OMGAY

[TheRaven7]

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

[bdnakathelakaflammab]

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Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989.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.

[unwichtig]

I'm loving college sooooo much, but every date I go on here quickly becomes the most uncomfortable date I've yet to experience.

[Herosbane]

Geometrically or exponentially?

[unwichtig]

Factorially \:

[Dr.Mellifluous]

There's a learning curve for all parties involved.

[unwichtig]

Workin on it

[TheRaven7]

[TheRaven7]

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

I'd say "flame-on", but its effects are negated.

[Cassiel]

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.

[Herosbane]

Mine is better.

(I might have a very expensive tattoo somewhere in my future)

[Zeuter]

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

[TheRaven7]

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/11/an ... hould.html

[Zeuter]

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!

[Ryzel]

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.

[unwichtig]

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.

[Ryzel]

Ah, I see. Thanks for that clarification.

[Myth]

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.

[TheRaven7]

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:

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/

[TheRaven7]

[Zeuter]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... homophobia

[Unleashed90876]

[Herosbane]

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.

[TheRaven7]

[TheRaven7]

http://www.sean-crist.com/rusty/