Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion
Gay The latest in CA - the Prop 8 debacle

Generic Raci-
st

Avatar: 113010 Sat Mar 28 01:20:15 -0400 2009
1

Level 35 Troll

i'm a dirty fine upstanding member of society myself lulz

I’ll i am saying is that people can govern themselves better than big government. It’s tiring to see my generation abandon democracy in favor of socialism because some minority wants money from the government and/or feels like they aren’t accepted and loved and celebrated by everyone. Besides if the proposition is illegal the court system will overturn it anyway.

Sergeant Cid

MODERATOR
Avatar: 167814 2011-07-31 00:46:27 -0400

[The Airship]

Level 35 Re-Re

Scientifically Proven Terrible fabulous person..... Evidence shows mbumive build up of semen deposit in bum.

Crap, that’s a lot of pages to read. I’m going to try to condense this down (surprising coming from me, I know)

1. All legal joinings between two people that want to live together, be each other’s legal partner, etc., should be called civil unions in the eyes of the government. The word marriage shouldn’t even be in the language of any legal dogreat timesent, whether the couple is gay or straight. I.E. the secular term should be ‘civil union’, period.

2. As far as the word marriage, that’s up to each individual church and faith. Whether or not a church recognizes a particular civil union as a ‘marriage’ is up to them, and has no bearing on the secular, legal world.

3. If state’s retain the right to decide whether or not to allow same-sex marriage, then that’s a separate issue from whether or not the retain the right to choose not to recognize a legal civil union conducted in another state. All other types of legal dogreat timesents and contracts are recognized & honored in states outside of the originating state. This is no different.

4. The idea that marriage/civil union should have any other ‘requirements’ that “two consenting adults” is preposterous.

    Propagation is irrelevant to a marriage/civil union. There are hetereosexual couples that are naturally or artificially infertile, and they are allowed to marry. And we have children born outside of ‘wedlock’ every day.


    Religion is irrelevant to a marriage/civil union. No one is required to be a member of any specific religion, or even of any religion whatsoever, to enter into a marriage/civil union


    Fetishes are irrelevant to a marriage/civil union. First of, fetishes are not an excluding factor when it comes to a marriage/civil union. You are not required to list any of your fetishes on any legal dogreat timesents related to marriage.civil union. Secondly, fetishes are not automatically illegal activities. Being an active furry is way different form being an active pedophile. One is simply a personal sexual quirk, the other is illegal behavior that abuses a child. Third, an pedophile can legally marry, even if they’ve been convicted of molesting a child. Or even if they haven’t been convicted, they could still marry another consenting adult, and ‘roleplay’ out the fantasy in private. Because even if you and I find it ‘weird’, it’s still occurring between two consenting adults. Therefore, the comparison of fetishes to criminal behavior to homosexuality is simply a bigoted response. They have nothing to do with one another, and even if they did, it’s still not a justification to disallow gay marriages/civil unions.

This boils down to a ‘comfort level’. Another couple’s gay marriage/civil union has absolutely no bearing on your personal or professional life. And someone’s ‘discomfort’ is not enough to justify separating a group from their common civil rights.

(Edit: Crap, this is my condensed version?)

Sergeant Cid edited this message on 06/03/2009 7:57AM

Samildanach

Avatar: 143751 Tue May 19 21:18:21 -0400 2009
11

Level 34 Hacker

“43 4f 44 45 20 4d 41 53 54 45 52”

Generic Racist Posted:

I’ll i am saying is that people can govern themselves better than big government.

Except this isn’t about big government. It’s about human dignity, and whether two people who love each other should be able to build a life together without suffering prejudice and scorn. It’s about whether couples that could get married in one location can also get married if they move to another place in the same country.

It took federal action to end slavery and segregation. It sometimes takes big government to tell the people “Hey, you can’t do that to the minority. Our country was founded to protect what was, at the time, a minority – Americans.”

I’m gonna steal a quote from my iconsake for the purpose of illustrating how plebiscites work, and why they suck. Feel free to replace “voting” with “Prop 8” for best effect:

Spider Jerusalem Posted:

You want to know about voting. I’m here to tell you about voting.

Imagine you’re locked in a huge underground nightclub filled with sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that enjoy pit bulls for fun.

And you ain’t allowed out until all vote on what you’re going to do tonight.

YOU like to put your feet up and watch “Republican Party Reservation.”

THEY like to have sex with normal people using knives, guns, and brand-new sexual organs that you did not know existed.

So you vote for television, and everyone else, as far as your eye can see, votes to **** you with switchblades.

That’s voting.

You’re welcome.

Generic Racist Posted:

It’s tiring to see my generation abandon democracy in favor of socialism because some minority wants money from the government and/or feels like they aren’t accepted and loved and celebrated by everyone.

This is what privileged clbumes actually believe. This is also about the biggest facepalm in the history of facepalms. They don’t want “more money from the government”, and while they certainly want, and deserve, to be accepted by everyone since they are, y’know, human beings with the inherent dignity that should provide, everyone is well aware they can’t force people to “love” or “celebrate” them anymore than they can be forced to “celebrate” homophobic morons. Further, socialism and democracy are not incompatible. The two systems do not exist on the same spectrum, and it’s laughable to watch Republican pundits treat them as though they did.

Also, we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic, specifically because the framers of the Constitution realized that The People, while they were magnificent, were also generally dangerous and uneducated, and not necessarily able to think of what is to their best benefit – like, say, supporting equal rights for the minority, or remembering that they once were one.

Generic Racist Posted:

Besides if the proposition is illegal the court system will overturn it anyway.

Sadly, in Cali, it’s not “illegal”. The people can amend their constitution through a plebiscite, legally. It’s reprehensible, and an annoying step backward that can’t be corrected till 2010 and probably won’t be corrected for another couple years, it turns gay marriage in a football that will get kicked around every 2 years for a good long while. But it’s not illegal.

Still, Prop 8 based with the barest majority, at a time when even the Democrats were mobilizing traditionally homophobic voters. It pbumed with less of a majority than the previous equivalent referendum in California. The number of homophobes is decreasing.

And that’s why people say gay marriage is inevitable. Not because anyone is going to “force it” on anyone, but simply because with every year that goes by, more and more people come of voting age having grown up in an increasingly reasonable world where gay people are recognized as people, and when they vote, they will vote to treat gay people like people. It is inevitable because majority support of equal rights for homosexuals is inevitable.

Keakealani

Avatar: 183276 Sun May 31 19:53:42 -0400 2009

Level 35 Emo Kid

“Cutty Cutterson”

Wow, I don’t check for a couple of days, and this thread explodes! I’m glad… it was nice to read this debate, even if I disagree with a couple of the points made.

One little thing I want to address is in regards to Cid’s post – you argue, if I am reading correctly, for the “nobody gets married in the legal sense” POV, right? But you say that religious groups can then call it marriage – however, I would argue that this still removes the right of every individual to call his or her union a marriage; something like 16% of the country does not identify with any organized religion, and I daresay there is at least one person in that group who would like to call his or her union a marriage. So are we saying that only religious people are allowed to get “married”? Even if the law doesn’t call it marriage, we’re saying that there are still separate rules about how things should be called in parlance, and as has been explained earlier, parlance is very powerful. Even if in an ideal world we think “marriage” and “civil union” and everything else should be the same, the nuance is different and you can’t legislate the way people view certain words.

Otherwise, I guess most of what I’ve wanted to say has been said, probably more eloquently than if I’d responded, anyway. I used to be a big proponent of the “nobody gets married in the legal sense” compromise, but as time goes by it’s more and more clear that separate is not equal, and it really can’t be.

Thank you all for making my first thread reasonably successful and more or less troll-free ^_^

Generic Raci-
st

Avatar: 113010 Sat Mar 28 01:20:15 -0400 2009
1

Level 35 Troll

i'm a dirty fine upstanding member of society myself lulz

Samildanach Posted:

Except this isn’t about big government. It’s about human dignity, and whether two people who love each other should be able to build a life together without suffering prejudice and scorn. It’s about whether couples that could get married in one location can also get married if they move to another place in the same country.

It took federal action to end slavery and segregation. It sometimes takes big government to tell the people “Hey, you can’t do that to the minority. Our country was founded to protect what was, at the time, a minority – Americans.” Ending slavery was not a good idea by the government. Other places abolished without having to be told to. We would have eventually too. Sure it would have took longer, but it would be better in the long run because people would actually WANT it to happen instead of it being forced upon them by dangerous people like you who think they are so much smarter than everyone else and are the only ones who are right. Ending slavery created segregation out the frustration of people having no say in the matter. That’s why you never hear about segregation in places like Brittan. It has nothing to do southerners are more evil, or bigoted, or stupid than britts.

I’m gonna steal a quote from my iconsake for the purpose of illustrating how plebiscites work, and why they suck. Feel free to replace “voting” with “Prop 8” for best effect:

Also, we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic, specifically because the framers of the Constitution realized that The People, while they were magnificent, were also generally dangerous and uneducated, and not necessarily able to think of what is to their best benefit – like, say, supporting equal rights for the minority, or remembering that they once were one.

Are you kidding me? So I guess we need an anointed King to lead the the ignorant, uneducated mbum to glory. Do you seriously think that people are unable to think for themselves and govern themselves? Why don’t you move a country with a dictatorship, since you think that you and everyone else is too stupid and evil to make laws THAT THEY WANT TO LIVE BY. People don’t just take actions with no reason. Going through life thinking people are inherently evil and stupid is sad way to live

Keakealani

Avatar: 183276 Sun May 31 19:53:42 -0400 2009

Level 35 Emo Kid

“Cutty Cutterson”

Generic Racist Posted:

Are you kidding me? So I guess we need an anointed King to lead the the ignorant, uneducated mbum to glory. Do you seriously think that people are unable to think for themselves and govern themselves? Why don’t you move a country with a dictatorship, since you think that you and everyone else is too stupid and evil to make laws THAT THEY WANT TO LIVE BY. People don’t just take actions with no reason. Going through life thinking people are inherently evil and stupid is sad way to live

This is not a black and white issue. It is not a matter of either having an unfettered laissez-faire democracy or a dictatorship. The government espoused by the founding fathers is a representative republic, and believing that our country is an absolute democracy is misguided at best.

A dictatorship or monarchy is incomparable to a republic because the dictator or monarch is not elected by the people. The reason we elect our representatives is because we believe that they will use their best judgement to legislate based on the will of the people but also the betterment of the nation. Sometimes those two goals are somewhat contradictory; but in general the two can be reconciled in such a way that it most directly benefits both options. We could not have a functioning system if we abolished the representative system so fundamental for our democracy. If we had no president, who would be the commander-in-chief in a time of war? Surely we shouldn’t have to vote on every military move American troops make – not only would that be painfully slow (probably fatally slow, in fact), but the majority of Americans really have no idea what the best strategic move would be in any given situation. We clearly need people to be our leaders so that we don’t have to put everything to a vote which might end up causing catastrophe in the country.

Samildanach

Avatar: 143751 Tue May 19 21:18:21 -0400 2009
11

Level 34 Hacker

“43 4f 44 45 20 4d 41 53 54 45 52”

Generic Racist Posted:

Are you kidding me? So I guess we need an anointed King to lead the the ignorant, uneducated mbum to glory. Do you seriously think that people are unable to think for themselves and govern themselves? Why don’t you move a country with a dictatorship, since you think that you and everyone else is too stupid and evil to make laws THAT THEY WANT TO LIVE BY. People don’t just take actions with no reason. Going through life thinking people are inherently evil and stupid is sad way to live

Now I have to ask if you’re kidding me. You think it would have been better to leave human beings as ****ing property for a few more decades because some backwards ****s were making too much money off of their blood and sweat to ever let them go? You think basic human rights should wait until the privileged clbumes somehow magically evolve into a better recognition of other people’s humanity? You want to pretend that there would have been anywhere near the amount of progress we’ve made, more or less “better” progress, if people hadn’t been up and active to force the issue? You’re comfortable with people living entirely different lives based on where they were born, or to where they were abducted?

I don’t give a **** how you justify the rest of your bull**** ideology, the fact that you actually think allowing human misery to continue until the white voters were “comfortable” with the idea of treating Africans as people means that I have no reason to bother talking to you. The fact that you think the nation could have really survived with someone being acknowledged as a person ten feet over one side of an imaginary line and regarded as a piece of ****ing farm equipment ten feet the other way means that I can safely include you among the list of people I wouldn’t trust to govern themselves.

Generic Raci-
st

Avatar: 113010 Sat Mar 28 01:20:15 -0400 2009
1

Level 35 Troll

i'm a dirty fine upstanding member of society myself lulz

Samildanach Posted:

Now I have to ask if you’re kidding me. You think it would have been better to leave human beings as ****ing property for a few more decades because some backwards ****s were making too much money off of their blood and sweat to ever let them go? You think basic human rights should wait until the privileged clbumes somehow magically evolve into a better recognition of other people’s humanity? You want to pretend that there would have been anywhere near the amount of progress we’ve made, more or less “better” progress, if people hadn’t been up and active to force the issue? You’re comfortable with people living entirely different lives based on where they were born, or to where they were abducted?

I don’t give a **** how you justify the rest of your bull**** ideology, the fact that you actually think allowing human misery to continue until the white voters were “comfortable” with the idea of treating Africans as people means that I have no reason to bother talking to you. The fact that you think the nation could have really survived with someone being acknowledged as a person ten feet over one side of an imaginary line and regarded as a piece of ****ing farm equipment ten feet the other way means that I can safely include you among the list of people I wouldn’t trust to govern themselves.

You think in terms of today. Yes it would be an outrage if their were slaves today and they would be immediately free and set equal. But at the time people thought different. And it wasn’t because they were evil. Something considered good by society today may be evil in 100 years. You only think in terms of right and wrong AS YOU KNOW IT. Slavery was on the way out when it was abolished and most historians agree that it would have been over in a few years. Yet the government’s interference in the matter caused blacks to endure another 50 years of jim crow laws. Do you think Abraham Lincoln was a evil man?

”I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position bumigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

That sounds pretty bad to me. I guess you are better person than he was.

Generic Raci-
st

Avatar: 113010 Sat Mar 28 01:20:15 -0400 2009
1

Level 35 Troll

i'm a dirty fine upstanding member of society myself lulz

Keakealani Posted:

This is not a black and white issue. It is not a matter of either having an unfettered laissez-faire democracy or a dictatorship. The government espoused by the founding fathers is a representative republic, and believing that our country is an absolute democracy is misguided at best.

A dictatorship or monarchy is incomparable to a republic because the dictator or monarch is not elected by the people. The reason we elect our representatives is because we believe that they will use their best judgement to legislate based on the will of the people but also the betterment of the nation. Sometimes those two goals are somewhat contradictory; but in general the two can be reconciled in such a way that it most directly benefits both options. We could not have a functioning system if we abolished the representative system so fundamental for our democracy. If we had no president, who would be the commander-in-chief in a time of war? Surely we shouldn’t have to vote on every military move American troops make – not only would that be painfully slow (probably fatally slow, in fact), but the majority of Americans really have no idea what the best strategic move would be in any given situation. We clearly need people to be our leaders so that we don’t have to put everything to a vote which might end up causing catastrophe in the country.

Well said. Nothing is a black and white issue. And while I do believe in limiting government power I am aware that a pure democracy would never work in the real world.

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

Generic Racist, what if the majority voted to kill an innocent for fun? Would that be okay? What about an asinine rule that people should wear red shirts on Thursdays or face a fine? A majority’s power continues up to where it infringes on the rights of the minority. You argue that marriage is given by government and not a fundamental right, but I argue that the ability to marry someone you love is a question of human dignity and should be protected. It’s question of equality.

I remind you to look at Bleeding Kansas for an example of historical popular sovereignty fail.

Bill_Murray_-
Fan_7383

Avatar: 7241 2011-07-31 00:42:33 -0400
9

[i have a thirteen inch male reproductive organ click for proof]

Level 35 Camwhore

Oh whoops, I dropped my monster condom that I use for my magnum dong

Generic Racist Posted:

All i am saying is that people can govern themselves better than big government.

Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!