Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Su-tehp on June 26, 2003, 02:52:31 pm
-
I just wanted to get everyone's thoughts on this: The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) made a landmark ruling this morning that states cannot enact laws banning consensual gay sex. SCOTUS struck down a Texas state law that banned sodomy (i.e. same sex relations) on the grounds that it violates the Due Process clause and the right to privacy. The vote was 6-3, with Justices Scalia, Thomas and Chief Justice Renquist dissenting (of course).
If any of you are interested in reading the court's opinion, here's the link to the case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102&friend=washingtonpost
Being a lawyer myself, I think the court made the right analysis and agree with the ruling. To be more accurate, if I were sitting on the Supreme Court, I would have gone with O'Connor's opinion that this law violated the Equal Protection clause, rather than Due Process, but that's just me. Either way, I agree with the result.
Gay activists all over the country are celebrating. Of course, lots of conservatives around the country are hopping mad and *****ing about "the decay of our nation's morality" but, hey, when are they not? :D
What are your guys thoughts on this?
-
About time they learnt this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
-
Gay people are rejects who can't get girls. Period.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
IGay activists all over the country are celebrating. Of course, lots of conservatives around the country are hopping mad and *****ing about "the decay of our nation's morality" but, hey, when are they not? :D
of course and of course :)
My thoughts? well, that's cool for them. Never been any law like that in France ( against gay people I mean ), so it's kindda hard to tell to be honest.
But I suppose that in states like Texas, their life won't turn much simpler like that, just because of a law...
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
Gay people are rejects who can't get girls. Period.
what about the girls? aren't you then saying that lesbians are people who can't get girls?
-
Their ass, their choice. Let them make it.
I'm for the ruling, a similar one was just enacted in Canada..
edit: wow KT, didnt take you long to get that quote in your sig.:D :D
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
Gay people are rejects who can't get girls. Period.
Originally posted by Analazon
what about the girls? aren't you then saying that lesbians are people who can't get girls?
DragonClaw, lesbians by definition can always get girls. Otherwise, they wouldn't be lesbians. :p :D
-
And I've met a few gay guys who could turn any girl crazy w/o doing anything. That kindda pisses the straight guys around off, btw :doubt:
-
Damnit! I had the perfect Post count for this thread too :doubt:
In any event, woo hoo.
Uh, and yeah, I don't think people think of Lesbians when gays are mentioned because so many girls are bisexual these days, I don't think they're generally thought of as gay unless their Butch. And who can blame them? I know if I were a girl, I'd be bisexual ;)
Rictor: :D
-
Originally posted by Venom
And I've met a few gay guys who could turn any girl crazy w/o doing anything. That kindda pisses the straight guys around off, btw :doubt:
Yeah, Venom, we gotta figure out how they do that, then figure out a way to bottle it and sell it. I'm thinking we could make a fortune. :D
Anyway, to get back on topic, what do the rest of us Hard Lighters here think of this ruling?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Their ass, their choice.
I think that's the better choice for a sig.
-
It would seem to be the only proper decision to make... if you banned homosexuality then, in principle, it would be a very short step to (for example) banning interracial relationships.
-
Good for them. Its a silly law and I doubt it was enforced so it's not a huge victory really but good.
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Gay activists all over the country are celebrating.
Just as long as they don't go too crazy (http://www.theonion.com/onion3715/gay_pride_parade.html) with the celebrations.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It would seem to be the only proper decision to make... if you banned homosexuality then, in principle, it would be a very short step to (for example) banning interracial relationships.
:wtf:
-
Originally posted by Analazon
what about the girls? aren't you then saying that lesbians are people who can't get girls?
Where I live, gay means homosexual guys and lesbians means homosexual girls. For some reason, gay does not apply to girls here.
But anyway, if a person wants to be homosexual, I don't give a sh*t. Their choice. And its not like the government could enforce a law against homosexuals to any effectiveness.
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
But anyway, if a person wants to be homosexual, I don't give a sh*t. Their choice.
Yep, i really don't care.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Yeah, Venom, we gotta figure out how they do that, then figure out a way to bottle it and sell it. I'm thinking we could make a fortune. :D
I've thought about that, honestly, and I think I know the answer:
Girls always want what they can't get. Sad, but true :p
-
Originally posted by Venom
I've thought about that, honestly, and I think I know the answer:
Girls always want what they can't get. Sad, but true :p
They also tend not to feel threatened by gay guys either because they know for certain that they're not just after sex.
-
yeah, but that's not a reason for them to want to "get" them :p.
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
...But anyway, if a person wants to be homosexual, I don't give a sh*t. Their choice. And its not like the government could enforce a law against homosexuals to any effectiveness.
Well, the government of Texas did a good job of effectively enforcing that law here, otherwise, there wouldn't be a Supreme Court case about it. Duh... :blah:
-
On listening to the news tonight I heard that the law had been enforced recently. So now I'm even more glad it's gone.
Originally posted by 01010
They also tend not to feel threatened by gay guys either because they know for certain that they're not just after sex.
And then they go after them and try to turn them so they can have sex with them. And then get annoyed when they fail :lol:
-
Originally posted by karajorma
And then they go after them and try to turn them so they can have sex with them. And then get annoyed when they fail :lol:
Exactly. I'd do the same with lesbians but I don't know any.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Well, the government of Texas did a good job of effectively enforcing that law here, otherwise, there wouldn't be a Supreme Court case about it. Duh... :blah:
Yeah, well, all you know about is the number of people who got caught. But the number that got away with it is undoubtedly far higher. Think about it. How would you get caught? If the guy you were having sex with told on you? Then he'd get caught too. A sane person wouldn't do that. Only way is if a wife found out, some heterosexual-only fanatic saw you doing it, all rare cases. For a government to catch anywhere near 1% of the cases is almost impossible.
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
Yeah, well, all you know about is the number of people who got caught. But the number that got away with it is undoubtedly far higher. Think about it. How would you get caught? If the guy you were having sex with told on you? Then he'd get caught too. A sane person wouldn't do that. Only way is if a wife found out, some heterosexual-only fanatic saw you doing it, all rare cases. For a government to catch anywhere near 1% of the cases is almost impossible.
You mean, they don't just have sex in the gutter like I was taught?
-
Good for them. I do support gay rights. After all, isn't not allowing them to do things discrimination? Which is against our constitution?
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Damnit! I had the perfect Post count for this thread too :doubt:
I don't know what bothers me more, the fact that you realized this, or the fact that I got it. :nervous: :shaking: :ick
Originally posted by karajorma
Just as long as they don't go too crazy (http://www.theonion.com/onion3715/gay_pride_parade.html) with the celebrations.
[q]From the article:
...Los Angeles Gay And Lesbian And Bisexual And Transvestite And Transgender Alliance (LAGALABATATA)...[/q]
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
Yeah, well, all you know about is the number of people who got caught. But the number that got away with it is undoubtedly far higher. Think about it. How would you get caught? If the guy you were having sex with told on you? Then he'd get caught too. A sane person wouldn't do that. Only way is if a wife found out, some heterosexual-only fanatic saw you doing it, all rare cases. For a government to catch anywhere near 1% of the cases is almost impossible.
D-Claw, this anti-sodomy law was on the Texas books for over ten years, but was only rarely enforced. The reason this case came to court was because these two gay guys who were living together had a neighbor who made a fraudulent 911 call claiming that one of the gay guys was "screaming like crazy." So the police were responding to what they thought was a domestic disturbance. When the police burst through the door, they found the two guys enagaing in consensual sex. The police then decided to arrest these two men for violating the anti-sodomy law when they were there to stop a domestic disturbance.
And let's not forget there is a right of privacy in one's home, which is a fundamental constitutional right. Since this law violated the right to privacy, the court held it as unconstitutional.
The point isn't how rarely this law is enforced. Whether it's enforced a little bit or a lot is irrelevant because if it's unconstitutional, it's not supposed to be enforced at all.
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Damnit! I had the perfect Post count for this thread too :doubt:
Originally posted by Sandwich
I don't know what bothers me more, the fact that you realized this, or the fact that I got it. :nervous: :shaking: :ick
I'd ask Sandwich what KT meant, but I think the answer might either disgust me or embarass me, maybe both, so I'll refrain.:nervous:
-
subtract 3 from what it currently is. ;)
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
SCOTUS struck down a Texas state law
DAMMIT!
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
D-Claw, this anti-sodomy law was on the Texas books for over ten years, but was only rarely enforced. The reason this case came to court was because these two gay guys who were living together had a neighbor who made a fraudulent 911 call claiming that one of the gay guys was "screaming like crazy." So the police were responding to what they thought was a domestic disturbance. When the police burst through the door, they found the two guys enagaing in consensual sex. The police then decided to arrest these two men for violating the anti-sodomy law when they were there to stop a domestic disturbance.
And let's not forget there is a right of privacy in one's home, which is a fundamental constitutional right. Since this law violated the right to privacy, the court held it as unconstitutional.
The point isn't how rarely this law is enforced. Whether it's enforced a little bit or a lot is irrelevant because if it's unconstitutional, it's not supposed to be enforced at all.
Yes, but what you said was this law was enforced effectively in Texas. And what you just said proves the opposite.
It's all a conspiracy. :nervous:
:lol: People quoting me in their sigs :blah: Su-tehp, quoting yourself in your own sig is... how should I put this? Pathetic? :blah: And anyway I clarified that gay people meant guys to me.
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
Yes, but what you said was this law was enforced effectively in Texas. And what you just said proves the opposite.
What I said was that it was enforced rarely and it was enforced effectively in this one case because this case went all the way up to the Supreme Court. If this law hadn't been effectively enforced in this case, it would never had gotten that far. If it hadn't been effectively enforced, those two gay men would never have been arrested. So my statement is perfectly consistent.
And anyway, you said that the only way this law could be enforced was "if a wife found out, some heterosexual-only fanatic saw you doing it, all rare cases. For a government to catch anywhere near 1% of the cases is almost impossible." All I did was point that this case got started because of a disapproving neighbor who made a fraudulent 911 call, rather than the "wife finding out" like you stated.
Originally posted by DragonClaw
It's all a conspiracy. :nervous:
Scalia said something like that in his dissent today. He said that "today the Court has chosen sides in America's culture war."
Personally, I think Scalia has his head up his ass, but I've believed that for a long time and so have lots of other people in the legal profession. Meh. :blah:
Originally posted by DragonClaw
:lol: People quoting me in their sigs :blah: Su-tehp, quoting yourself in your own sig is... how should I put this? Pathetic? :blah:
It's my siggy, I can do what I want with it. :p :D
Originally posted by DragonClaw
And anyway I clarified that gay people meant guys to me.
Since you used the word "people" as a gender-neutral word that seems to apply to both gay men and gay women in the context of your statement, it's only natural that some of us would have gotten confused, DC, but no worries. We understand what you meant now.
But it still makes a cool quote. :)
-
Yeah well my opinion about effectiveness is different than yours, its no prob ;)
Wonder if I should quote myself... :drevil:
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
Wonder if I should quote myself... :drevil:
Hey, DragonClaw, since KT and I both quoted you, feel free to quote either of us. Turnabout is fair play, after all. :D
...But my suggestion is to quote KT, just to be safe... :nervous: :D
Other comments of today's ruling? :yes: or :no: ?
-
How's this? :D
-
Since I really dont wanna read like 50 pages of legal mumbo-jumbo, can you please summarize how the "nay" judges made their case? I mean, what possible reason could there be for not allowing gay maarriages, other than to adhere to old laws which are clearly outdated and discriminatory
Also, this topic seems to be generating sig quotes at an amazing rate, maybe its time I got one...nah
BTW, does the 6969 postcount have something to do with the "tip" of the numbers in a certain...ooh:wtf: :wtf:
edit: crap better change those smilies, otherwise certain implications will arise...crap, dont say arise....certain implications will come about...crap, dont say come...certain implications...will be...made...there, nice and safe:nervous: :nervous:
-
Something about "furthering the gay agenda" to make everyone else gay. Basically, conspiracy theory based on personal bigotries- sorta like ZOG with more pink.
-
yay for gays!
-
Is this a discussion thread or a sig thread?
I'm going to try to say this tactfully... although I believe a majority of the court made the wrong decision on this issue, I also believe that the ruling is "appropriate". The ruling merely "put on paper" what has become an established part of our society. It hasn't changed anything, really. Everyone knows where everyone else stands.
Incidentally, the courts often define indecency according to the community's acceptance or nonacceptance of it - both culturally and legally. The Supreme Court would not have ruled as it did if homosexuality were still taboo in the United States. The ruling merely reflects the moral standards of the nation.
-
Uh... whaaat? Eleven states specifically criminalize sodomy, and maybe two allow for legal gay marraige sort of right now. I wouldn't say this is exactly unnecessary, dude. Hell, when a major justice can say, with a straight face, that this is all part of a gay conspiracy to take over the world and make everyone a fag, and not get laughed out of office, it's far from following the public standard to legalize this ****.
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
How's this? :D
excellent :lol:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I mean, what possible reason could there be for not allowing gay maarriages, other than to adhere to old laws which are clearly outdated and discriminatory
Gay Marriage! I hate Gay marriage they definately should keep that banned.
Not that I have anything against gays but they definately shouldn't be allowed to get married.
Am I being right-wing? Nope. Should gays be allowed to get the tax and legal benifits of being married. Yep. Should they be allowed to call it marriage. Nope.
English is complicated enough as it is. If gays are allowed to "marry" then every time you use the word in a neutral context you'll have to qualify whether you're talking about 2 men, a man & a woman or two women.
Bah if gays and lesbians want it they can come up with their own bloody word for it (Actually make that two words, one for a gay marriage and one for a lesbian one). :)
-
Just a friendly reminder from the lurkers to make sure things stay under control in this thread.
Thanks! *returns to shadows*
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Gay Marriage! I hate Gay marriage they definately should keep that banned.
Not that I have anything against gays but they definately shouldn't be allowed to get married.
Am I being right-wing? Nope. Should gays be allowed to get the tax and legal benifits of being married. Yep. Should they be allowed to call it marriage. Nope.
English is complicated enough as it is. If gays are allowed to "marry" then every time you use the word in a neutral context you'll have to qualify whether you're talking about 2 men, a man & a woman or two women.
Bah if gays and lesbians want it they can come up with their own bloody word for it (Actually make that two words, one for a gay marriage and one for a lesbian one). :)
just because of a word mixup?
:lol:
-
Makes sense to me. We should also have one that's specific to coffee drinkers only. You know, 'cos maybe the ceremony's done a little faster.
-
Originally posted by Venom
just because of a word mixup?
:lol:
[falsetto] What about the language! Won't someone think of the language! [/falsetto] :D
-
I probably don't need to state my opinion, so I won't. What I will do, though, is take this on a slightly different tangent: On American money it says "In God we trust". And every American is familiar with the "...one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" line of the pledge of allegiance.
Separation of state and religion is something that many nations that were founded upon the morals and actions of a group of adherents to a certain belief system have trouble with. Often those nations have in their foundational statements a declaration of faith or something to that effect. Such as the above example of the USA.
The basic rules and laws of the US are based upon Biblical principles. But the US was also created to be, among other things, a haven for the persecuted and outcast: "Give me your poor, your needy..." (sic). But accepting everyone also introduces an enormous diversity of beliefs, something that was not so blatantly present during the founding moments 200+ years ago.
So that leaves us with a nation that was created for the express purpose of being "fair" to everyone, and yet was created "under God". So there is an irreconcilable clash or conflict the further "fairness" (don't kill me for this terrible inspecificity, Su!) for all meant a further distancing from the tenets that God laid down and were incorporated into the founding guidelines of the nation.
Israel also has this problem. We are the only democracy in the Middle-East, and yet we were created specifically as a nation for the Jewish people. The majority of citizens are currently of Jewish nationality, but we also have a significant number of citizens who have their status because of immediate familial ties to people the state considers to be Jewish (like my case), or because of the generosity of the state in letting Arabs who were living on land conquered (in Israel's defensive wars - not to get into that subject) get citizenship. The only difference between a Jewish citizen and an Arab citizen in Israel (AFAIK) is that the mandatory military service does not concern the Arab citizens. This is more a matter of sensitivity to the desires of the citizens than discrimination against them, as the IDF does have numerous Bedouin and Druze soldiers - they just don't want to forcibly recruit someone who both doesn't want to serve in the military and whose loyalties to the State of Israel would be in question.
Anyway, the problem is that the Arab population slice of citizens is out-growing the Jewish population, and - if the current trend continues uninterrupted - they will outnumber the Jewish citizens in around 40 years or so. And, since they have full voting rights, the government of this explicit Jewish State would be composed mostly of Arab members - most of whom show nowadays specific loyalties that verge on the traitorous.
The solution? There is none that maintains both Israel's democratic tenets and her explicit purpose of being the Jewish homeland.
Same thing with America. There is no way to reconcile the morals of her citizens today with her founding tennets. It just doesn't work. When you create something with a specific purpose, you already are discounting perfect freedom, regardless of whether that purpose is to be "one nation under God" or a "homeland for the Jews".
-
Pfff. People should conform to norms dictated by the state. The state should not be forced to conform to the ideals and beliefs of a bunch of rebelling scum who want things changed just because they wanna **** each other in the ass.
Sure, if everyone goes "We like gays." then change stuff. But if a few people go "Change to law so we can be gay." they should just shoot them. When murderers, rapists and single-mothers try to change the law, they get ignored. Why the hell should gays get special treatment?
Death to all the non-conformists and hypocrits........Except me!
-
Banned for a week and your first post manages to be as hatefilled as if you've never left
bravo:yes: :yes:
edit: or just very unfunny sarcasm. Sometimes I cant tell with you..
-
Originally posted by an0n
Pfff. People should conform to norms dictated by the state. The state should not be forced to conform to the ideals and beliefs of a bunch of rebelling scum who want things changed just because they wanna **** each other in the ass.
Sure, if everyone goes "We like gays." then change stuff. But if a few people go "Change to law so we can be gay." they should just shoot them. When murderers, rapists and single-mothers try to change the law, they get ignored. Why the hell should gays get special treatment?
Death to all the non-conformists and hypocrits........Except me!
to sum up: no , they shouldn't conform, coz in the end, they win.
:ha:
-
Originally posted by an0n
Pfff. People should conform to norms dictated by the state. The state should not be forced to conform to the ideals and beliefs of a bunch of rebelling scum who want things changed just because they wanna **** each other in the ass.
Sure, if everyone goes "We like gays." then change stuff. But if a few people go "Change to law so we can be gay." they should just shoot them. When murderers, rapists and single-mothers try to change the law, they get ignored. Why the hell should gays get special treatment?
Death to all the non-conformists and hypocrits........Except me!
When I first read this, I wasn't sure if I was supposed to take it seriously. Hell, this is an0n we're talking about, so I know enough not to take him too seriously. ;)
All the same, there are a few things I want to respond to in An0n's post that I feel need addressing.
Originally posted by an0n
Pfff. People should conform to norms dictated by the state.
This is true enough, as far as it goes. Of course for the rule of law to function and to keep society safe from murderers, rapists and other lawbreakers, people have to obey the law or be punished when they do not. That's not in dispute. However, the function of law is to keep people from harming one another. No one can reasonably claim that two guys having sex in their own bedroom in the privacy of their own home harm anyone else. Conservatives claim the opposite, but c'mon, what sort of harm does consensual gay sex done away from the sight of everyone else and in the privacy of their own home really do?
Yes, the state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting behavior that harms others, but here the court is only saying that the state cannot just prohibit consensual gay sex by just claiming "This is immoral, we don't like it so it's now illegal." The state now has to state a legitimate public interest if it wants to regulate behavior that might be considered immoral.
To illustrate, here are a couple of examples: Prostitution can still be outlawed because the state has a legitimate interest in preventing sex being sold for money. Bestiality can still be illegal because animals are incapable of consenting to sex with a human. Incest can still be prohibited because it very often leads to sexual abuse of children.
But consensual gay sex is now permissible because the state has no legitimate reason to prohibit it. Just saying "it's immoral" is not enough; there has to another underlying legitimate purpose for the state to prohibit it, as in the above examples. And as I said above, there is no way to say that consensual gay private sex causes harm. Since there's no showing of harm, the state can't have a good reason for prohibiting it.
That's pretty much the Lawrence ruling in a (mostly accurate) nutshell.
Originally posted by an0n
The state should not be forced to conform to the ideals and beliefs of a bunch of rebelling scum who want things changed just because they wanna **** each other in the ass.
Funny thing about that term "rebelling scum": gays are neither "rebelling" or "scum". They're not rebelling because they are just asserting their voice in our political system, the same as any other politically active group. They're not "scum" because I've met quite a few gay people through mutual friends and they were the nicest people I've ever met. All they want is to live their lives free of discrimination, something the Equal Protection clause guantees them as Americans.
Originally posted by an0n
Sure, if everyone goes "We like gays." then change stuff. But if a few people go "Change to law so we can be gay." they should just shoot them. When murderers, rapists and single-mothers try to change the law, they get ignored. Why the hell should gays get special treatment?
Actually, criminal defendants have managed to change some criminal law statutes by appealing their cases to the Supreme Court; they haven't always been ignored. Some of them were even innocent and had their convictions overturned. (Here's a rhetorical Zen question: If an innocent man is convicted of a crime he didn't commit and he later overturns his conviction on appeal, is he still a criminal?)
And gays aren't seeking "special treatment," they're only seeking equal protection and equal enforcement of their privacy rights that they are entitled to as Americans. It never ceases to amaze me when conservatives loudly proclaim that gays are seeking "special" rights when all gays want is to be treated like everyone else.
Back in the 19th and 20th Centuries, conservatives made the same argument about "special rights" when women demanded equal treament under the law as separate persons rather than be treated as the property of their husbands, when African-Americans demanded freedom from slavery and when African-Americans fought to get the right to vote. Today is no different. Gays are going to get equal treatment, the same as any other previously discriminated minority. The Court's ruling has made this even more inevitable.
If you're an American you're entitled to be treated the same as any other American, regardless of your skin color, gender or sexual orientation. Period.
Originally posted by an0n
Death to all the non-conformists and hypocrites........Except me!
This is classic an0n. It was this line that convinced me that he wasn't being (at least entirely) serious. :D
This is gays all over the country today: :nod: :D :)
This is conservatives all over the country: :hopping: :hopping: :hopping:
This is me: :ha:
Any questions? :D
EDIT: I think Rictor asked earlier how the dissenters made their argument against yesterdays's ruling. I read the two dissents (one by Scalia and the other by Thomas) and I'll post summaries of both.
Thomas (his dissent was mercifully short, only two or three paragraphs) basically said that while this Texas anti-sodomy law was "silly" he thought it should have been the job of the Texas legislature to strike it down. But being a "strict constructionist," he didn't see the right of privacy applied at all because he doesn't even think the right to privacy even exists.
(Meh, Thomas never struck me as someone who is particularly smart anyway. He got to where he is through affirmative action, then decides to say that affirmative action should no longer be used to help promote other African-Americans. Classic case of a guy climbing to the top, then pulling the ladder up after himself so no one else can follow him to the top.)
I need to re-read Scalia's dissent to try to make sense of it. I already read it once so I can tell you guys for sure he was pissed.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Something about "furthering the gay agenda" to make everyone else gay. Basically, conspiracy theory based on personal bigotries- sorta like ZOG with more pink.
Beware of the Pink Mafia!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Banned for a week and your first post manages to be as hatefilled as if you've never left
bravo:yes: :yes:
edit: or just very unfunny sarcasm. Sometimes I cant tell with you..
Looks liek someone missed you already an0n ;)
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
This is me: :ha:
Any questions? :D[/i]
yeah. how do you manage to do anything, if you're just a little board?
ok, I guess I'll go for a walk, need some fresh air.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Since I really dont wanna read like 50 pages of legal mumbo-jumbo, can you please summarize how the "nay" judges made their case? I mean, what possible reason could there be for not allowing gay maarriages, other than to adhere to old laws which are clearly outdated and discriminatory?
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Something about "furthering the gay agenda" to make everyone else gay. Basically, conspiracy theory based on personal bigotries- sorta like ZOG with more pink.
Scalia did mention the Supreme Court "now taking sides in the culture wars" and "joining the gay agenda" or somesuch. But it did contain quite a bit more than that, including some very thoughtful analysis (but still wrong, IMO). As I just mentioned in my above post, I need to re-read Scalia's dissent before I can post a summary of it here.
More to come, stay tuned. :)
-
Religion and govenment policy need some sort of injunction to keep them apart. I mean if our government listened to the catholic church (for example), we'd have no contraception and be knee-deep in babies. Religion has no place in modern politics, thank you.
-
If we had no contraception, there'd be fewer teen pregancies and fewer cases of STDs.
(To spell it out - contraceptives create a false sense of security. No contraceptive can protect 100% against either pregnancy or STDs.)
EDIT: Not that I'm in favor of a church-run government. The government should be a separate institution from the church, but that doesn't mean legislators should be prevented from administering the law according to their religious convictions.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
but that doesn't mean legislators should be prevented from administering the law according to their religious convictions.
Oh yes it bloody well does. What if they're not my religious convictions? Like that woman last year who went to court to beg to be allowed to die - she was sufferring from motor neurone, IIRC. If it wasn't for the church, Britain would have leaglised euthanasia by now. But instead she's been forced to live out the remainder of her life in daily misery.
-
Or the woman who drowned her baby becuase she didnt want him to live in sin? If you allowed the religious fanatics to take over, she'de be free.
-
Thomas (his dissent was mercifully short, only two or three paragraphs) basically said that while this Texas anti-sodomy law was "silly" he thought it should have been the job of the Texas legislature to strike it down. But being a "strict constructionist," he didn't see the right of privacy applied at all because he doesn't even think the right to privacy even exists.
ah, I like this guy already. :D :yes: This "right to privacy" has to be one of the funniest political ideas around. :D
Oh yes it bloody well does. What if they're not my religious convictions? Like that woman last year who went to court to beg to be allowed to die - she was sufferring from motor neurone, IIRC. If it wasn't for the church, Britain would have leaglised euthanasia by now. But instead she's been forced to live out the remainder of her life in daily misery.
I never heard of that, but can't she just kill herself anyway? I mean, after you are dead, there is not a whole lot the law can do to punish you. :D
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
If we had no contraception, there'd be fewer teen pregancies and fewer cases of STDs.
(To spell it out - contraceptives create a false sense of security. No contraceptive can protect 100% against either pregnancy or STDs.)
Goob, I don't know whether you live in the UK or here in the States (I know DG is in Great Britain), but in either case, if we didn't have contraceptives, we'd have more teen pregnancies and STDs, not less. Just because contraceptives are available doesn't make more people have sex.
While you're right that contracewptives are not 100% effective (in fact, nothing is 100% effective), the failure rate of most contraceptives is pretty low. I don't know the failure rate of any contraceptives, but how many times will a brand new, US-made latex condom fail if you only use it as directed? 1 time out of 10? Just think of how many pregnancies and STD transmissions that contraceptives have prevented. That's what they're designed to do, after all.
Originally posted by Goober5000
EDIT: Not that I'm in favor of a church-run government. The government should be a separate institution from the church, but that doesn't mean legislators should be prevented from administering the law according to their religious convictions.
I don't know how things are done in England, (again, Goob, I don't know where you live) but in America we have the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, which basically prohibits the US government from supporting or helping to establish any particular religion over any other religion while at the same time letting each American citizen practice his or her own religion (or practicing none at all) in his or her own individual way.
The danger of letting legislators "administer the law according to their religious convictions" is that once you allow that, which religious convictions should be allowed to govern? Protestants and Catholics have been at odds over some religious ideas for centuries. Then there are the Jews, Hindus and Muslims. How do you reconcile their religious ideas in the law? And what about the atheists (like me)? If religion is injected into the law, how are we atheists supposed to deal with religious values and laws we want no part of?
Originally posted by CP5670
I never heard of that, but can't she just kill herself anyway? I mean, after you are dead, there is not a whole lot the law can do to punish you. :D
Um, CP, how can a woman suffering from motor neurone kill herself? I admit, I don't know what motor neurone is, but if it's anything like multiple sclerosis or muscular distrophy, where your nerves and/or muscles don't function, how could this woman even be able to pick up a gun to kill herself in the first place?
Originally posted by CP5670
Ah, I like this guy [Justice Clarence Thomas] already. :D :yes: This "right to privacy" has to be one of the funniest political ideas around. :D
The right to privacy isn't a political idea, it's a legal one (albeit with political consequences). And I've been studying it off and on for three years and I never found anything funny about it. :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
I admit, I don't know what motor neurone is,
Think Steven Hawkins.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I never heard of that, but can't she just kill herself anyway? I mean, after you are dead, there is not a whole lot the law can do to punish you. :D
:wtf:
you gotta learn some more stuff than your 2+2=4 crap, man :doubt:
-
Um, CP, how can a woman suffering from motor neurone kill herself? I admit, I don't know what motor neurone is, but if it's anything like multiple sclerosis or muscular distrophy, where your nerves and/or muscles don't function, how could this woman even be able to pick up a gun to kill herself in the first place?
ah, if it's a form of paralysis then never mind. But if she is incapable of talking or writing then how does anyone know that she wants to die? :D
The right to privacy isn't a political idea, it's a legal one. And I've been studying it off and on for three years and I never found anything funny about it. :wtf:
whatever, same thing. :p It's funny because it makes no sense; how is anyone supposed to have any "privacy" if they exist in the universe and thus are linked to all the other particles? From a more practical perspective, this is one of those "rights" that the people will never know if violated, so the government can certainly use spy satellites, phoneline tappers and such things for whatever reason and nobody will ever care.
-
from one who talks about connections between particles and stuff, you're particularly disconected from reality, man.
anyway, to answer to your question about how she can communicate ( coz you don't seem to know anything ), there's many ways, like the optic captors that read the eyes movements, the ones that use the movement of the tips of the fingers ( when those poor people are lucky enough to be able to slightly move those ), things like that. that will be translated by a vocal synthetizer.
-
from one who talks about connections between particles and stuff, you're particularly disconected from reality, man.
sorry, but that is a rather pathetic argument. :D
anyway, to answer to your question about how she can communicate ( coz you don't seem to know anything ), there's many ways, like the optic captors that read the eyes movements, the ones that use the movement of the tips of the fingers ( when those poor people are lucky enough to be able to slightly move those ), things like that. that will be translated by a vocal synthetizer.
but in that case they are not completely paralyzed, right?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
whatever, same thing. :p It's funny because it makes no sense; how is anyone supposed to have any "privacy" if they exist in the universe and thus are linked to all the other particles? From a more practical perspective, this is one of those "rights" that the people will never know if violated, so the government can certainly use spy satellites, phoneline tappers and such things for whatever reason and nobody will ever care.
When in actual fact, the Vacuum in space actually means we are not linked to all other particles. I am not ionically bonded to the oxygen in the air, i am not linked to those particles.
-
There are still the gravity forces between all the particles, so they must have effects on each other regardless of any vacuum (that's what i meant by "link").
-
I love it when the off topic part of a thread comes back together with the on topic part.
1) This thread is about homosexuals and their right to do anything they wish in privacy.
2) CP has claimed that the right to privacy is nonsense.
Therefore he doesn't have the right to stop any homosexual from taking pictures of him getting changed in the swimming baths/any other communal area and then doing whatever he wants with the pictures as long as it's in private. :)
-
But its not private! Those perverted particles are always watching! :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Venom
from one who talks about connections between particles and stuff, you're particularly disconected from reality, man.
[rationalist] Pah, our sense-reality is useless and merely a subjective illusion all our minds fashion! Our reason reigns supreme, "I think, therefore I am" as Descartes said :p [/rationalist]
-
CP you try to make EVERYTHING absolute, from privacy, to government, to thought...when in fact, nothing is absolute, not even physics or math, and particularly not human emotion
I am against extremism. I'de rather come up short on a few issues by being moderate on all issues, than by being extreme on all issues. Extremism in any form has a)never been succesful, and b)never made alot of people very happy.
Back to the point, I think Trudeau (a former Candian PM) said it best: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of its citizens"
I am much more against afeminate guys (cause how can girls be afeminate) than against gays. If you're gay, you're gay. Theres not a whole lot of things that could convince you to eat ass if you're not genuinly for it. But society sort of has this effect where it turns people afeminate, dont exactly know how though. People can be subconciously influenced to act more "girly" or more "artsy" and I find "artsiness" as a concept pretty bad. I'm not takling about like Leonardo, but rather about the hundreds of fashion designers, interior designers and hair dressers who act in a specific way simply because its expected of their profession and they think it somehow gives them more class. I think you know what I'm talking about, and if you dont, then someone else can explain it.
-
since when did he try to make anything "absolute"? He's simply looking at things objectively, rather than from a clouded human (emotional/irrational) point of view. However, you could also argue to consider right/wrong/silly/sensible you have to think of the histo/cultural settings, i.e. right/wrong is contextual. I believe that was what Hegel proposed...
BTW: How do you define absolute?
-
Absolute would be something like: People should have no privacy, or people should have total privacy. The government should have no involevemnt whatsoever in your daily life, the government should have total control over your daily life.
Moderation is a very important virtue.
How can you (and why would it be a benefit?) to think absolutley rationally and act without human emotion, when the action itself is being done by humans to humans. Theres nothing but humans in every step of the process, so why should you seek to distance emotion from the whole thing. Even in this respect, I believe in moderation. You should be logical enough to identify the shortcommings of human nature, and to compensate for them. However, you should alo not be too logical, so as to exclude emotion totaly. Modertion ensures that nothing drastic happens, and I consider that a good thing. Moderation overrules and checks all other humans emotions (hate, love, fairness, violence, rationality, irrationality, etc etc) so that none of them can be taken to the extreme. Very few things, even good thing, remain good if taken to the extreme
Therefore, moderation is the at the top (or one of the few top) of the list of desirable qualities in a person or governement
BW do you think that since all particles in this universe are held together by gravity, that means that gays should be illegal?
Thats some sound, thought-out reasoning there:lol: :lol:
-
So, Descartes goes in to his local bar. The landlord says 'the usual?'. Descartes says 'I think not!', and disappears.
Now that's comedy
-
How did you people completely misinterpret this judgement?
Yes, the couple that pushed this through to the SCOTUS are gay, however this is not a ruling for gay rights. This is a ruling for everyone's rights. The basis for the ruling, in the end, is that such laws violate not just the (putative) right to privacy, but the right to equal protection under the law. This ruling makes anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional.
In Texas, the laws dealing with Sodomy specifically target homosexual couples. In my state, however, the law covers heterosexual AND homosexual sodomy, married or not. There are 12 states in the Union that currently have laws on the books that criminalize sodomy--and in some of them, having anal or oral sex with your wife means that you have to register as a sex offender. Can you imagine that: consensual sex with your lawfully wedded spouse means that you're not just a criminal, you're a violent sexual predator. You can't live in buildings that have children. You can't hold certain jobs.
Someone asked how often laws like this get enforced? Generally they are not, but they are used in other ways. Gays and lesbians who attempt to adopt children are often DENIED their adoption petitions on the grounds that they are CRIMINALS. In states that had antisodomy laws, gays and lesbians could be denied membership in professional organizations for their criminal behavior.
Just because they don't go to jail, or get a fine, doesn't mean that it doesn't affect them.
Of course let's not forgot the wonderful case in Georgia at the beginning of the 90's, where a man was thrown in jail for sodomy--with a sentance of nine years--for performing oral sex on his wife. She turned him in, because she knew he intended to divorce her. It took a team of lawyers paid for by (of all people) Playboy. Nine years, for oral sex.
This ruling lets me have sex in my home, in the way I wish, with the person I love, without repercussions. This isn't about gay or straight people, its about all Americans' rights.
-
Most of this is either complete horse**** which shouldn't be dignified with a response or is settling itself nicely. Or I don't wanna bother read this frickin' eight-page post. So...
Goober: Look at the historical trends, and you'll find this absolutely isn't the case. Teen pregnancy used to be a universal, most births occurred some six months after marraige, and child exposure was commonplace. STDs weren't quite rampant then, but hey- they didn't have SARS, either. You could get herpes or syphilis pretty easily, but they didn't have the deadly effect, or spreading power, of modern diseases. Which has far, far more to do with the jumbo jet than the jimmy hat.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Goob, I don't know whether you live in the UK or here in the States (I know DG is in Great Britain), but in either case, if we didn't have contraceptives, we'd have more teen pregnancies and STDs, not less. Just because contraceptives are available doesn't make more people have sex.
USA.
No contraceptives available to youth --> premarital sex carries increased risk --> higher incentive not to have premarital sex --> fewer pregnancies and STDs transferred.
Because of the availability and cavalier treatment of contraceptives nowadays, a general cultural attitude has developed that "premarital sex isn't so bad if you use a contraceptive". This leads to a larger acceptance of it and a more relaxed attitude toward it. This in turn means that youths are more likely to have sex even if they don't have a contraceptive handy.
I don't know how things are done in England, (again, Goob, I don't know where you live) but in America we have the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, which basically prohibits the US government from supporting or helping to establish any particular religion over any other religion while at the same time letting each American citizen practice his or her own religion (or practicing none at all) in his or her own individual way.
Yes, I'm familiar with the Establishment Clause. It prevents the establishment of a "Church of the USA." It does not disallow the right of legislators to conduct business according to their religious convictions.
The danger of letting legislators "administer the law according to their religious convictions" is that once you allow that, which religious convictions should be allowed to govern? Protestants and Catholics have been at odds over some religious ideas for centuries. Then there are the Jews, Hindus and Muslims. How do you reconcile their religious ideas in the law? And what about the atheists (like me)? If religion is injected into the law, how are we atheists supposed to deal with religious values and laws we want no part of?
If you (generic "you") don't like it, vote them out of office. Or emigrate. When you elect a person, you elect everything about that person, including their political affiliation, their social outlook, and their religious beliefs.
-
Therefore he doesn't have the right to stop any homosexual from taking pictures of him getting changed in the swimming baths/any other communal area and then doing whatever he wants with the pictures as long as it's in private.
If anyone, homosexual or not, can find me at a swimming pool in the first place then that would already be quite remarkable. :D Anyway, if I don't find out that I am being photographed, then this "right" is quite irrelevant since even if I do have the right by law I will still do nothing, which was why I was saying that this is a pretty silly right in a technology age.
CP you try to make EVERYTHING absolute, from privacy, to government, to thought...when in fact, nothing is absolute, not even physics or math, and particularly not human emotion
okay...what in the world is your argument and how does it relate to this thread? :wtf:
I am against extremism. I'de rather come up short on a few issues by being moderate on all issues, than by being extreme on all issues. Extremism in any form has a)never been succesful, and b)never made alot of people very happy.
How can you (and why would it be a benefit?) to think absolutley rationally and act without human emotion, when the action itself is being done by humans to humans. Theres nothing but humans in every step of the process, so why should you seek to distance emotion from the whole thing. Even in this respect, I believe in moderation. You should be logical enough to identify the shortcommings of human nature, and to compensate for them. However, you should alo not be too logical, so as to exclude emotion totaly. Modertion ensures that nothing drastic happens, and I consider that a good thing. Moderation overrules and checks all other humans emotions (hate, love, fairness, violence, rationality, irrationality, etc etc) so that none of them can be taken to the extreme. Very few things, even good thing, remain good if taken to the extreme
If you are always moderate, then you are extreme in terms of your moderation; you cannot be always moderate or always extreme on every issue, but only somewhere in between (i.e. moderate on some issues and extreme on others), which is what both of us are. You seem to have this habit of suddenly moving off topic all the time in arguments; when did I say anything at all about human nature in this thread? And how is excluding the effects of emotions, or anything else for that matter, in the analysis of human behavior logical? Full moderation ensures that nothing drastic happens, but that itself is among the most drastic things that can happen, because drastic things have been happening for thousands of years due to a blend of moderation and extremism. :D
BW do you think that since all particles in this universe are held together by gravity, that means that gays should be illegal?
When did I ever say anything about that? I personally couldn't care less about whether homosexuality is legal or not actually. :p :D
Thats some sound, thought-out reasoning there
riiight... :rolleyes: :D
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Goober: Look at the historical trends, and you'll find this absolutely isn't the case. Teen pregnancy used to be a universal
The teenaged mothers were married when they got pregnant. Or else they married very quickly afterward, due to the prevalent social stigma against unwed pregnancies.
most births occurred some six months after marraige, and child exposure was commonplace.
Probably attributable to poor sanatation and health conditions back then.
STDs weren't quite rampant then, but hey- they didn't have SARS, either. You could get herpes or syphilis pretty easily, but they didn't have the deadly effect, or spreading power, of modern diseases.
Speculation: They weren't as harmful because they weren't as prevalent. Now that they're so much more prevalent than before, they've had a chance to mutate into more harmful variants.
-
If a couple are so intimate that they're in the position of possibly having sex, no lack of supplies will stop 'em. They'll just hope the guy can know when to withdraw, shoot elsewhere and then finish the job another way.
The truth is, better availability of contraceptives will cap (pardoning the pun) the increase of teenage and unplanned pregnancies. The god-send of all couples who have accidents was the morning after pill. That should come down in price (but carry other restrictions to prevent abuse). :nod:
[q]and their religious beliefs.[/q]
NO. YOU. DON'T.
RELIGION IS NOT ALLOWED INTO PARLIAMENT (or US equiv)
-
See this is what always happens. You talk about Iraq or about gays or something, and then when I try to expand that reasoning, and to find out, and comment on, the causes behind that reasoning, you say I'm off-topic.
If you talk about how a black man was killed by the KKK, and I launch into a discussion about human hatred in general, that is not off topic.
I'll bring up specific stuff later, just wanted to get that out of the way.
-
okay...so explain to me how privacy laws are related to moderation and how either one is related to methods of analyzing human behavior. :wtf: (I mean, they are obviously related in some way, but not very closely at all) I think what is happening is that you are mixing up the topics from our previous exchanges and the one at hand here.
The example you gave there is okay, and even your earlier topic change would be acceptable if it gradually changed over a series of posts, but this is going a little too far. :p :D
-
Goober: No. That's utterly contorted explanation, which should be a tipoff right there that it's time to call it quits at least until one can come back armed with facts.
FYI, abortions were fairly common towards the end of the Middle Ages, because the male part of the equation would skip off in a hurry and the female would rather not live the remainder of her life as essentially an untouchable. Single parents weren't as common as now, but that's because the baby wouldn't live- I don't have any figures on that, so I'm not gonna pursue it, but I will point out that as soon as orphanages and such started coming around, they quickly became flooded far beyond capacity by the offspring of unwed parents.
Lack of sanitation caused teen pregnancy? Are you on crack? And "child exposure" is not the same as "infant mortality", which was extremely high besides. Child exposure is leaving the kid on the ****ing street corner, or booting the baby into the woods- intentional, not just a product of sewage in the water. It was almost universal for a long time.
And you'll find the reason for the modern prevalence of STDs in my previous posts. If you bothered to trace the origins of most of the really dangerous ones, you'll find that they were exotic imports. Things like herpes and the clap were extremely common, but they aren't likely to kill you. There are extensive references to them in Chaucer, in fact, to this effect.
You're trying to make the facts fit your preconception, and they just won't- particularly because you're not talking from research on the general subject, but just making it up as you go along. Like I said, it would definitely benefit you to check out a decently in-depth history book- you'll find that there has been little or no reduction in premarital or (particularly, since this was actually the norm) teenage sex. The latter has gone down about 90%, whereas as far as records show the former hasn't changed appreciably. Contraceptiives just mean that a given baby is 100% less likely to be murdered by its parents as a deadly social stigma.
-
The high rate of teenage pregnancy is due not to contraception but due to poor sex education. Scandinavia and Holland have much lower rates of teen pregnancy than the rest of europe because they teach Sex ed. properly and make contraception readily available to anyone who wants it.
In America and Britain due to the "Moral Majority" we never get to teach our kids properly about sex and then raise a generation of kids who don't seem to realise that f**king without contraception = becoming a parent.
-
Uh, I don't know about you, but I've had Sex ed (well actually, I've been sick [seriously :p ] 2 out of the 3 days we've had it ) but in high school, they require you to take a semester course on 'life skills' (bassically sex and ****ing) .
-
And if it was anything like the ones I've had, the basic premise is "NO! EVIL EVIL EVIL RUN AWAY!!", eh?
-
Rictor: Not my first post. My first post was the naked-jeri-ryan map of the Elysium.
Everyone Else: Everything I posted directly regarding gays was meant (mostly) in jest. Everything regarding the 'noisy-minority' and how the law shouldn't be changed to accomodate a few malcontents is entirely serious.
The only reason homosexuality is/was illegal is because some ****ty religion (or, if you're a believer, the almighty creator of the universe) said "Being gay is wrong".
Now, I hate religion, so in that respect: **** who you want, when you want, in whatever hole you want.
However, if the Bible and other such books are truly the documentation of the will of God: Homo's should be stoned to death. And there's no use babbling on about "God will have changed his mind" because everyone knows that's all just bull**** liberal propoganda designed to force religion to change to accomodate the will of the people, no matter how corrupt, evil or immoral they wanna be.
Personally, I'm sticking with my "Homosexuals are wrong" stance, because when a huge, glowing ball of divine light descends from the heavens and begins laying waste to the Earth, I wanna be on its good side.
And to cause some argument: If they're making sodomy legal, why not pig-****ing? It's just as unnatural and against the laws of both man and God. But if people want to do it and both parties likes it, why not?
-
Because the pig can't really consent, now can it? I suppose it could wiggle its rump suggestively or something, but given the total, ah, language barrier, Billy-Bob would be hard put to say his prize sow was gagging for it, and this could get absolutely repulsive if I continued in this vein so never mind.
I don't think the Bible calls for stoning homosexuals, just those who practice sodomy (or, for that matter, get blowjobs, or beat off, or anything- it's all kinda lumped together). I won't bother with this whole "straight people butt**** too" crap, because once again it's not a category of things you can do with your dick that I particuarly want to know about. BUT, there's no distinction between gay intercourse and what pretty much every person has done by age 15, so either everyone's going to hell (which, given the rules, can't be such a bad place after all), or the Bible was made as a code of law primarily reflecting the sensibilities of the time, which has damn little to do with what any God had to say in the matter, or (particularly) has to say now.
'Sides, I think the current right-wing argument is more along the lines of "Oh, now they're gonna legalize prostitution, too, right?"
Which, honestly, I don't see the problem with, so long as it's properly regulated, but hey. Whatever floats their freaky, angry boats.
-
hmm... Can a pig give proper consent? I mean, consent that's defendable in court? I mean, if it's a dog maybe (dog translation is already somewhat developed) but pig? ;)
-
Far as I know, the Bible only outlaws sodomy and wanking. Everything else was outlawed by a bunch of books known as the Penatentions.
And what if a Dolphin was asking for sex? They're smart enough to do so. Infact, so are pigs. They're the first and third (second being monkeys) smartest animals.
-
And... how would they communicate a desire to **** rednecks, exactly? Telepathy? Drawing out stick-figures getting it on in the dirt?
-
Sticking their ass in the air and going "MWee, Wooont, Seeeex".
-
I suppose that would do it. And given the fact that that has yet to happen, I think we can safely then assume that pigs don't find us any more attractive than most of us find them. Hence, it would remain illegal.
-
Well, some lizards tell the females by biting them on the neck... so in court you'd say "the lizard bit me on the neck, so I indulged his reptilian desires" That'd be quite a spectacle...
-
Yeah, all those alligators really just wanna get nasty.
-
That's what Steve Irwin reckons.
-
Ok, give me one reason to leave this thread open. :doubt:
-
Because we wuv fishes?
Because you're lazy and the close option is a REALLY long way away?
****, that's two.
-
Because the bestiality thing's been milked for all its worth?
Huh. "Milked". Huh huh.
-
OOoooh! If newbies come and see a thread discussing gay rights has been closed, they'll think we're a board full of biggots.
-
Because I'm gay and I'M OFFENDED!!!
-
Because HE[/i]'s gay and I'M OFFENDED!!!!
-
In the interests of vain hope, all discussion on bestiality is hereby suspended, pending nothing. Continue in said direction, and I'll lock it.
EDIT: Stryke 9 and an0n - Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. :rolleyes: :lol:
-
Also: Support Forum access?
You've had it for the past day, theoretically... // Sandwich
Wrong time to ask?
Nahh - I'm not in a bad mood, I just didn't want to have to moderate a thread with explicit descriptions on certain things while eating lunch. ;) // Sandwich
-
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
EDIT: Stryke 9 and an0n - Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. :rolleyes: :lol:
No, I'm the cat. Bit smile. Sharp claws. Technicolour fur....err......
-
Hey! How come he didn't have to be the gay one?
Anyway, I don't think the technicolor fur is from the original.
-
What's the Support Forum's id#? I've probably got access but no viewing rights.
Methinks I've got something worth posting in there.
*goes to check some things*
Someone has ****ed up again.
-
Uhh... 22?
You're not missing much.
-
Go see. Both of you.
-
Vaguely back on topic:
Originally posted by Stryke 9
And if it was anything like the ones I've had, the basic premise is "NO! EVIL EVIL EVIL RUN AWAY!!", eh?
Thats the standard attitude, even in "non-denominational" schools where religious attitudes towards sex shouldn't come into it.
A little more discussion of practical matters would benefit the system. :rolleyes:
-
It's a government thing. They're not allowed to do anything that might suggest that teen sex is anything less than the most horrific experience a person can undergo, because it's basically illegal. And hence, they're not allowed to endorse useful information about, say, contraception.
-
No it isn't. The government is good. The government is right. The government represents your best interests. The government wants you to return its love by fighting its enemies. Terrorists. Traitors. Silicates. Single Mothers. The government loves you. If your parents ask: There is no government. That is all.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The high rate of teenage pregnancy is due not to contraception but due to poor sex education. Scandinavia and Holland have much lower rates of teen pregnancy than the rest of europe because they teach Sex ed. properly and make contraception readily available to anyone who wants it.
In America and Britain due to the "Moral Majority" we never get to teach our kids properly about sex and then raise a generation of kids who don't seem to realise that f**king without contraception = becoming a parent.
the sex. ed. out here ain't much. what we got in school was some dstuff about "it's ok if both agree" and "it's ok to say no" which is important, but nothing other then that was told. except for a small list of anticonceptions, just listing there names.
-
My sex education classes consisted of me heckling the nurse for 20 minutes and the lesson ending in:
Nurse: Who do you think you are!?! Do you think you know more than me? Do you want to come up here and teach it?!
Me: With a face like that, I'd have to know more than you. I mean, ****, a guy musta had to have been pretty ****ing wasted to have popped your cherry. But seen as you're getting paid to teach us this **** I think I'll let you finish up.
Nurse: *grrr* Okay, we'll finish with a practical.
Me: Pick ME, you sexy *****!
Class: *chuckles*
Nurse: No! We're going to demonstrate how to put a condom on.
Me: **** that.
Class: *chuckles*
Me: And I'd watch out for Metcalf. He'll have that plastic cock outta your hand and up his ass in a flash.
Metcalf: Shut up.
Me: Quiet, Elton!
Class: *chuckles*
-
Well, would it be better if you were told as a youngster "sure, sex...go ahead, no worries"...
I mean, in like grade 7 or 8 its a little early to start with the sex thing, but in highschool, I think its been done moderatley well, atleast in my highschool. The teacher was basically just another guy, and acknowledged that teens are gonna sex it up, regardless of anyone's objections So basically, use contraceptives, or you'll be left a father.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
the sex. ed. out here ain't much. what we got in school was some dstuff about "it's ok if both agree" and "it's ok to say no" which is important, but nothing other then that was told. except for a small list of anticonceptions, just listing there names.
Sounds like you lucked out. I've only ever heard good things about Dutch Sex Ed. Or maybe I'm confusing it with Red Hot Dutch... :D
Seriously though from what I've heard Holland does have the lowest teen pregnacy rate so they must be doing something right :)
-
mmh... we discussed sex at school when I was, what, 12, 13? it took, w00t! 2 hours max ( some education, heh ). What to remember? "If you really wanna, use condoms". Bah, even in that school ( french college, for kids from 12 to 15 ) you could get rubberhats at the "nursery". No "evil evil evil" part.
Other countries, other ways, I suppose...
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Seriously though from what I've heard Holland does have the lowest teen pregnacy rate so they must be doing something right :)
Must be all the gays.
OK, that was not cool;) ;)
-
A dollar to anyone who spots the S:AAB reference in this thread
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
So, Descartes goes in to his local bar. The landlord says 'the usual?'. Descartes says 'I think not!', and disappears.
Now that's comedy
DG, is this the S:AAB reference you were referring to?:D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Seriously though from what I've heard Holland does have the lowest teen pregnacy rate so they must be doing something right :)
Actually come to think about it, it could equally be that the guys are all doing something wrong.
Ow. Ow. Ow. Your sure that thing's supposed to go in my ear?
:lol:
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
A dollar to anyone who spots the S:AAB reference in this thread
Hehe.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Actually come to think about it, it could equally be that the guys are all doing something wrong.
Ow. Ow. Ow. Your sure that thing's supposed to go in my ear?
:lol:
that makes me think about a "blonde" joke...
-
Oh God. That reminds me of one of my sisters friends.
Dumb *****, as legend goes, was on her knees in front of this guy. She unzips his flies, pulls out his cock, rubs it hard, then, instead of sticking it in her mouth, she starts smacking it from side-to-side. Apparently that's what she thought a blow-job was.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
A dollar to anyone who spots the S:AAB reference in this thread
Right here:
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
A dollar to anyone who spots the S:AAB reference in this thread
:D
-
No dollar for you. How about a clue - it's in one of an0n's posts (which you should have realised after his 'hehe'). But because I gave you a clue, you now have to name the episode if you want the shiny, shiny dollar.
-
Originally posted by an0n
No it isn't. The government is good. The government is right. The government represents your best interests. The government wants you to return its love by fighting its enemies. Terrorists. Traitors. Silicates. Single Mothers. The government loves you. If your parents ask: There is no government. That is all.
an0n's reference to Silicates is from S:AAB. Silicates are human-looking AI robots that occasionally appeared in several episodes of S:AAB. A list of S:AAB episodes in which Silicates appeared is as follows:
Dark Side of the Sun (Shane finds out why her parents were killed by Silicates: a coin came up tails)
Choice or Chance (Wang is tortured by a Silicate and his confession is recorded)
Angriest Angel (McQueen interrogates a Silicate (and arguably becomes a war criminal in the process) to find out where a Chig ace pilot is located)
Pearly (Wang encounters another Silicate of the same model that tortured him in "Choice or Chance" and negotiates with it to destroy the recording of his confession)
And here's a memorable quote from the Stardust episode of S:AAB, which I still remember after more than eight years:
"So, did she give you anything?"
"Yeah. The creeps."
-- West (or was it Wang?) and Hawkes, Stardust, Space: Above and Beyond
EDIT: Something else I just remembered: In one of my personal favorite episodes, Who Monitors the Birds?, we see flashbacks of Hawkes In Vitro training, where he is being indoctrinated alongside other In Vitros by watching a projector slide that shows only single sentences. The projector show several slides and I remember some of the sentences saying stuff like: "You are In Vitros. Created to be soldiers. Created to combat Humanity's greatest enemy. Silicates."
After seeing an0n's above post that I quoted here, it occurred to me that his single sentences were reminiscient of the slides in Who Monitors the Birds?
DG, do I get the dollar? :D
-
$ 4 U
The word 'silicates' made it a bit blindingly obvious, unfortunately. And 'Who Monitors The Birds' was the episode name I wanted :nod:
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
$ 4 U
The word 'silicates' made it a bit blindingly obvious, unfortunately. And 'Who Monitors The Birds' was the episode name I wanted :nod:
i saw that about a month ago.
really good one, that episode.
-
I only need to.....'get' Mutiny (Ep 5) and R&R (Ep 20) and I've got the whole series. Only 140mb per file, but they're pretty good quality.
-
I now only need the last 40mb of Mutiny.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I now only need the last 40mb of Mutiny.
care to share your sources?
-
KaZaA.
For some reason they seem to have a lot more people with SAAB recently. A few weeks back and you'd be lucky to get one source for maybe 5 eps. Now every ep has like 4 sources. Very odd.
*presumes the admins won't care about people discussing the dl'ing of SAAB eps as the show was completely abandoned like 10 years ago*
Hmmm. Who did the CGI for SAAB anyway?
-
Kazaa has copies of S:AAB? SWEEEET...
an0n, how long did it take for you to get all the episodes?
And DG, just how are you going to send me the dollar? Snail mail? Check or money order? COD delivery? ;) :D
-
**** Kazaa, buy the DVD set. Well worth it, some of those CD-quality recordings are nigh-on too dark to watch.
Su, catch *throws*
[EDIT for stupidity on my part]
-
You mentioned this before, but just to refresh my memory, where can we buy the S:AAB DVD set?
And where's my dollar? ;) :D
-
:wtf:
I've been thinking you're Stryke. This is what happens when you look at people's avatars insetad of their actual name.
Anyway.
PM me for an email address of a guy in the UK who can make DVD sets (he will ship internationally if you can put up the postage fees). I won't post the address publicly because the project is quasi-leagl, and you know what Fox are like :)
Originally posted by an0n
Hmmm. Who did the CGI for SAAB anyway?
Click here (http://www.space-readyroom.de/) for all your SAAB needs
-
[throws brick]
Not catchin' nothin'.
-
Originally posted by an0n
KaZaA.
For some reason they seem to have a lot more people with SAAB recently. A few weeks back and you'd be lucky to get one source for maybe 5 eps. Now every ep has like 4 sources. Very odd.
*presumes the admins won't care about people discussing the dl'ing of SAAB eps as the show was completely abandoned like 10 years ago*
Hmmm. Who did the CGI for SAAB anyway?
What are you using as a keyword? I put in Space Above and Beyond and get 10 episodes all with one source.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
:wtf:
I've been thinking you're Stryke. This is what happens when you look at people's avatars insetad of their actual name.
happens to me all the time, kinda annoying.
i always keep wondering why Stryke is suddenly making usefull posts.
-
Originally posted by an0n
KaZaA.
For some reason they seem to have a lot more people with SAAB recently. A few weeks back and you'd be lucky to get one source for maybe 5 eps. Now every ep has like 4 sources. Very odd.
*presumes the admins won't care about people discussing the dl'ing of SAAB eps as the show was completely abandoned like 10 years ago*
Hmmm. Who did the CGI for SAAB anyway?
[color=66ff00]As far as I'm aware there isn't a problem with this. I wouldn't mind getting a good part of SAAB anyhow.
Getting MacGyver episodes, now there's a head wrecking passtime.
[/color]
-
Keywords: Space Beyond
Time: On and off, about a week or two. That's at like maybe 2 hours every other day. I'd guess somewhere in the 15-18 hour range.
-
Maeg: but you still wouldn't approve of me hosting an episode or two and linking to it here?
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I've been thinking you're Stryke. This is what happens when you look at people's avatars insetad of their actual name.
You do that, too? Heh.
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Maeg: but you still wouldn't approve of me hosting an episode or two and linking to it here?
Not hosting it on GS, no question there. As for your own server, well... personally, considering the discontinuedness of the thing, I don't think that will be a problem, as long as with every link you also make mention that if GS or any other relevant body has any problems whatsoever, you will remove the links immediately and without question.
But that's just my personal opinion.... :nervous:
-
[color=66ff00]DG: You mentioned kazaa and the fact that SAAB could be found on it, you did not link to it or provide anything yourself. That is quite different from posting links to episodes of a show that is still a property of someone (no matter how 'discontinued' it is).
Hosting and linking could be illegal, pointing out that something is available is not.
[/color]
-
that's really pathetic...if DG links he has to put a legal disclaimer in his post...:sigh:
-
You know what is almost as pathetic? A thread about gays has turned into DG wanting to host S:AAB eps. ;)
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
You know what is almost as pathetic? A thread about gays has turned into DG wanting to host S:AAB eps. ;)
hmm...I wonder if there's a connection....:nervous:
-
what the fact that SAAB got mentioned in a thread about gayness, nahh :p
-
Originally posted by Analazon
that's really pathetic...if DG links he has to put a legal disclaimer in his post...:sigh:
he replaces the link with "PM me for the link" and that's it ;)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Gay Marriage! I hate Gay marriage they definately should keep that banned.
Bah if gays and lesbians want it they can come up with their own bloody word for it (Actually make that two words, one for a gay marriage and one for a lesbian one). :)
Evidently I'm not the only person who doesn't mind them having the right as long as they don't use the 'M' word. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3031332.stm)
-
Don't make me rain fire and brimstone upon you, bob :)
-
[color=66ff00]DG I really wouldn't mind getting some of those SAAB eps. but I can't stress enough that no matter how convienient they are I would not consider for a second endangering the boards with stuff like that.
On a completely unrelated note did you guys know that Darkage seems to have got an IRC server up and running? How cool is that?
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]On a completely unrelated note... IRC server...[/color]
Suuuuurreeeeee..... ;)
-
[color=66ff00]What???
You're trained to think everything's suspicious... ;) :lol:
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]What???
You're trained to think everything's suspicious... ;) :lol:
[/color]
Perhaps, but I'm rarely let down in that respect. ;)
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you."
;)
-
On a completely unrelated note ( :nervous: )... I need to go talk to Darkage :drevil: