OMGAY

All discussions regarding politics, religion, philosophy, science, cake and related subjects should be posted here.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: OMGAY

Postby TheRaven7 » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

That image has been debunked. Every state has incest laws, while 5 states permit gay marriage.

Anyway, this is why Iran has no homosexuals:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7259057.stm
User avatar
TheRaven7
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:49 am
Location: welcome to inanity

Re: OMGAY

Postby bdnakathelakaflammab » Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:38 am

So you'd marry your first cousin? I'd count that as creepy.

I know the risk of genetic fuckup is a lot smaller, but it still there. And also, I count these three as legal.

Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989.
Ohio only targets parental figures
New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older.

Worst case is that the image was pretty much accurate three years ago as well.
bdnakathelakaflammab
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:12 pm

Re: OMGAY

Postby unwichtig » Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:22 pm

I'm loving college sooooo much, but every date I go on here quickly becomes the most uncomfortable date I've yet to experience.
unwichtig
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: OMGAY

Postby Herosbane » Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:42 pm

Geometrically or exponentially?
User avatar
Herosbane
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:36 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: OMGAY

Postby unwichtig » Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:10 pm

Factorially \:
unwichtig
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: OMGAY

Postby Dr.Mellifluous » Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:51 pm

There's a learning curve for all parties involved.
a particle is a thing in itself. a wave is a disturbance in something else. waves themselves are probably not disturbed.
User avatar
Dr.Mellifluous
 
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:30 am
Location: Pornosophically Philotheologising

Re: OMGAY

Postby unwichtig » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:54 pm

Workin on it
unwichtig
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: OMGAY

Postby TheRaven7 » Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:05 pm

User avatar
TheRaven7
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:49 am
Location: welcome to inanity

Re: OMGAY

Postby TheRaven7 » Mon Nov 22, 2010 2:51 pm

http://genderbitch.wordpress.com/2010/0 ... ing-magic/

I'd say "flame-on", but its effects are negated.
User avatar
TheRaven7
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:49 am
Location: welcome to inanity

Re: OMGAY

Postby Cassiel » Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:06 pm

I only read a few sentences. Stock reply:

Why yes, I am entitled. It's because I'm better than you.

Also, meaning is always tied up with intent ("There's glory for you"), and my wheel of elements was way cooler than that guy's.
User avatar
Cassiel
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 2:12 pm

Re: OMGAY

Postby Herosbane » Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:41 pm

Mine is better.

(I might have a very expensive tattoo somewhere in my future)
User avatar
Herosbane
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:36 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: OMGAY

Postby Zeuter » Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Someone with the alias Hyadain has been making Megaman vocaloid remixes for each boss. And they're all gay lovesongs.







simply
it is enough to
your task is simple;
just
all you need is to
User avatar
Zeuter
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:07 am
Location: オランダ

Re: OMGAY

Postby TheRaven7 » Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:09 pm

User avatar
TheRaven7
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:49 am
Location: welcome to inanity

Re: OMGAY

Postby Zeuter » Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:05 pm

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/judg ... -straight/

I'm torn (inb4 anal sex joke). We have two threads about the horridness of the USA now, but this still fits here better. But it's just so classy!
simply
it is enough to
your task is simple;
just
all you need is to
User avatar
Zeuter
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:07 am
Location: オランダ

Re: OMGAY

Postby Ryzel » Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:15 am

TheRaven7 wrote:http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/11/antonin-scalia-14th-amendment-should.html


Based off that article, I'm getting the impression that the blogger wants people to think the justice is a bigot and hates the idea of homosexuality, but I didn't see anywhere in the article any mention of his personal views.

Actually, can someone clarify for me whether a Supreme Court justice's job is to interpret the Constitution based off of his/her own opinion of what he/she thinks of current society, or to interpret the Constitution based off of how he/she believes the Founding Fathers meant it to be interpreted? Because if it's the latter, and he's telling the truth about the Founding Fathers outlawing homosexuality and abortion, then really he's just doing his job.

It seems to me after reading the article that the main issue he has is this...
The way to change the Constitution is through amendments approved by the people, not by judges altering the meaning of its words...

Which relates to my previous question. I'm sorry that I'm lazy and won't do the research myself, but I need to go to class at the moment. Guess I could do it when I get back.
Ryzel
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: Hakuna Matata Bitches

Re: OMGAY

Postby unwichtig » Tue Nov 30, 2010 10:16 am

Ryzel wrote:Actually, can someone clarify for me whether a Supreme Court justice's job is to interpret the Constitution based off of his/her own opinion of what he/she thinks of current society, or to interpret the Constitution based off of how he/she believes the Founding Fathers meant it to be interpreted?


That's a good chunk of the entire philosophical debate of the judicial branch. Strict constructionists, who are typically more conservative in political belief (though not necessarily!) are of the latter opinion. And loose constructionists interpret the Constitution based on their interpretation of modern society.

I honestly don't understand why someone would try to read the Constitution through a 200+ year old lens and then apply it to today's society, but I'm not very educated on the issue and it's the subject of what I assume to be a majority of controversial Supreme Court decisions.
unwichtig
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: OMGAY

Postby Ryzel » Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:22 am

Ah, I see. Thanks for that clarification.
Ryzel
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:13 pm
Location: Hakuna Matata Bitches

Re: OMGAY

Postby Myth » Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:26 am

unwichtig wrote:I honestly don't understand why someone would try to read the Constitution through a 200+ year old lens and then apply it to today's society, but I'm not very educated on the issue and it's the subject of what I assume to be a majority of controversial Supreme Court decisions.



Typically someone would want to do that if they wanted to fight interracial marriage, gay marriage, gun control, etc etc. This same person would want to ignore it if you were arguing that the First Amendment gives Muslims et. al. the same rights as white Anglo-Saxon Christians. The beauty of the new "Constitutionalist" Tea Party movement is that, by viewing it through the 200 year old lens, you can skew it however you want, even if the world it was written in is DRASTICALLY different than the one in which we live. I suppose that can be said of any law. I mean, in what, Wyoming?, it's still legal to kill a man if he steals your horse. I would like to try that some day.
User avatar
Myth
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:44 am
Location: Pleasing 83% of the population 74% of the time.

Re: OMGAY

Postby TheRaven7 » Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:14 pm

What's stupid is that it's not even about strict interpretation at all. It's about temporal interpretation. The idea that that the Constitution should be interpreted as if time stopped at 1777 is absurd, not only because there are over 10 amendments written after the Bill of Rights, but also because it is literally impossible to do so.

Also, notions resembling "X shouldn't get rights because X didn't exist then" are also silly. While not the only example it is easy to demonstrate:

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 wrote:As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


In better news:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... dont-tell/
User avatar
TheRaven7
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:49 am
Location: welcome to inanity

Re: OMGAY

Postby TheRaven7 » Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:03 am

User avatar
TheRaven7
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:49 am
Location: welcome to inanity

Re: OMGAY

Postby Zeuter » Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:08 pm

simply
it is enough to
your task is simple;
just
all you need is to
User avatar
Zeuter
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:07 am
Location: オランダ

Re: OMGAY

Postby Unleashed90876 » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:09 am

Image
User avatar
Unleashed90876
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:04 am

Re: OMGAY

Postby Herosbane » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:19 pm

Okay, I combed the whole thread looking for a video I thought was here and I can't find it.

It was a black general debating on Fox about allowing gays in the military. He said something about how allowing openly gay people would disrupt morale "...right?" and then when the other guy agreed he said something like "That's what they said about blacks, and now I'm a four star general so put that in your pipe and smoke it."

I cannot find the goddamn video. And incidentally, all the above facts might be misremembered.

P.S. Going through all 11 pages of this thread gives a really funny meta-aspect to the gay bullying issue.
User avatar
Herosbane
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:36 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: OMGAY

Postby TheRaven7 » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:07 pm

Image
User avatar
TheRaven7
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:49 am
Location: welcome to inanity

Re: OMGAY

Postby TheRaven7 » Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:09 pm

User avatar
TheRaven7
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 6:49 am
Location: welcome to inanity

PreviousNext

Return to The Bloody Stump

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest