Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by zombie, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    I know I can't wait until we get our first bisexual, albino, Mexican, dwarf senator with a fetish for dressing in women's clothes. That's gonna be a big load off my mind and a big check on my checklist.
  2. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    I also find checklist candidates silly and it has nothing to do with my being straight, white, or male. Rather that making a big deal about it cheapens their accomplishment, as if they're so alien as to let their genetics affect how they'll vote. No, they'll vote in the same way any other congressperson would: by how much the lobbyists pay them.
  3. Juliet316 Streak for Colours Bonanza Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
  4. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Here's an actual article on it

    There is a part of me that would like to open the consideration that the Christian groups in the US backing/pushing this are basically supporting terrorism in the same way that any other group that gets involved with a terrorism in another country is (presuming the stories that they're playing a role in this happening are true). Creating a system to instill fear by, apparently, allowing for the killing of people just for being homosexual. Although I feel that's very much a knee-jerk response, but it seems very hard to separate the methods of killing people to scare them into different behavior.
  5. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    It's appalling that supporters of the Bill cite "protection of children" as one of the reasons for the law. This from a country which is notorious for child slavery and child labour.
  6. Obi-Zahn Kenobi Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 23, 1999
    star 7
  7. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Maybe that's how they're protecting children. See, homosexuals are seen as weak and inferior. They want their child laborerers and slaves strong.
  8. Narutakikun Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2012
    star 4
    I'm sorry, you must have mistaken this with one of those "other" forums around here.-Darth Boba
    Last edited by DarthBoba, Dec 9, 2012
  9. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
  10. Juliet316 Streak for Colours Bonanza Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
  11. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    The Supreme Court ruling wouldn't have any effect on Washington State's laws no matter which way it goes.

    Consider the "worst case" scenario for supporters of SSM: If Proposition 8 is upheld, it wouldn't make any difference in Washington, because it's a California-only amendment. The question there is whether the 14th Amendment prohibits states from defining marriage in the traditional manner (one man, one woman), but that isn't the same thing as saying that any other definition is invalid nationwide. It only says it is not required, not that it is forbidden. And if DOMA is completely upheld, then nothing changes from how it is today, because it is still currently in effect.
  12. Mr Jewjitsu Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2012
    Seriously, is homosexuality legal Afghanistan? Considering their cultural habits it would not suprise me.
  13. Mustafar_66 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2005
    star 5
    The same-sex marriage vote is nearly upon us in the UK. Hoping that it'll pass of course. Something good needs to come from David Cameron's term...
    Chewgumma likes this.
  14. Chewgumma Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 14, 2009
    star 7
    Last edited by Chewgumma, Dec 10, 2012
  15. Mustafar_66 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2005
    star 5
    Aye, getting it through the Lords will be a bloody nightmare. Is the Lib Dem and Labour vote whipped? I was under the impression it wasn't, but now seeing stuff on Twitter that indicates that it is.
  16. Chewgumma Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 14, 2009
    star 7
    I'm not sure. I wouldn't be surprised if the Lib Dem vote has been whipped, if only because they can claim the legalization of same sex marriages as a result of them being in the coalition, which would be a handy debate point in 2015. When it comes to Labour though I honestly have no idea.
    Last edited by Chewgumma, Dec 10, 2012
  17. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
  18. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I still think the grounds are there to blow DOMA out of the water. I could very well see a decision that allows the states to choose what they'll issues marriage licenses for, while at the same time getting rid of the federal decision to not recognize them or, more importantly imo, let states choose to ignore the marriages of other states.
  19. Juliet316 Streak for Colours Bonanza Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
  20. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Juliet316 likes this.
  21. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    If Republicans want small government, getting it out of people's personal lives is the appropriate venue to do so in.

    That's really all I have to say in regards to that.
  22. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Not necessarily. The SC approving of same-sex marriage bans and DOMA would set a precedent that other Federal courts would pretty much have to follow, and that far reduces the chances of challenges to such laws making it. And obviously they're rather unlikely to overrule themselves. See: Plessy v. Ferguson. The SC affirming Jim Crow and "separate but equal"-- the status quo at the time in many states-- helped stall nationwide de jure civil rights for 50 years. Of course, all three branches of the Federal government were complicit, and Jim Crow is not the same thing. I'm just saying that what the Supreme Court says is always important.
    Last edited by Darth Guy, Jan 2, 2013
  23. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Except it wouldn't change things from where they are now. States that already have same-sex marriage in effect won't lose it, and nothing will stop other states from implementing it through legislative means.

    All it would do is prevent lower courts from mandating same-sex marriage through reinterpreting the Constitution to require it. That's it.
  24. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    It would entrench the status quo. Many states with same-sex marriage bans have constitutional amendments, so that already ties the hands of the state courts. Some states are sure to follow with legislative and voter action in the coming years, but it will probably take decades for that to happen in every state, if ever. Action by the Supreme Court would expedite the process tremendously (yes, I know you would jump for joy if they decided to take that course).
    Last edited by Darth Guy, Jan 2, 2013
  25. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Russia seems to be taking steps backward...