Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 35

Author Topic: LGBT  (Read 56760 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: Prop 8
« Reply #420 on: December 21, 2010, 11:00:58 AM »

And anyway, aren't marines supposed to endure hardships far worse than The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name?
Logged

McDohl

  • Pika-boo
  • Tested
  • Karma: 27
  • Posts: 4379
    • View Profile
Re: Prop 8
« Reply #421 on: December 21, 2010, 01:23:00 PM »

While members won't be all like "Yep, I'm out" the second a LGBT serviceman/woman sets foot in the command, those homophobes who were on the fence about reenlisting won't.
Logged

JDigital

  • Tested
  • Karma: 32
  • Posts: 2786
    • View Profile
Re: Prop 8
« Reply #422 on: December 21, 2010, 02:27:15 PM »

Every US military person I've spoken to has no problem serving alongside gays, but I can't say it's a representative sample.
Logged

McDohl

  • Pika-boo
  • Tested
  • Karma: 27
  • Posts: 4379
    • View Profile
Re: Prop 8
« Reply #423 on: December 21, 2010, 02:55:08 PM »

It was a broad thing in my command in the Navy.  Some were giant, burning homophobes, and some were totally cool with it.
Logged

TA

  • Tested
  • Karma: 29
  • Posts: 3219
    • View Profile
Re: Prop 8
« Reply #424 on: December 21, 2010, 03:28:24 PM »

While members won't be all like "Yep, I'm out" the second a LGBT serviceman/woman sets foot in the command, those homophobes who were on the fence about reenlisting won't.

Well, let's be fair.  There's gonna be a lot of homophobes that would be "Yep, I'm out" if they could, but desertion is still a crime*, so they can't.

*unless you find a senator to lie on your behalf



THAD EDIT for 4-point text.  Don't do that.
Logged
Do you understand how terrifying the words “vibrating strap on” are for an asexual? That’s like saying “the holocaust” to a Jew.

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Prop 8
« Reply #425 on: December 21, 2010, 03:47:55 PM »

So basically, all the intolerants - who never should have been given arms in the first place - will peacefully remove themselves from the service.

Is there something we can do to make sure this happens?
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Prop 8
« Reply #426 on: December 21, 2010, 08:46:34 PM »

It's okay, they can always join militias instead.  :oh:
Logged

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: LGBT
« Reply #427 on: December 21, 2010, 08:54:19 PM »

Hey, new thread title.
Logged

Royal☭

  • Supreme Court Judge President
  • Tested
  • Karma: 88
  • Posts: 6301
    • View Profile
Re: LGBT
« Reply #428 on: December 22, 2010, 09:55:40 AM »

Obama says DOMA must go...

...while simultaneously giving himself an "As long as I don't have to do it" out.

It's good that the man is at least saying the law is bad, which is a marked change from his support of it and call for civil unions during the campaign.  This is an issue where Obama actually seems to be moving more to the left.

In an ideal world, the government wouldn't recognize marriage at all, just civil unions.  Which would basically be defined as the union between any number of consenting adults.  Marriage would simply be a ceremony performed by those who want it for those who want it, but at the end of the day you'd still need to get a civil union to get benefits under the state.

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: LGBT
« Reply #429 on: December 22, 2010, 10:41:36 AM »

I like that he also would prefer to do it legislatively.

I know that's not the best from an "ends justify the means" sort of view and it seems bad at first, but here in Canada when the Supreme Court ruled that marriage could be same-sex, they refused to overturn the definition out of hand, instead referring the matter to Parliament for resolution on the basis that any new law allowing same-sex legislation would carry infinitely more weight if it had actually been introduced and debated in parliament instead of imposed in a way that would leave them open to claims of judicial activism. As cockeyed as it seems, it's the right decision for the Justice department to continue defending the act until it's struck down.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: LGBT
« Reply #430 on: December 22, 2010, 09:15:03 PM »

My spirituality manifests itself in odd ways.

For example, I am actually offended by the idea of marriage as a legal state.  Marriage is essentially a religious rite of passage, and as such should not be touched by the laws of man.  If the government ever tried to tell somebody whether or not they were "legally" baptised, shitfits would rightfully be thrown.

Of course whenever I bring that up in any context it is interpreted as an opinion regarding homosexuals, which really has jack shit to do with this.
Logged

Bal

  • Cheerful in the face of nuclear armageddon
  • Tested
  • Karma: 62
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
Re: LGBT
« Reply #431 on: December 22, 2010, 09:38:10 PM »

It strikes me as odd that I'm against polygamy but not against polyamory. This is probably because I live in Arizona and know too much about Mormons.
Logged

Catloaf

  • Tested
  • Karma: 14
  • Posts: 1740
    • View Profile
Re: LGBT
« Reply #432 on: December 23, 2010, 08:57:47 AM »

For example, I am actually offended by the idea of marriage as a legal state.

As am I, but I also feel that it's an outdated institution that only serves as nostalgia for the days when women were property.  That said, there is no reason why any two consenting adults should be barred from it.  Unfortunately, I can't think of how to deal with a hypothetical rise in incest caused by the destruction of the legal institution of marriage.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: LGBT
« Reply #433 on: December 23, 2010, 09:21:15 AM »

As am I, but I also feel that it's an outdated institution that only serves as nostalgia for the days when women were property.

Aye.  When people talk about "traditional marriage, like in the Bible" I'm always quick to respond that yes, marriage should be defined as being between one man, his two cousins, and their slaves.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: LGBT
« Reply #434 on: December 23, 2010, 09:22:12 AM »

Well, the purely mathematical government perspective says that you want to have [X] rate of population replacement through native births (the desired rate can of course vary greatly, based on circumstances). From the government's point of view, a formalized arrangement whereby two people agree to a contract where they will generate offspring and care for said offspring gives the government a basis for recognizing such agreements and providing incentives to encourage the desired rate of [X].
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: LGBT
« Reply #435 on: December 23, 2010, 09:26:02 AM »

Which is swell and all, but I don't know of any state that defines marriage as an agreement to produce and care for offspring.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: LGBT
« Reply #436 on: December 23, 2010, 09:55:13 AM »

In know that what I posted is not what actually happens. Marriage does not guarantee offspring in and of itself (though it is strongly implied).

I was just pointing out that an official, formalized marriage can and does serve a blandly functional purpose to the modern state and that there are sound reasons that marriage is not a purely spiritual matter.

Of course history and accreted weight of tradition mean that in practice the spiritual angle and the functional angle are sort of haphazardly kludged together into a beast that serves neither completely. But what can ya do.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: LGBT
« Reply #437 on: December 23, 2010, 10:04:10 AM »

I don't really think most places have a problem with population growth, though, is the thing.
Logged

Detonator

  • You made me come back for THIS?
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: 42
  • Posts: 3040
    • View Profile
Re: LGBT
« Reply #438 on: December 23, 2010, 10:33:17 AM »

Unfortunately, I can't think of how to deal with a hypothetical rise in incest caused by the destruction of the legal institution of marriage.

I don't think incest is legal whether the participants are married or not.
Logged
"Imagine punching somebody so hard that they turned into a door. Then you found out that's where ALL doors come from, and you got initiated into a murder club that makes doors. The stronger you punch, the better the door. So there are like super strong murderers who punch people into Venetian doors and shit"

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: LGBT
« Reply #439 on: December 23, 2010, 10:40:37 AM »

Okay, I'm assuming you mean "most places don't have a problem with insufficient population growth", given my post above. So the reply below is on that basis:

The US doesn't. But most Western nations and some developing nations have crashing birthrates. Some countries like Canada fully supplement the losses through immigration; others don't. Some are fine with that and others try desperately to encourage native births.

I'm not going to speak of the cultural implications here, just that it's rarely in a nation-state's interests to have a declining population (sure, it may be better for the world in the long run - I think we all agree there - but I'm talking about the desires of national governments, not what's responsible or good for the planet).

More relevantly, population growth has been something that governments have almost always tried to encourage, historically. Even now, world economies are still largely based on growth tied to population growth.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 35