/tg/Station 13

*sigh*
This is a bad idea, i know its a bad idea.
Try to keep this from becoming a
"u fukken liberals suk dik"
and
"u fukken conservatives suk dik"


Whats everyones opinion on the supreme court ruling legalizing gay marriage across all 50 states.

I think Scalia needs to learn that being witty is not the same as having something intelligent or useful to say.

The constitutions says nothing on the subject of marriage. The supreme court should not be interpreting things about the constitution that don't exist. It is a gross overstepping of their bounds regardless of how I feel on the subject.

The constitution clearly states that any right not explicitly given to the federal government is given to the states. The federal government has no explicit authority over marriage so such rights go to the states.

Its an increasingly common sight to see people from some states trying to force their lifestyle on other states through the federal government. I don't understand it personally. The entire point of having states in the first place was so the people could govern themselves as they want without someone who lives across the entire continent telling them what to do. It makes no sense that someone in Maine who supports gay marriage has the right to force it on someone who doesn't in Arizona. Why even have a system of states at all if the federal government is just going to decide everything? We might as well just move to a federalist system.

u fukken liberals suk dik and u fukken conservatives suk dik

Dumb jokes aside, this is pretty rad.

About time America caught up with the rest of the modern world.

invisty wrote:About time America caught up with the rest of the modern world.

It's not so much catching up as it is nearly simultaneously making the decision.

The legalization of gay marriage in "the rest of the modern world" is still happening. The United States is getting on-board at the same time the rest of the modern world is. It's a global issue.

You'll notice other "modern world" nations like Australia, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and more have yet to climb aboard as well. If you look at 2015 +/- 2 years I think you'll end up capturing most of the "modern world." At the same time in 2013 when a lot of these other countries were "leading" the "modern world" in legalizing gay marriage we were also fucking tooth and nail here in the States overturning the Defense of Marriage Act.

Loonikus wrote:-snip-

You seem to be forgetting something.

If a state is infringing on the unalienable rights of the citizens of the United States of America it is exactly the federal government's prerogative to intervene on the behalf of the citizenry.
For the same reason that a single state can't decide to legalize slavery again, or secede from the Union.

One of the functions of the federal government is to oversee each individual states' constitutions and laws to ensure they aren't overstepping the United States authority to oppress their citizens. Each state is allowed a certain amount of autonomy within the Union, sure, but we are overall one country with 50 sub-states, not 50 individual countries that form a Union.

>getting married
>inalienable right

i guess i don't care either way but this entire issue seems to be blown up to thousands of times it's actual importance

it seems almost deliberately concocted to take a great deal of everyone's attention away from things that will change anything for the vast majority of the population, while providing an extremely convenient wedge to drive everyone into sectarianism

or maybe it's extremely important and the fate of the world turns on it

i don't know

Way to join the club, fucking proud, awesome. Progressin has definitely been made.

Pretty major terror attacks today, will go overlooked because muh civil rights victories.

Slippery slope is j-just a fallacy

Scones wrote:Pretty major terror attacks today, will go overlooked because muh civil rights victories.

Slippery slope is j-just a fallacy

What?

It wasn't legalized, it was created. You can't legalize something that never existed. Gay "marriage" makes as much sense as an expression as dry water or hot ice.

Kwanzanians never cared about the constitution in the past 50 years and never will. Anybody who as much as took as casual glance at it can tell you there's nothing in it about sticking it in the pooper, there's on the other hand plenty about the right to free speech, to keep and bear arms, or to not have your privacy unreasonably invaded without a warrant and a probable cause, all of which were ignored and trampled numerous times in the past and will be trampled in the future. All this happens when the state becomes your God and you want your unholy union to be recognized by the higher power.

Kwanstainia will end as a huge countrywide congoid swingers party in the next 20 years. That much is sure.

Well at least now everyone can be miserable together.

An0n3 wrote: The legalization of gay marriage in "the rest of the modern world" is still happening. The United States is getting on-board at the same time the rest of the modern world is. It's a global issue.

Exactly. It always happens this way. Notice how no one ever gets to vote for or against this, and even if they do the results are ignored like in some USA states previously. Things like this start as a note on Lord Rothschild's napkin after the lunch. "IDEA - Make cattle believe it's their right to marry whatever. It'll help make them even more gullible and we'll always have something to divert attention to when we do fishy business for years to come". A castrated servant picks it up, carries it to a secretary, who turns it into a document and sends it to the G-20 leaders. They know they have to obey or they're gonna go the way of the dodo, unless they're not completely emasculated, like Putin for instance. Then it happens pretty much overnight without anyone noticing the pattern. All while pretending it's a huge "fight" and "struggle" while it's been pretty much a criminal offense to say anything about this movement but total praise. The pink jackboot is everywhere. Do you know how many people in last 30 years lost their jobs when they showed support for gay "rights"? Hint: zero.

I'll be that smug Eurofag.

>american politics

Who cares?

Muh freedoms unless it is for a group i dont like

im just a misunderstood confederate flag

i almost wrote a serious post but didn't i'm pretty sure dodged a bullet

if youre gay congratulatiosn if not whatever

Why would marriage laws differentiate between sexes in the first place? To the law a marriage is just an agreement (one of several kinds you can issue) of 2 people to live together and governs things like inheriting, tax stuff and alimony. There is not a single issue in (Dutch) marriage laws that differentiates between man or women.

So if the law doesn't give a shit if you are a man or a women why would you even put up a restriction that a man can only marry a women?
What SENSE does it make to have that restriction in place except for historical reasons?

CPTANT wrote:There is not a single issue in (Dutch) marriage laws that differentiates between man or women.

The Netherlands were the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, on April 1st 2001. It's rather interesting that homosexuality is not even a political issue here anymore, even our most extremely right-winged party supports it. I think only one party is actively against it, some dusty old Christian party that doesn't allow female party members and that only old people vote for. Unfortunately there's still a lot of violence against LGBTQ+ members on the streets.

I don't get what the Q+ people have been sticking onto LGBT means.

Also good for americans I guess?

Q+ is every other form of sexuality and gender not included in LGBT.

CPTANT wrote:Why would marriage laws differentiate between sexes in the first place? To the law a marriage is just an agreement (one of several kinds you can issue) of 2 people to live together and governs things like inheriting, tax stuff and alimony. There is not a single issue in (Dutch) marriage laws that differentiates between man or women.

So if the law doesn't give a shit if you are a man or a women why would you even put up a restriction that a man can only marry a women?
What SENSE does it make to have that restriction in place except for historical reasons?

Because the issue is not a legal, but a moral one, but you can't expect the postmodernist society to be able to notice that.

mosquitoman wrote:

CPTANT wrote:Why would marriage laws differentiate between sexes in the first place? To the law a marriage is just an agreement (one of several kinds you can issue) of 2 people to live together and governs things like inheriting, tax stuff and alimony. There is not a single issue in (Dutch) marriage laws that differentiates between man or women.

So if the law doesn't give a shit if you are a man or a women why would you even put up a restriction that a man can only marry a women?
What SENSE does it make to have that restriction in place except for historical reasons?

Because the issue is not a legal, but a moral one, but you can't expect the postmodernist society to be able to notice that.

So why's being gay immoral?

mosquitoman wrote:

CPTANT wrote:Why would marriage laws differentiate between sexes in the first place? To the law a marriage is just an agreement (one of several kinds you can issue) of 2 people to live together and governs things like inheriting, tax stuff and alimony. There is not a single issue in (Dutch) marriage laws that differentiates between man or women.

So if the law doesn't give a shit if you are a man or a women why would you even put up a restriction that a man can only marry a women?
What SENSE does it make to have that restriction in place except for historical reasons?

Because the issue is not a legal, but a moral one, but you can't expect the postmodernist society to be able to notice that.

A MORAL issue?

What is a moral issue, the Supreme Court ruling in favour of gay marriage or gay marriage in general?

You state all kinds of judgemental statements like "unholy union" and "pink jackboot" but why do you CARE. Why is it any of peoples business who other people choose to love? If that is the morality we lost than I am glad we did.

If it takes your supreme court to see it complete nonsense to arbitrarily restrict marriage while marriage laws don't care about your gender for anything else, then so be it. You act like this somehow shoves something in your face. You will have NOTHING to do with gay marriage if you do not choose to. Unless you are somehow offended by the neighbours doing so or something (but in that case you will probably be offended by them being gay in the first place).

These people will love each other and spend the rest of their lives together whether or not people find it "immoral" or not and if gay marriage is legalized or not. The option for these people to register themselves as married changes NOTHING except providing a legal framework for these people.

CPTANT wrote: A MORAL issue?

What is a moral issue, the Supreme Court ruling in favour of gay marriage or gay marriage in general?

You state all kinds of judgemental statements like "unholy union" and "pink jackboot" but why do you CARE. Why is it any of peoples business who other people choose to love?

Homosexuality is a necessary part of the subjective world. What is outrageous is the aggressive campaign to make it equal (in the minds of general population) to the normal human relationship. Especially when you have preachers equating this artificial legal construct with actual marriage. The purpose of marriage is to elevate a rather mundane (by itself) human union to an expression a divine principle. There can be, however, nothing divine to that which in principle stands in opposition to the divine (like the homosexual relationship). And this is the core problem. It doesn't matter what particular governments deem to be legal within their systems, they don't matter in the grand scheme of things like any other artificial construct created by man. The postmodernist subversion of morality is what matters here.

Marriage actually isn't a religious invention, there is nothing divine about it.
The religious ceremony is a Wedding and even that isn't necessarily tied to any kind of morality or spirituality.

There's also nothing undivine about homosexuality but I don't expect you to care about that. More fun to hate people than love them.

Sure, if you perceive it as a purely legal construct, but then you can just let anyone marry anyone if you agree it's just for tax breaks etc, which renders the whole thing and the progressivtard "victory" meaningless.

The only human relationship in your life is between your lonely ass and your hand.

Keep wringing out that autistic dick cheese you fucking bitter loser.

10/10 anon shitpost, will attempt to recreate.

DemonFiren wrote:10/10 anon shitpost, will attempt to recreate.

Sometimes it's the right thing to do. Learn well.

> muh duhvine sanctity

Lol

Ah, yes, the last refuge, when all else fails there is always verbal diarrhoea like the posts above. That sure is great when you form your opinions based on whatever the paper/tv tell you to think.

This is what they're filling your heads with at the college now isn't it? It's always the same kinds of people on the internet. Card carrying bolshevists who lash out like wounded animals whenever they realize they have no mental capacity to participate in the discussion on any meaningful level. You'll see those people marching in crowds at large cities moaning about "DE 'MAN,' DE 'MAN' BE KEEPIN' ME DOWN.", they're dime a dozen. If you could grind a hundred of them into fine dust you'd find as much testosterone in the remains as my left testicle produces in ten seconds. Actually you can, they're basically made of glass and snap when you clap your hands. An0n3, did you know that if you stopped posting here altogether, NOBODY WOULD REGRET THAT?

All else fails? Better judgement already won.

You whining about your perceptions of what a normal relationship should be is already shitposting. Claiming there's a global gay conspiracy ruining our youth and undermining muh christies is shitposting.

A permavirgin like you complaining that the sanctity of marriage has been undermined is like a quadriplegic complaining that the stairs are too tall.

Can churches/etc still refuse to perform fag weddings or would they get in trouble for exercising their business right to refuse custom to anyone of their choosing?

Mosquitoman you are paprika minus the few quality code contributions

See this guy? He knows I'm immune to his usual gibberish, so he doesn't even try it. He resorts to awkward insults and projecting instead. Kwanzania is a fallen nation, filled to the brim with An0n3s. It's a shadow of what it once was. Half of it is constantly on drugs every moment of their waking lives. Do you think they're capable of sound judgment in any regard? They'll end up as glassy ruins in the next 20 years. State marriage is not sacred, never was and never will. Precisely because you can define it to be whatever you want.

kwanzania is a really embarrassing term
I honestly don't think I'd be able to look myself in the mirror if I thought it was the height of discourse to just repeatedly refer to a country by the wrong name as a "sick burn"

That was not an ad hominim so much as an off topic post. You can make baseless assumptions about me all you like, it certainly will not make it any less hilarious that you are afraid of pink jackbooted gay commandos or some such bullshit as you ramble about the liberal conspiracy

I just don't understand why you think your opinion on marriage matters when you're going to die alone anyway.

Malkevin wrote:Can churches/etc still refuse to perform fag weddings or would they get in trouble for exercising their business right to refuse custom to anyone of their choosing?

I believe they lose their status as a non-profit because MUH OPPRESION!

Speaking of peoples "right to happiness", my state constitution explicitly states I have a right to happiness. This makes me unhappy. Brb suing the state for at least 10 things they do that make me unhappy.

Also An0n3, don't lecture us on marriage when you can't even hold down your own.

Memes and tv-tier mental garbage, that's discourse in the age of the facebook/imageboard generation. You people would be declared legally insane or retarded in the 50s. Back then Anon3 could have a chance at normal life by signing up for electroshock therapy. As it is now, he's reassured by the government he's a healthy human being while typing on a mucus-covered keybaord from his grandma's basement. No need to change anything bro.

Loonikus wrote:Also An0n3, don't lecture us on marriage when you can't even hold down your own.

To have tried and failed once so far is so much more than you've accomplished.

The only reason anyone should be upset that gay marriage is now legal is if you were a homosexual in a relationship and now you don't have a good excuse for why you don't want to be married.

Anything else is just pure spite that other people know what love is and you don't.

You are right. You are the last paragon of sense in a world gone mad. Only by shitposting contrarian opinions on the forum of a spacegame where literally everyone thinks you're an asshole can you expose the left wing liberal conspiracy.

Also all deez assumptions. I never watch TV nor do I use Facebook beyond talking to my friends

According to mosquitoman having friends and being social means you have mental problems.

Yeah, there's no concerted effort to make this the new normal. It all just happens spontaneously. Nobody oversees this, it all occurred by coincidence overnight. People who say otherwise are loonies comparable to those who believe in NSA spying on all kwans without a warrant or those who never believed there were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They're lunatics, man.

If churches are actually getting in trouble for refusing to marry gay people that is pretty bullshit. I firmly believe that they have that right even if I think it is shit

mosquitoman wrote:Yeah, there's no concerted effort to make this the new normal. It all just happens spontaneously. Nobody oversees this, it all occurred by coincidence overnight. People who say otherwise are loonies comparable to those who believe in NSA spying on all kwans without a warrant or those who never believed there were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They're lunatics, man.

Did the savage electrical shocks you received as a child to cure you of your need to socialize teach you that or did you figure it out for yourself?