighbour has not been granted by the majority.

 

I love this game!

Here's the part where I say "Ladies, please, stop fighting. You're both pretty!"

I agree with the gist of your point, Smuel, but you implied that Japes supports marital rape - on the grounds of his disagreeing that marriage is a constitutional right, considering no mention of "marriage" appearing in the document. They're clearly not the same thing, despite both being under the umbrella of things not written in the constitution. There are dozens of things not mentioned in the constitution - does this mean someone who dislikes the use of paper money is also in support of marital rape? Dollar bills aren't mentioned once in the constitution, so I'm going to need the Justices to guide me on this one.

 

Are you fucking kidding me? Get a brain and learn to read with it

 

Guys, I think I found the one thing in this thread we can all agree on.

 

I had a dream about a wedding last night. There were several couples at an outdoor venue, getting married one at a time. At some point, my buddy who was standing next to me leaned over and asked if I was ready. I was like, "Um, am I getting married?" and he was like, "Yeah, to Sarah, remember?" and pointed to this girl I used to have the hots for. She was wearing a dress and smiling at me. I hustled over to her and asked, "Are we getting married?" and she said, "Of course! Are you ready? We're up next." At this point I'm thinking to myself, "Ho. Lee. Shit. Why didn't I know I was getting married? Tuh-day! I'm not even dressed for it." I spent the next segment of the dream digging through closets, frantically trying to find something to wear. Then the thought occurred to me, "Why is Sarah marrying me? She wouldn't even go on a date with me." The jarring logic was enough to dislodge me from the dream.

I should mention, Sarah recently invited me to her actual wedding. The part of Distressed Groom will be played by another, more qualified, gentleman.

 

Hey! My home town made one of Grossenschwamm's lists!

I am skeptical that not unlike a crude AI the government has redefined its intended purpose.

This rings rather dismissive to me because I read it as being obvious that marriage shouldn't be limited to a male and a female. There is history and precedent that shapes people's expectations. When I was a child in the 1980s, had somebody suggested to me that I marry my male kindergarten classmate, I would have laughed at the suggestion and described it as "silly." I don't know how much the times have changed, but I assume a child now would react similarly.

This blows my mind. I suppose if your parents hadn't exposed you to the connection in your formative years, you'd have a suitable resistance to the onslaught of media that entwines the two. I would have assumed that it is universally accepted that marriage is first a personal bond and second a civil bond (and zeroth, a loving bond).

You're beginning to sound like a crude AI...

 

Geez, why is everyone on my case about this? It's not my fault that Japes supports marital rape.

Nah, but seriously, I was merely pointing out that to be consistent, he ought to hold the position that marital rape is unconstitutional. I actually assume he doesn't support marital rape, and was hoping to engage with him about how he resolves the inconsistency in his views. Seems he'd rather talk about his crazy dreams though. Actually, I'm fine with that too. Last night I had a dream that my penis got removed, and I was walking around holding it, much as one might hold a dildo, thinking how annoying it was that I'd have to get surgery to re-attach it. Like, so annoying. I'd have to go to the doctor and make all these appointments, and, I've got better things to do with my time, you know? Then I woke up, realised it was a dream, and thought "Oh great, I don't have to bother with all that surgery stuff after all." Then I went back to sleep. It was only later in the morning when I remembered, and was like "Wait... I dreamed my penis got removed. WHAT THE FUCK?"

I guess it serves me right for bringing the subject of rape into an internet discussion.