by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .1,0651,0661,0671,0681,0691,0701,071. . .1,1431,144»

G-Tech Corporation wrote:To be fair, Berlusconi is the Mussolini to Putin's Stalin.

One is adorably wacky and a bit incompetent, while being somewhat of a menace.

The other is Putler.

Actually, Berlusconi is kinda out of the game. He's been substituted by Salvini, who's the Italian Marie Le Pen.

He's racist, very dumb and a friend of Putin just like Silvio, however.

Nationstatelandsville

Agritum wrote:By virtue of not being West Virginian, yes.

See, I guarantee Agr can't even find West Virginia on a map.

But even he knows.

Nationstatelandsville wrote:I don't know. You Rebs elected Davis, is all I'm saying.

We needed someone with facial hair to compete with Honest Abe's.

Statistically speaking, facial hair usually determines the course of a war. See: the Eastern Front (Stalin's Handlebar vs Hitler's Chaplain).

Nationstatelandsville wrote:See, I guarantee Agr can't even find West Virginia on a map.

But even he knows.

I can, actually. In case I ever plan a coast to coast holiday in the US.

Wolfina wrote:We needed someone with facial hair to compete with Honest Abe's.

Statistically speaking, facial hair usually determines the course of a war. See: the Eastern Front (Stalin's Handlebar vs Hitler's Chaplain).

Hiroito's epic mustache was defeated by Truman's clean shavedness, so it's false.

Nature-spirits

Wolfina wrote:Being able to get married seems kind of a minor victory compared to everything else LGBT people go through in the US. But you know that a lot of people just aren't going to get that.

Pretty much, yeah. Our allies have decided that SSM is the LGBT issue of note, so now that American LGBT people have got that, many allies will think that it's all good and there are no more fights to be had. Never mind harassment, the ridiculously high rates of trans deaths, conversion therapy, trans people being banned from military service, difficulties finding employment due to social stigma, businesses being able to turn LGBT people away due to "religious freedom" in several states, and the plethora of other issues LGBT people face.

Nationstatelandsville

Agritum wrote:Hiroito's epic mustache was defeated by Truman's clean shavedness, so it's false.

Truman's mustache was supplemented with Einstein's, however.

Nature-spirits wrote:*says the trans lesbian Republican fascist*

:P

It's tough being a Corporatist in America.

Agritum wrote:By virtue of not being West Virginian, yes.

Stonewall would wreck Garibaldi any day of the week.

Nationstatelandsville

Nationstatelandsville wrote:Truman's mustache was supplemented with Einstein's, however.

And the leftover 'stache from FDR, who - being a Roosevelt - had a mustache even when he didn't.

This is not the end. It's not even the beginning of the end. It may not even be the end of the beginning. But it's a big step forward from where the world stood yesterday, or the day before, or the day before that. You don't get to see that kind of a change too often.

The practical effects of this decision may be limited, though I suspect that the plaintiffs - among many others - would dispute that. But the symbolic effects are huge.

Marriage is a sanctifying institution; it hallows relationships, sealing them with society's blessing and transforming them from sordidness into sanctity. When we extend that institution that to same-sex relationships, we are asserting the primacy of love and love alone among our values and in our judgments.

And when we make same-sex marriage legal across the nation, we are asserting that there is no longer a place in America for the idea that some loves are holier than others. That is a symbolic statement of enormous significance.

In short, I do not desire to dispute any of the misgivings that have been voiced by any of my friends here. I am, after all, not a member of the LGBT community; what right do I have to second-guess your concerns about what comes next?

But nonetheless, the world looks different to me this morning. And for that much, as a Christian and an American, I am as proud of my country as I have ever been.

Nature-spirits and Nightkill the emperor

Wolfina wrote:It's tough being a Corporatist in America.
Stonewall would wreck Garibaldi any day of the week.

Stonewall lost a war.

:3

Nationstatelandsville

Agritum wrote:Stonewall lost a war.

:3

Garibaldi cheated.

Agritum wrote:I can, actually. In case I ever plan a coast to coast holiday in the US.

West Virginia is landlocked.

Nationstatelandsville

Astrolinium wrote:West Virginia is landlocked.

Have you forgotten that Ohio technically qualifies as a "sea" due to accumulated tears?

Nature-spirits wrote:Pretty much, yeah. Our allies have decided that SSM is the LGBT issue of note, so now that American LGBT people have got that, many allies will think that it's all good and there are no more fights to be had. Never mind harassment, the ridiculously high rates of trans deaths, conversion therapy, trans people being banned from military service, difficulties finding employment due to social stigma, businesses being able to turn LGBT people away due to "religious freedom" in several states, and the plethora of other issues LGBT people face.

To be fair, I can understand the businesses who don't want to serve LGBT customers, and think they should be allowed to do so. There are certain services that are religiously sensitive, and there's no point in trampling on the civil freedoms of the religious to try and enable sexual freedoms. For instance, I can understand why a pastor wouldn't want to marry an LGBT couple, and he should be free to not marry the couple. In the same manner, if cake shop doesn't want to supply a wedding cake for a LGBT wedding because they believe the wedding itself is wrong, that makes sense. Compelling one segment of society to violate their freedom of conscience to benefit another segment of society is simply a national debate that doesn't have a good result.

Nationstatelandsville

Reverend Norv wrote:This is not the end. It's not even the beginning of the end. It may not even be the end of the beginning. But it's a big step forward from where the world stood yesterday, or the day before, or the day before that. You don't get to see that kind of a change too often.

The practical effects of this decision may be limited, though I suspect that the plaintiffs - among many others - would dispute that. But the symbolic effects are huge.

Marriage is a sanctifying institution; it hallows relationships, sealing them with society's blessing and transforming them from sordidness into sanctity. When we extend that institution that to same-sex relationships, we are asserting the primacy of love and love alone among our values and in our judgments.

And when we make same-sex marriage legal across the nation, we are asserting that there is no longer a place in America for the idea that some loves are holier than others. That is a symbolic statement of enormous significance.

In short, I do not desire to dispute any of the misgivings that have been voiced by any of my friends here. I am, after all, not a member of the LGBT community; what right do I have to second-guess your concerns about what comes next?

But nonetheless, the world looks different to me this morning. And for that much, as a Christian and an American, I am as proud of my country as I have ever been.

But doesn't all of that ideological rhetoric apply also to interracial marriage? Obviously the situation there was a bit different, lacking (as far as I know) SCOTUS action, but I don't think that this philosophical impact you predict will occur.

Nationstatelandsville wrote:But doesn't all of that ideological rhetoric apply also to interracial marriage? Obviously the situation there was a bit different, lacking (as far as I know) SCOTUS action, but I don't think that this philosophical impact you predict will occur.

Loving v Virginia?

Nationstatelandsville

Agritum wrote:Loving v Virginia?

Explain. This is not something I've read on.

Nationstatelandsville wrote:Explain. This is not something I've read on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

There's a worringly number of cases the US achieved social reform only through judicial action, instead of legislative leap forwards.

Nature-spirits

G-Tech Corporation wrote:To be fair, I can understand the businesses who don't want to serve LGBT customers, and think they should be allowed to do so. There are certain services that are religiously sensitive, and there's no point in trampling on the civil freedoms of the religious to try and enable sexual freedoms. For instance, I can understand why a pastor wouldn't want to marry an LGBT couple, and he should be free to not marry the couple. In the same manner, if cake shop doesn't want to supply a wedding cake for a LGBT wedding because they believe the wedding itself is wrong, that makes sense. Compelling one segment of society to violate their freedom of conscience to benefit another segment of society is simply a national debate that doesn't have a good result.

Well, to be frank, I'd rather not support a business that would refuse to serve me because of moral convictions anyhow, so meh.

However, in, say, a small town, if everyone refuses to serve an LGBT customer, they're essentially cutting that person off from the amenities they need. My issue isn't with pastors not wanting to marry same-sex couples -- my issue is with business owners denying fellow human beings basic amenities.

Nature-spirits wrote:Well, to be frank, I'd rather not support a business that would refuse to serve me because of moral convictions anyhow, so meh.

However, in, say, a small town, if everyone refuses to serve an LGBT customer, they're essentially cutting that person off from the amenities they need. My issue isn't with pastors not wanting to marry same-sex couples -- my issue is with business owners denying fellow human beings basic amenities.

And there's a large difference between a pastor not marrying an LGBT couple and a grocery store owner refusing to sell an LGBT person some bread. One is a reasonable accommodation to religious preference, the other is not. The trouble is that legislation to prevent discrimination is generally broad strokes and all in or all out.

Nature-spirits

Reverend Norv wrote:This is not the end. It's not even the beginning of the end. It may not even be the end of the beginning. But it's a big step forward from where the world stood yesterday, or the day before, or the day before that. You don't get to see that kind of a change too often.

The practical effects of this decision may be limited, though I suspect that the plaintiffs - among many others - would dispute that. But the symbolic effects are huge.

Marriage is a sanctifying institution; it hallows relationships, sealing them with society's blessing and transforming them from sordidness into sanctity. When we extend that institution that to same-sex relationships, we are asserting the primacy of love and love alone among our values and in our judgments.

And when we make same-sex marriage legal across the nation, we are asserting that there is no longer a place in America for the idea that some loves are holier than others. That is a symbolic statement of enormous significance.

In short, I do not desire to dispute any of the misgivings that have been voiced by any of my friends here. I am, after all, not a member of the LGBT community; what right do I have to second-guess your concerns about what comes next?

But nonetheless, the world looks different to me this morning. And for that much, as a Christian and an American, I am as proud of my country as I have ever been.

Thank you, Norv. This is really quite touching, and made me smile.

Nature-spirits

G-Tech Corporation wrote:And there's a large difference between a pastor not marrying an LGBT couple and a grocery store owner refusing to sell an LGBT person some bread. One is a reasonable accommodation to religious preference, the other is not. The trouble is that legislation to prevent discrimination is generally broad strokes and all in or all out.

Precisely.

Nationstatelandsville

Agritum wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

There's a worringly number of cases the US achieved social reform only through judicial action, instead of legislative leap forwards.

It may be the only way, honestly, in our structure to create lasting reform.

Or close as we can come.

Nature-spirits

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/its-legal-there

While we're on the topic of same-sex marriage, this made me laugh so hard.

«12. . .1,0651,0661,0671,0681,0691,0701,071. . .1,1431,144»

Advertisement