Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[Kotohono]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

So that milestone that happened in June. Is there anyway people can reverse it? Like let's say a republican president gets elected in 2016, or worse yet, there is a republican president, and the GOP has the senate and house, is there anyway they can defeat that ruling?

They would need to invoke Article Five of the Constitution and amend the Constitution with a new amendment in order to override the a supreme court ruling; however the chances of that are basically zero of that occurring.

For that to work it requires a supermajority (>66%) vote in favor in both Senate & House of Representatives & the president must be favor as well, which for the record hasn't occurred for either party a single time in the past 50 years (I am too lazy to check further back).

Or option B which is even more unlikely...

By a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states.

Given that less than a dozen states hadn't legalized it before the court ruling, this option is basically impossible.

The only other thing that could the court would if they accepted a reconsideration on the trial, but without some new arguments or evidence or some sort this is also a near zero case. Which time frame has already lapsed, and there was nothing about being granted.

Republicans who claim they seek to remove it due purely in attempt to get political points as they should know the impossibility they face.

[Akito Kinomoto]

I figured it would be more appropriate to put this here than on the election thread. Not sure though

YouTube

https://youtu.be/LyU1EqTWSgg

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Guy Incognito]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

I figured it would be more appropriate to put this here than on the election thread. Not sure though

YouTube

https://youtu.be/LyU1EqTWSgg

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

so sick of these progressives crying he's a racist he's a bigot, wihout the details or nuance of what he said or meant. When there plenty of legitimate things to go after him for.

[MrTerrorist]

Taiwan set to legalize same-sex marriages, a first in Asia

I never expected this. I wonder how China will feel about Taiwan legalization same-sex marriage?

[Akito Kinomoto]

Speaking of which, the only way gay marriage gets unthingified in America now (if I have my count right) is one more centrist or liberal Justice stepping down or dying. But Americans are at least guaranteed the incoming executive and legislative make-up will ensure religious freedom laws stay in place

Now if you'll excuse me, Godwin 3:16 from The Book of Bullwastus says "the pilgrims of new testimonial shant be granted workmanship"

[Key Board]

"A proposed Texas law has prompted worries that schools could “out” gay students to parents who may or may not be accepting."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2882548

[Eragon]

Just a stepping stone for Pence's "Voluntary" Gay conversion centers.

Because we all know kids and teenagers have so much control over their life. /s

[Akito Kinomoto]

We have a report from rocketnews24 where Sapporo, Japan will legally recognize same-sex couples marital status. The new system is expected to be implemented next year for the 2 million populace city, the largest in the Hokkaido region

All I can say is good. It's nobody else's business to deny civil rights to someone based on who they are, but much like America they can't just stop at marriage equality. Sexual orientation period needs to be a protected class on principle, or else I can go out there and go "ewww, you're religious! gtfoutta muh restaurant!" Sounds stupid doesn't it? Because it is, so don't extrapolate that bigotry to sexual orientation by law

Now obviously this is still a step in the right direction, but honestly, go the whole nine yards and history's gonna be kind to you. Like, this is such a "duh" and I almost feel sorry for anyone still doing mental gymnastics for their bigotry

[MCAL]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politi...hb2/index.html

You see the problem is what Democrats fail to realize is that Republicans are actually the Saturday morning cartoon villains in an episode of Captain Planet.

http://www.businessinsider.com/north...oycott-2016-12

[Brother Coa]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kousaka

We have a report from rocketnews24 where Sapporo, Japan will legally recognize same-sex couples marital status. The new system is expected to be implemented next year for the 2 million populace city, the largest in the Hokkaido region

To be honest those are Japanese. I expect for them to allow siblings to marry as well in the future. And this will make founding stone toward that goal.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

To be honest those are Japanese. I expect for them to allow siblings to marry as well in the future. And this will make founding stone toward that goal.

Between consenting adults I'm like "you do you or whoever, it's not any of my business as long as you're not hurting anyone" as a matter of principle. But I also stop at reproduction since it empirically puts the potential child at significantly greater risk for a birth defect and that child can't make those decisions for themselves yet. Where I'm waffling is what countermeasure there should be for incest reproduction, if any at all, since accidents with protection or just happening to meet someone you didn't know was your sibling can occur

I could be persuaded to go either way, and I know some people on the right are like "!@#$, our old bigotry tricks aren't working!" while some on the left are like "omg you're so anti-liberty being against a much greater chance for a birth defect." Well...hit me with your best shot, gaiz

[Akito Kinomoto]

I would point out the stupidity in comparing consenting adults to banging animals, but then I remembered Trump "doesn't even wait"

[Kafriel]

Wasn't there a guy that married a Fate pillow a few years ago?

[GDB]

1) Consent is a thing. If the other party cannot give consent, then marriage is impossible. You like to harp "equality" like it were a meme, but equality also means that equal consent must be given between parties.

2) Your argument sounds just like the arguments against freeing the slaves/letting black people/women vote. Instead of actually arguing against the situation at hand, you toss out some slippery slope fallacy. Didn't happen then, so let's not pretend it's a thing now. Dogs and children never got voting rights, after all.

3) Marriage has many perks to it, which is why the LGBT community wants the equal rights. If you want to deny them those rights, deny them to everyone. Remove tax breaks for married couples, remove medical perks, remove visitation rights, etc. Until then, this isn't solely about "feelings".

[-Antares-]

Between consenting adults I'm like "you do you or whoever, it's not any of my business as long as you're not hurting anyone" as a matter of principle. But I also stop at reproduction since it empirically puts the potential child at significantly greater risk for a birth defect and that child can't make those decisions for themselves yet.

Kind of a tangent here, but would you want some kind of prevention of reproduction for people with known genetic disorders as well? Particularly the autosomal-dominant variety. I've been told by a geneticist that this means there's about a 50% chance of children getting the disorder even when just one parent has the gene. My half-brother and I both have such a genetic disorder (from our shared parent, of course, and who knows what older relatives past her) so this always pops into my mind when people mention the issue of genetic defects with regards to incest. I've also heard that the risk of defects from incest is not as great as it's made out to be, but have no source for that it... could just have been something someone unusually interested in incest made up.

More on topic... I don't see any reason two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to marry. Churches don't want to hold gay weddings? Well, the great thing about religious freedom and marriage's state as a legal rather than religious construct is that they don't have to! That fact won't even get in the way of homosexual couples getting married. Everyone can win, here.

As for benefits, I'm not so concerned with tax breaks, because as far as I'm aware that was more meant for the idea that it would make supporting children easier. Not that homosexual couples can't have children, but there are so many straight couples that aren't, too. I really don't think that particular benefit should even be tied to marriage in this day and age. The medical stuff, though? That's a big deal to me. There is a major problem when your partner is not recognized as such and thus can't have visitation rights or even be involved in decision-making unless the other had specified them in their advance directives (which many people don't bother to make in the first place).

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

Kind of a tangent here, but would you want some kind of prevention of reproduction for people with known genetic disorders as well? Particularly the autosomal-dominant variety. I've been told by a geneticist that this means there's about a 50% chance of children getting the disorder even when just one parent has the gene. My half-brother and I both have such a genetic disorder (from our shared parent, of course, and who knows what older relatives past her) so this always pops into my mind when people mention the issue of genetic defects with regards to incest. I've also heard that the risk of defects from incest is not as great as it's made out to be, but have no source for that it... could just have been something someone unusually interested in incest made up

That's the other angle of it that makes me waffly on this issue. Like I wouldn't be comfortable penalizing someone for a one-night-stand defect baby because their morning after pill didn't work, or someone who doesn't know what's in their genetic history (and rotating back to whether you knew someone was related to you or not). Can I dodge the issue and look for a way around that the same way we got rid of smallpox? Well technically I'm not the one searching but whatever

[-Antares-]

It's fine if you're not totally sure of how to handle it. I was just curious what you thought. Short of forced sterilization (which is kind of... messed up, particularly in the case of incestuous relationships which might not even last forever, as with any relationship), the only thing I can think of is to hope people will do their best to avoid reproducing in those situations by keeping in mind the moral ramifications.

[MrTerrorist]

Taiwan's top court rules in favour of same-sex marriage

[Verso Sciolto]

Great news from Taiwan.

Queer Japan is a work in progress.

Anne Ishii is one of the driving forces behind the project and Gengoroh Tagame is one of the participants as well as its inspiration. People whose other work offers reminders of the subtle homophobia still present in our own community too.

Get An Intimate Look At Queer Life In Japan. As James Michael Nichols put it in an article about the film project last year. An article with the following video embedded in which the mangaka features prominently.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Germany legalizes same-sex marriage, now in line with most of its European neighbors

There was a large outcry when same-sex marriage was legalized at the federal level in America since the supreme court decided it and not the lawmaking channels. It should be fascinating to see whether the same proponents of this sentiment are more receptive to what happened in Germany or if, perhaps, the notion was mere goalpost shifting