Gays can get married in Iowa!

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2007-09-06 09:45pm

Adrian Laguna wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Ender wrote:a bathroom is a public building, but marriage is a private religious ceremony that is accompanied by a legal notice.
Wrong. It is a legal contract that is sometimes commemorated by a religious ceremony. It is pure bullshit historical revisionism to claim that marriage has always been a religious ceremony.
Some countries don't even recognize religious marriages, even if you have the license. Doesn't matter if the Pope himself married you, your marriage ain't legal until an official of the government seals the deal.

Which is also true of the US. Though the certifying official is often (not always or most often even but just often) religious the real point is that you must have the signed document by a certified official of the state (who usually has to keep records themselves of which marriages they have performed). Without that certificate and the seal of the county in which the marriage was performed NO financial or governmental institution will recognize the marriage. So if you get married by schmucky the pastor in west bumfuck kentucky without a west bumfuck county license then you are not married.

Invictus ChiKen · Post by **Invictus ChiKen** » 2007-09-07 05:13am

Ender wrote:Ok. Can you point me in the right direction so I can do some more research then? I was under the impression that every culture from the Aztecs to the Chinese empire involved the holy man/witchdoctor/priest in it's marriage and leadership ceremonies.

Well Islam for one. While there ARE laws and rulings governing the marriage (along with literally everything else. An if it doesn't see your local Scholar for a guideline to be issued to you). Marriage is considered a civil matter.

I also think this holds true for Buddhism...

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-09-07 06:40am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:These two breeders take it as their natural right to get married.

What a lovely prejorative you have for heterosexual people there, I mean it's not like many people on SDN are heterosexuals and support gay, lesbian, and transexual rights.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2007-09-07 07:21am

Ender wrote:Ok. Can you point me in the right direction so I can do some more research then? I was under the impression that every culture from the aztecs to the chinese empire involved the holy man/witchdoctor/priest in it's marriage and leadership ceremonies.

I was going to mention Islam, but since Invictus ChiKen beat me to it, weren't Greek marriages secular affairs? I mean, there's less religious significance to marriage when the gods themselves get married, and thus require someone to make it official.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2007-09-07 10:24am

General Schatten wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:These two breeders take it as their natural right to get married.
What a lovely prejorative you have for heterosexual people there, I mean it's not like many people on SDN are heterosexuals and support gay, lesbian, and transexual rights.
:roll:

Considering the kinds of shit homosexuals have to put up with I think he's entitled to a bit of venting in our general direction.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2007-09-07 10:39am

Drooling Iguana wrote:
General Schatten wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:These two breeders take it as their natural right to get married.
What a lovely prejorative you have for heterosexual people there, I mean it's not like many people on SDN are heterosexuals and support gay, lesbian, and transexual rights.

Considering the kinds of shit homosexuals have to put up with I think he's entitled to a bit of venting in our general direction.

What shit does he have to put up with here?

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2007-09-07 10:50am

Only yesterday Golan III got booted the moment he said "fag", Alyrium. I truly expect you're saying "Breeder" in a loving manner. Understandable in that case, since after all without us breeders people would go extinct

Breeding is important for society, which is why you can marry as many times as you want in my opinion, but I reserve special benefits only when the couple has children and as an incentive to have children. Which can include gays, of course, if they adopt or have a natural child or whatever.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2007-09-07 11:13am

Knife wrote:What shit does he have to put up with here?

I didn't say "here".

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-07 11:28am

I never thought of the term "breeder" as a particularly insulting term. I've bred twice, and I'm proud of it.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-09-07 11:50am

Drooling Iguana wrote:Considering the kinds of shit homosexuals have to put up with I think he's entitled to a bit of venting in our general direction.

Let's do a hypothetical and say instead of gays and heterosexuals, it was blacks denying whites rights, would it be okay for me to retort by calling them niggers? Or would you call me a racist? Cuz it seems to me you have a double standard.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-07 11:52am

General Schatten wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote:Considering the kinds of shit homosexuals have to put up with I think he's entitled to a bit of venting in our general direction.
Let's do a hypothetical and say instead of gays and heterosexuals, it was blacks denying whites rights, would it be okay for me to retort by calling them niggers? Or would you call me a racist? Cuz it seems to me you have a double standard.

What the fuck is it with members of the most powerful, privileged group in America feigning moral outrage over "double standards" that don't go in their favour? For years, we have treated whites calling blacks "niggers" differently than blacks calling whites "honkies" or "crackers", for the simple reason that when a bully kicks the weak kid, you react differently than when the weak kid kicks the bully. Is this really so hard to comprehend?

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-09-07 11:54am

Darth Wong wrote:What the fuck is it with members of the most powerful, privileged group in America feigning moral outrage over "double standards" that don't go in their favour? For years, we have treated whites calling blacks "niggers" differently than blacks calling whites "honkies" or "crackers", for the simple reason that when a bully kicks the weak kid, you react differently than when the weak kid kicks the bully. Is this really so hard to comprehend?

Except, and here's the thing, I'm all for everyone having the same priviledges as everyone else.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-07 11:56am

General Schatten wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:What the fuck is it with members of the most powerful, privileged group in America feigning moral outrage over "double standards" that don't go in their favour? For years, we have treated whites calling blacks "niggers" differently than blacks calling whites "honkies" or "crackers", for the simple reason that when a bully kicks the weak kid, you react differently than when the weak kid kicks the bully. Is this really so hard to comprehend?
Except, and here's the thing, I'm all for everyone having the same priviledges as everyone else.

Gee, that would be a wonderful sentiment if people actually started on a level playing field, wouldn't it? But since they don't, then your attitude merely helps preserve the status quo.

I can't believe anyone would be so asinine as to think that heterosexuals need to worry about persecution in America, and hence should be sensitive to slights lobbed against them by homosexuals. You sound like Bill O'Reilly, for fuck's sake.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-07 12:01pm

General Schatten wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:What the fuck is it with members of the most powerful, privileged group in America feigning moral outrage over "double standards" that don't go in their favour? For years, we have treated whites calling blacks "niggers" differently than blacks calling whites "honkies" or "crackers", for the simple reason that when a bully kicks the weak kid, you react differently than when the weak kid kicks the bully. Is this really so hard to comprehend?
Except, and here's the thing, I'm all for everyone having the same priviledges as everyone else.

If the greatest imposition put on you by society based on your race is that you can't use the word "nigger" in public, then you're way ahead of the fucking game.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-09-07 12:05pm

Darth Wong wrote:Gee, that would be a wonderful sentiment if people actually started on a level playing field, wouldn't it? But since they don't, then your attitude merely helps preserve the status quo.

I can't believe anyone would be so asinine as to think that heterosexuals need to worry about persecution in America, and hence should be sensitive to slights lobbed against them by homosexuals. You sound like Bill O'Reilly, for fuck's sake.

Ah, I see an Association Fallacy, how lovely, Wong. Except, I can't exactly remember arguing against a moral breakdown in America, the Liberal Left, I simply pointed out that it was wrong for Alyrium to use a prejorative against people he didn't know anything about.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-09-07 12:08pm

Flagg wrote:If the greatest imposition put on you by society based on your race is that you can't use the word "nigger" in public, then you're way ahead of the fucking game.

Ah, a Strawman, no, I'm saying that just as what Golan said was wrong, so was what Alyrium said wrong, there's really no difference except one is heterosexual and the other is homosexual.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-09-07 12:09pm

General Schatten wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Gee, that would be a wonderful sentiment if people actually started on a level playing field, wouldn't it? But since they don't, then your attitude merely helps preserve the status quo.

I can't believe anyone would be so asinine as to think that heterosexuals need to worry about persecution in America, and hence should be sensitive to slights lobbed against them by homosexuals. You sound like Bill O'Reilly, for fuck's sake.
Ah, I see an Association Fallacy, how lovely, Wong.

It's not a Guilt By Association Fallacy, you fucking moron. I explain the reasoning before that last sentence. Do you even know what a Guilt By Association fallacy is, fucktard?

Except, I can't exactly remember arguing against a moral breakdown in America, the Liberal Left, I simply pointed out that it was wrong for Alyrium to use a prejorative against people he didn't know anything about.

What you argued was that when the playing field is tilted severely in favour of one side, both sides should nevertheless be treated equally, or it wouldn't be fair. That is PRECISELY identical to the kind of logic Bill O'Reilly uses in order to stir up his "white Christian base" by telling them that they're being treated unfairly. Wake up and smell your bullshit.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-09-07 12:14pm

General Schatten wrote:
Flagg wrote:If the greatest imposition put on you by society based on your race is that you can't use the word "nigger" in public, then you're way ahead of the fucking game.
Ah, a Strawman, no, I'm saying that just as what Golan said was wrong, so was what Alyrium said wrong, there's really no difference except one is heterosexual and the other is homosexual.

Ah, a dipshit throwing the names of logical fallacies around as if it makes him any less of a dipshit. All things being equal, you're 100% correct. But all things are not equal, so you're full of shit. Are both wrong? Yeah, the same way running a stop sign at 2am when there is no other traffic and doing the same in the middle of rush hour are both wrong. But which is worse? Just because you're too fucking stupid to figure out the magical existance of "context" does not make you morally superior.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2007-09-07 01:05pm

Just so everyonhe knows, my use of the term "breeder" is low-neutral to semi-affectionate depending on the context. If I could put a voice tone to it, the above quoted use would be slight derision, while in other contexts it would be amused mirth (example: best friend relaying an amusing story in which he makes an ass of himself and calling him a silly breeder)

The term itself is not perjorative. Just like any other term, the context is what matters.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2007-09-07 01:13pm

General Schatten wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:These two breeders take it as their natural right to get married.
What a lovely prejorative you have for heterosexual people there, I mean it's not like many people on SDN are heterosexuals and support gay, lesbian, and transexual rights.

Was I refering to anyone on this board? No. I was not. I was refering to two individuals who unkinkingly take for granted rights that I lack. Chances are, were I to refer to anyone on this board as a breeder, the context and thus the intended meaning would change, potentially to affectionate.

To put a spin on this. No one bats an eye wqhen I refer to my fraternity brothers (every last one of whom is gay and our president is a tranny) as "the gays" When I was pledging, this took the form of derision in some context (like when other plans were interrupted or needed to be canceled due to fraternity related drudgery) or affectionate (such as when I introduced them to a straight friend of mine, I simply introduced them as "the gays" and let the individuals introduced themselves)