AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Hey, let's not, Stranger. If you sincerely hold that opinion, tell a mod or something. It's not appropriate to throw accusations like that around, especially toward a newbie. Obito just didn't read the OP and wasn't aware that this wasn't the thread he was looking for.

Besides, if you must throw around accusations like that, don't do it in this topic of all places.

If your only reason that same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal is because of the bible, or one of the arguments posted already (the mother/father argument debunked by single parents, procreation debunked by infertile women or people who just don't want kids, etc) then I've got a phrase I'm having trouble wording in a way that doesn't make me sound like a raging douchebag.

Church and state are separate, if there's no legal reason to disallow same-sex marriage (and there isn't) there's no reason to keep it from being legal.
Marriage is no longer simply a religious thing. There are legal reasons to be married. Some states don't allow adoption of a child by a couple unless they're married, civil unions wouldn't count. Tax reasons, medical visitation reasons, there's a long, long list of things getting married does for/against you legally. it's not just a religious symbol with religious rules anymore, it's heavily integrated into our society and its laws, so not allowing people, regardless of whom they love, to get married is demoting them to second-class citizens.

Reyo wrote:Hell...I WAS one of those people until my parents finally admitted that it was, in fact, purely religious.

Next time you are butthurt about your own experiences you should say it instead of accusing other people.

Alright let's cool it in this thread for a bit. The newbie brought up a topic without understanding the meaning of this thread and ducked out so any comments directed towards him at this point are moot anyway. If anyone wants to continue this line of thought without further questioning that users merits or opinions they may do so, but otherwise maybe it would be best to start a new topic.

princess brothel wrote:

Reyo wrote:Hell...I WAS one of those people until my parents finally admitted that it was, in fact, purely religious.

Next time you are butthurt about your own experiences you should say it instead of accusing other people.

Yeah, you're bodaciously the only one (ignoring the fact that the entire discussion is old news anyway) who's butthurt about anything. I understand you have things you take offense to, but wigging out on them is usually never the best course of action. All it does is create animosity and get the discussion nowhere.

EDIT: And then I waited to read the mod's comment until after I'd replied to the one that replied to me and look like a doofus. Sorry Vax, I'll comply.

EDIT 2: Just realized, we could always start this discussion up again if it's still fresh in everyone's mind. If not...

......gun control?

gun control more like the second amendment should be revised 50 million times because of how fucking loosely it can be interpreted

The 2nd Amendment specifies that it's in place in order to allow for a "well-regulated militia," which is exactly the role the National Guard and its State branches are supposed to fill.

It's also worth mentioning that the Constitution was drafted during a time in which a foreign power could easily invade and take the brand new country, so letting everyone carry weapons would allow the United States to deter that sort of thing. Now we've been one of the most militarily powerful nations for nearly a century, but people still want their guns.

Well, it's to ensure the public isn't powerless to the government, like, the government can't just enact a bunch of laws and get rid of guns and essentially hold them hostage, like people felt the British were doing.

But, you know, if the American public ever was to fight against the military, I'm pretty sure the military would overwhelmingly win based on all of the current tech they have, even if we ignore the possibility of bombing.

The second amendment was for the sake of an organized militia, but for multiple reasons that don't stop at a foreign country invading. At the time, the American party was that of a rebel force. They were breaking away from the domestic leadership, not foreign force, so part of the purpose is to ensure the government is rightfully scared of the common people being able to push back if they decide to become like the British government was in the 1700's. it's why you always hear about the rednecks "daring Obama to take my guns". That's why having things like the national guard are good for filling the role of a "civilian militia", as someone who's a part of that militia, we're still lead by the government (first state, then country), so there's still that issue of the national guard being a part of that "domestic leadership" if the time comes.

So yes, I do believe that the common people, who only have so much of the government directly over them, should be allowed arms, but as long as they're trained in how to use them without shooting someone's foot off.

the constitution was written back in the 1700's where we were about to enter a goddamn war with england so yeah it was p. okay that everybody had a gun because everybody NEEDED to have a gun to fight off the redcoats

but those rules don't really apply now.

sure, let people have their guns, but make it harder to get them. make them have like a fuckin' test to take or something i don't know just don't make it as easy as it is now

basically what i'm saying is the constitution needs a huge revising but whoops that won't happen because it takes 2/3 of Congress to agree to change something in the constitution and that won't happen because Congress is full of fuckwits

Congress can't agree on anything at all because it's TOO divided, so nothing gets done, especially not constitutional amendments.

I'm pretty sure that one of the founding fathers said at some point that the constitution should be rewritten entirely every few decades or something, to make sure it's still relevant to the time. That shit hasn't happened once.

Lolita wrote:the constitution was written back in the 1700's where we were about to enter a goddamn war with england so yeah it was p. okay that everybody had a gun because everybody NEEDED to have a gun to fight off the redcoats

but those rules don't really apply now.

Actually, the Constitution was written well after the Revolutionary War (and even after an interim set of laws which almost caused our new nation to collapse), but the sentiment is the same. We had just won independence from an empire that owned about half the globe, and there was definitely a chance of war re-igniting between England and its former colonies (which did eventually happen in 1812).

But yes, these are very different times than when our first laws were written, and they very much need to be updated.

i think the most frustrating thing to me is how little of interest the american population has in politics

it's absolutely infuriating and frustrating

Exeres wrote:

Lolita wrote:the constitution was written back in the 1700's where we were about to enter a goddamn war with england so yeah it was p. okay that everybody had a gun because everybody NEEDED to have a gun to fight off the redcoats

but those rules don't really apply now.

Actually, the Constitution was written well after the Revolutionary War (and even after an interim set of laws which almost caused our new nation to collapse), but the sentiment is the same. We had just won independence from an empire that owned about half the globe, and there was definitely a chance of war re-igniting between England and its former colonies (which did eventually happen in 1812).

Well the English aren't allowed to keep guns these days because we've updated our laws, so the Americans really needn't be afraid of the red-coated boogeyman anymore.

We're all friends now.

We English even buy nuclear weapons from the Americans for our submarines.

Figure that one out.


I'm being too flippant aren't I?

I'll stop.

Lolita wrote:the constitution was written back in the 1700's where we were about to enter a goddamn war with england so yeah it was p. okay that everybody had a gun because everybody NEEDED to have a gun to fight off the redcoats

but those rules don't really apply now.

sure, let people have their guns, but make it harder to get them. make them have like a fuckin' test to take or something i don't know just don't make it as easy as it is now

basically what i'm saying is the constitution needs a huge revising but whoops that won't happen because it takes 2/3 of Congress to agree to change something in the constitution and that won't happen because Congress is full of fuckwits

Actually, no, we were full on in the war. The constitution was a tactic to show king George we were "snooper ads" about the whole "we're an independent country" thing. And the idea for the 2nd amendment was a popular one long before the constitution was even written (it was the second amendment, they obviously had it fresh in their heads). While you're right that it was necessary back then given the war being fought on our own turf, us not having fought one in a while shouldn't be justification to remove it. For all we know, the fact that we do have the 2nd amendment is one of the key factors in why we haven't fought a domestic war in a long time. No nation in their right mind would. So the fact that it isn't needed may not be it at all, it could be that it's working.

I forgot who said it, but I remember one quote they beat into us is "the best weapon is the one you don't have to use."

(It may or may not have been ironman)

Exeres wrote:

Lolita wrote:the constitution was written back in the 1700's where we were about to enter a goddamn war with england so yeah it was p. okay that everybody had a gun because everybody NEEDED to have a gun to fight off the redcoats

but those rules don't really apply now.

Actually, the Constitution was written well after the Revolutionary War (and even after an interim set of laws which almost caused our new nation to collapse), but the sentiment is the same. We had just won independence from an empire that owned about half the globe, and there was definitely a chance of war re-igniting between England and its former colonies (which did eventually happen in 1812).

But yes, these are very different times than when our first laws were written, and they very much need to be updated.

Hot daisies, you're right. Everything I learned in history class/assassins creed 3 is a lie.