PC Gaming News
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 93
  1. #71
    Achievements:
    Social10 PostsVeteran1,000 Posts5000 Experience Points
    Giggles's Avatar
    Server

    2nd star to the right
    Guild

    wouldn't you like to know (maybe not)
    Posts

    4,369

  2. #72
    GWOnline Content Team
    GWOnline Site Pal
    Achievements:
    Social10 PostsVeteranCreated Blog entry10K Posts
    Alaris's Avatar
    Server

    Kaineng
    Guild

    The Order of Dii [Dii]
    Posts

    29,751
    Looks like my ladt comment was not sent... Grr phone foruming.

    I think freedom should be priority. Freedom of religion, freedom to marry who we want. Let people make their own choices especially for personal stuff like this.

    Been watching Fox news here. Wow it's terrible. One show The Five was basically one democrat being bashed by four republicans. Yet the one dem actually was sticking to facts way better, it made the reps look bad, at least to someone who understands logic. Jocks bullying the smart kid.
    == Alaris & clone ==
    Proud Officer of The Order Of Dii [Dii] - join us
    You can tell the quality of life of people by what they complain about

  3. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Zalis View Post
    I'm not saying I necessarily support the exact language of the ruling, but at least it was put to a vote instead of forced on people by some judge.
    I'm not entirely clear where the animosity for judges is coming from. The whole point of having 3 branches is that they each check the other. That necessarily includes judges overriding legislatures.

    Regarding Civil Unions, I'll quickly outline the major differences. First, they aren't federally recognized. That means no immigration for your spouse, no tax benefits, no power of attorney, etc. Second, they are matters of individual state law and therefore don't cross borders. If you get married in Nevada and move to New York, you are married in New York under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution. Not so for civil unions. If you move out of the state you got your union in, it's as if you didn't get one at all. This has all sorts of problems for things like inheritance or medical visitation rights. Lastly, and this is not really a difference between the two but it's worth pointing out anyways, if you try to make Civil Unions exactly like marriage but not marriage, and give it to homosexuals, you run face first into a rather famous case called Brown v. Board of Education which found separate but equal to be unconstitutional. Thus it really is marriage or nothing.

    ***********************

    Quote Originally Posted by Erring Ryft
    Pretty sure I'm hoping for the supreme court to eventually take up the California case and smack down all the bans as unconstitutional. It probably won't happen, since it's my understanding that marriage is a state by state thing, but one can dream.
    The supreme court could smack it all down at once if they wanted to. I think you're right in thinking that probably won't happen though.

    ***********************

    Quote Originally Posted by Lensor
    To be honest I do not think people should get to vote whether or not the law should discriminate based on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. Such things should be above reproach and not up to popular opinion.
    For the most part, everything you just listed is something people don't actually get to vote on. The only part they do is the sexual orientation bit.

  4. #74
    I do not agree entirely with the way the chart illustrates the positions of the candidates. For example, in March 7, 2004, Obama stated that he did not think federal recognition of same sex marriage is practical, due to all the strong political and religious opposition to it. In the chart this is listed as "against". I would personally file that under "undecided." He was obviously in favor of it then already, but avoided stating that he was explicidly against or in favor of it due to the reasons he gave.

    By the way Bristol Palin responded to Obama's opinion on Facebook, which was hilarious. Obama basically said he had a talk with his own kids, who have friends with same sex parents, and came to his new view on the matter. This was Bristol's response:

    "While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads," says the 21-year-old spawn of Sarah.

    "In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage."

    "As great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview."

    "I guess we can be glad that Malia and Sasha aren’t younger," she goes on, "Or perhaps today’s press conference might have been about appointing Dora the Explorer as Attorney General because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox."

    "Dads should lead their family in the right ways of thinking. In this case, it would’ve been nice if the President would’ve helped shape their thoughts instead of merely reflecting what many teenagers think after one too many episodes of Glee."
    Well first of all, I think it is down right hilarious that someone like Bristol Palin, the unwed girl that got knocked up, gives the president of the United States parenting advise.

    But of course, we also know that what she says about same sex couples raising children is completely untrue. Kids do not grow up better in a mother/father home. In fact, my own parents are divorced, and I turned out fine. There are tons of families that don't have a father, or don't have a mother. And having two mothers or two fathers really doesn't make any difference.

    Also, regarding marriage, the concept of marriage has constantly changed over the many years it exists. It wasn't originally a Christian tradition at all, and has many versions across the globe. But I wouldn't expect Bristol Palin to ever read a history book. For that you would need to read first.

    And apparently watching Glee makes you homosexual.
    Last edited by Rob Van Der Sloot; 12-05-2012 at 13:36.

  5. #75
    GWOnline Content Team
    GWOnline Site Pal
    Achievements:
    Social10 PostsVeteranCreated Blog entry10K Posts
    Alaris's Avatar
    Server

    Kaineng
    Guild

    The Order of Dii [Dii]
    Posts

    29,751
    @David: then the question is why discriminating based on sex orientation ok? And consider how gender discrimination used to be ok even recently.

    @Rob: Glee comment betrays her lack of maturity and understanding of the subject.
    == Alaris & clone ==
    Proud Officer of The Order Of Dii [Dii] - join us
    You can tell the quality of life of people by what they complain about

  6. #76
    GWOnline Content Team
    GWOnline Site Pal
    Achievements:
    Social10 PostsVeteranCreated Blog entry10K Posts
    Alaris's Avatar
    Server

    Kaineng
    Guild

    The Order of Dii [Dii]
    Posts

    29,751
    Sry double post, no edit button on phone.

    I think it's fine if given churches don't marry gaays. Some other churches will, and the mariage has to have legal status.

    Btw, why is gaay mariage being same but different a legal problem in the Brown case?
    == Alaris & clone ==
    Proud Officer of The Order Of Dii [Dii] - join us
    You can tell the quality of life of people by what they complain about

  7. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    @David: then the question is why discriminating based on sex orientation ok? And consider how gender discrimination used to be ok even recently.
    Because people only really started caring recently. There just hasn't been the historical force that something like gender or racial discrimination had. It's fairly obvious that eventually the courts/legislators will protect against sexual orientation discrimination- we've already seen some of it in hate crime legislation, for example. But on a wide scale it seems to take quite some time for the country to recognize when people need legal protection.

  8. #78
    GWOnline Content Team
    GWOnline Site Pal
    Achievements:
    Social10 PostsVeteranCreated Blog entry10K Posts
    Alaris's Avatar
    Server

    Kaineng
    Guild

    The Order of Dii [Dii]
    Posts

    29,751
    But then you can see that in 50 years we'll realize we've been retarded, why not stop being retarded now?
    == Alaris & clone ==
    Proud Officer of The Order Of Dii [Dii] - join us
    You can tell the quality of life of people by what they complain about

  9. #79
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class10 PostsVeteran10000 Experience Points1,000 Posts
    shawn's Avatar
    Server

    Jade Quarry
    Guild

    Dii/BPA
    Posts

    11,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaris View Post
    Sry double post, no edit button on phone.
    I said I wasn't going to click on this thread again, but I saw this snippet of quote from the Unread tab and felt obliged to tell you that to edit your post, you just have to tap on it and hit Modify on the popup.
    Blinkie Ponie Armie [BPA] :: The Order of Dii [Dii]

  10. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Zalis View Post
    I'll have to look into it. Thanks.
    http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html
    Legally, there's a fairly simple fix for most of the differences between civil unions and marriage, and I personally don't care about terminology that much. I'd like to see the standard be civil unions with 'marriage' being recognized as endowing the exact same rights, since I'd prefer a more secular system, but I'd be fine with marriage being the standard term and 'civil union' being linked for the exact same federal benefits (and forcing cross state recognition).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •