North Carolina bans same-sex marriage

[zsdersw]

Serious question for you gay marriage supporters. Have you been to some of the gay pride parade? Why is it that lots of those parade are filled with naked guys and women with piercing, tattoo? How does that help make the case that gay couples are capable of having normal, long term relationship, and that their relationship is not just based on sexual gratification, fun instead of responsibility, love and caring for the family?

I've been to many gay pride events in many cities: my hometown of Milwaukee, Madison (WI), Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle. I can tell you that no.. they're not "filled with naked guys and women". They may be wearing nothing but a pair of underwear and dancing/gyrating suggestively, but that's a far cry from "naked". There are some exhibitions, particularly in San Francisco's pride activities, where men are naked... but these are not viewable by just anyone. They're private events.

Everything else in your post is a prejudice against people who have piercings, tattoos, enjoy sex, and like having a kind of fun that you personally don't like. That doesn't make these people irresponsible or incapable of being loving, caring, and family-oriented. If you think it does, you're simply ignorant. You think everything should be like (and never deviate from) a Norman Rockwell painting.

Do you blame a majority of NC voters and many others have doubt on gay marriage when this is the kind of image lots of gay/lesbian are projecting? Why is it that gay/lesbian community feel the need to project that kind of image in their parade?

The GLBT community is, generally, not sexually repressed... and has no problem showing it. It is Puritanical to believe sex is and should remain some deeply hidden and never-discussed part of life. Sex is the basis of life and a big part of what drives us all, gay and straight, to do what we do in our lives.. whether we admit it or not. The act of having sex doesn't have to be performed for everyone to see, but it doesn't have to be shoved under the rug either. The GLBT community will not shove their sexual identities under the rug anymore simply because some people find that identity offensive. There is no right in this country to NEVER be offended.

 

[Veliko]

Serious question for you gay marriage supporters. Have you been to some of the gay pride parade? Why is it that lots of those parade are filled with naked guys and women with piercing, tattoo? How does that help make the case that gay couples are capable of having normal, long term relationship, and that their relationship is not just based on sexual gratification, fun instead of responsibility, love and caring for the family?

Do you blame a majority of NC voters and many others have doubt on gay marriage when this is the kind of image lots of gay/lesbian are projecting? Why is it that gay/lesbian community feel the need to project that kind of image in their parade?

You seem to be under the impression that those people with piercings and tattoos are only displaying them because of that parade.

Quite frankly if NC voters use that as a reason to oppose gay marriage then it just confirms that they are bigots.

 

[cybrsage]

Gay marriage has a purpose for society: reduce the spread of STDs, reduce crime, and improve productivity.. to name a few.

Wait, homosexuals are unable to be monogamous without a piece of paper saying they should be? Unless homosexuals get married they will be criminals and will be lazy at work?

I hope you are being sarcastic...it does not always come through with the written word (Egnlish is VERY bad in this regard).

 

[cybrsage]

Rhetorical question.

If you do not already KNOW the answer, someone telling you will not change your mind.

He is just using it to expose why the logic of "it does not harm society" is a bad reason to use for allowing homosexual marriag.

We do not allow children to be married due to the legal contract issue, not because it is harmful to society - because it is not harmful to society.

When the line of reasoning can be shown to have logically failed, it becomes illogical to continue to use it.

 

[PokerGuy]

We are not talking about just the exclusion but the harm that comes with it. Your reasons for thinking it will cause harm are based in nothing more than religious dogma with no logical basis and so they can be safely ignored in a society that practices religious freedom.

Note your arrogance and hubris in presuming to know my reasons for thinking something. Even so, the reason why someone might think something is OK or not is irrelevant, whether religious or not.

When you can demonstrate actual harm be my guest but until then "Jesus will cry" is insufficient to deny rights to anyone.

More logical fallacies and evidence of your inability to think logically. What constitutes "actual harm" in your mind might not constitute "actual harm" for someone else. It's a subjective concept. That's why in a democracy people get to vote to add their particular opinion to the decision making process.

If someone wants to change something, the onus is on them to have a reason for changing it and show that changing it does more good than harm -- to the satisfaction of those who get to make the decision (in this case, the voters). The onus is on those who seek to change the definition of marriage to convince the voting public that the definition should be changed. The voters in NC have clearly said "NO" to that change, much to the chagrin and dismay of the elitists and liberals who think they know better than everyone else.

Further, EVERY law out there can be framed to conclude that someone is denied some right. Jaywalking laws deny me the right to move around freely. With this NC amendment, nobody is being denied any rights. The rights you claim they are being denied simply don't exist.

 

[Veliko]

If someone wants to change something, the onus is on them to have a reason for changing it and show that changing it does more good than harm -- to the satisfaction of those who get to make the decision (in this case, the voters). The onus is on those who seek to change the definition of marriage to convince the voting public that the definition should be changed. The voters in NC have clearly said "NO" to that change, much to the chagrin and dismay of the elitists and liberals who think they know better than everyone else.

Further, EVERY law out there can be framed to conclude that someone is denied some right. Jaywalking laws deny me the right to move around freely. With this NC amendment, nobody is being denied any rights. The rights you claim they are being denied simply don't exist.

All you have done here is use the excuse of the political process to promote bigotry.

 

[PokerGuy]

How does it hurt anyone, exactly?

How does it "hurt" someone to see someone else naked? It doesn't.... yet we have laws about "indecent exposure" and such simply because the public has decided that being naked in public is not appropriate. That's sufficient, you don't have to demonstrate specific harm beyond the public feeling something is harmful.

 

[PokerGuy]

All you have done here is use the excuse of the political process to promote bigotry.

The term "bigotry" has become meaningless drivel now since it gets used to refer to anything you and like minded libs disagree with.

 

[Veliko]

The term "bigotry" has become meaningless drivel now since it gets used to refer to anything you and like minded libs disagree with.

Not at all.

You are the one hiding behind the nuances of the political process to further your bigotry.

It's the only thing you have left.

 

[cybrsage]

The term "bigotry" has become meaningless drivel now since it gets used to refer to anything you and like minded libs disagree with.

Actually, it has always meant that (provided they disagree to the point of saying the opposing view should not be allowed):

big·ot

   /ˈbɪgət/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled[big-uht] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot?s=t

 

[cybrsage]

Not at all.

You are the one hiding behind the nuances of the political process to further your bigotry.

It's the only thing you have left.

You are doing the same thing. You are a bigot.

 

[Veliko]

You are doing the same thing. You are a bigot.

Really? Which political process am I hiding behind then?

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes you are. You are forbidding change

:biggrin::biggrin: So you're accusing me of seeking to change something because I'm...."forbidding change" hahaha, you are a confused child. Again, I am not seeking to change anything. Those that seek to change the existing definition are.

Our juvinile definition of it is laughable.

When did you become the one to decide such things? Have you made the rest of the country aware of this yet?

Where did that statute come from?

Since when is it relevant where a statute came from? You evaluate a statute on its merit, not whether it originated from religion or not.

the current law is based on religious doctrine that was used to establish civic structure.

The same could be said about just about any law, and it is completely irrelevant.

You said that since marriage has been a certain way "for thousands of years" that it should stay that way.

Nope, I said no such thing. You lack reading and comprehension skills. I said it's been defined a certain way for thousands of years, and there is no reason to change it. I didn't say it should stay that way simply because it's been that way. It just places the onus on those who seek to change it to demonstrate why that needs to be done.

I am refuting your assertion that being around a long time is an inalienable validation for modern viability.

... that's great, except that wasn't my assertion at all so you've refuted a straw man. Congratulations 😉

 

[PokerGuy]

Really? Which political process am I hiding behind then?

By the very definition you linked to, your intolerance of my opinion makes you a bigot. Congratulations, join the club 😀

 

[zsdersw]

Wait, homosexuals are unable to be monogamous without a piece of paper saying they should be? Unless homosexuals get married they will be criminals and will be lazy at work?

Wait, heterosexuals are unable to have and raise children properly without a piece of paper saying they can? Unless heterosexuals get married they will be unable to be good parents?

That is a statement that is equally as ridiculous as yours.

Marriage doesn't ensure anything and being unmarried doesn't automatically result in anything either. It is a statistical reality, though, that people who are married tend to have higher productivity, fewer STDs, and are less likely to be criminals.

 

[zsdersw]

How does it "hurt" someone to see someone else naked? It doesn't.... yet we have laws about "indecent exposure" and such simply because the public has decided that being naked in public is not appropriate. That's sufficient, you don't have to demonstrate specific harm beyond the public feeling something is harmful.

Bad analogy. Being forced to see someone naked is an intrusion on your freedom. No one is forced to do anything in gay marriages. You don't have to see, hear, or act any differently when someone else has a gay marriage. It does not affect you at all.

 

[Veliko]

By the very definition you linked to, your intolerance of my opinion makes you a bigot. Congratulations, join the club 😀

I didn't provide any links at all.

But being intolerant of intolerance is not intolerance.

 

[PokerGuy]

Bad analogy. Being forced to see someone naked is an intrusion on your freedom.

Being forced to equate a relationship I find immoral to one I don't is also an intrusion on my freedom.

 

[zsdersw]

Being forced to equate a relationship I find immoral to one I don't is also an intrusion on my freedom.

How, exactly, are you forced to do that, though?

 

[actuarial]

More logical fallacies and evidence of your inability to think logically. What constitutes "actual harm" in your mind might not constitute "actual harm" for someone else. It's a subjective concept. That's why in a democracy people get to vote to add their particular opinion to the decision making process.

If someone wants to change something, the onus is on them to have a reason for changing it and show that changing it does more good than harm -- to the satisfaction of those who get to make the decision (in this case, the voters). The onus is on those who seek to change the definition of marriage to convince the voting public that the definition should be changed. The voters in NC have clearly said "NO" to that change, much to the chagrin and dismay of the elitists and liberals who think they know better than everyone else.

That only makes sense if you throw the Constitution out the window. Can the population vote to have you put to death, and the only way it should be reversed is you can explain to their satisfaction that putting you to death does more harm then good?

Further, EVERY law out there can be framed to conclude that someone is denied some right. Jaywalking laws deny me the right to move around freely. With this NC amendment, nobody is being denied any rights. The rights you claim they are being denied simply don't exist.

The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man

 

[cybrsage]

Wait, heterosexuals are unable to have and raise children properly without a piece of paper saying they can? Unless heterosexuals get married they will be unable to be good parents?

That is a statement that is equally as ridiculous as yours.

Marriage doesn't ensure anything and being unmarried doesn't automatically result in anything either. It is a statistical reality, though, that people who are married tend to have higher productivity, fewer STDs, and are less likely to be criminals.

YOU are the one who made the claim about marriage, I made no such claim. I was simply seeing is you are serious in saying that homosexuals are unable to control themselves unless they get married, at which point they become civilized.

Apparently, you have a low opinion of unmarried homosexuals.

 

[PokerGuy]

But being intolerant of intolerance is not intolerance.

By definition, it makes you a bigot.

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

You are intolerant of my opinion and thus a bigot. I'm not at all intolerant either. Both bigot and intolerant have become code words used by the libs when they really mean "someone who has a different opinion than mine". It's a shame because it trivializes actual intolerance and bigotry.

 

[PokerGuy]

How, exactly, are you forced to do that, though?

By law the definition of marriage would include both, thus equating them.

 

[cybrsage]

Bad analogy. Being forced to see someone naked is an intrusion on your freedom. No one is forced to do anything in gay marriages. You don't have to see, hear, or act any differently when someone else has a gay marriage. It does not affect you at all.

What freedom from nakedness do you have?


Do you support the removal of government from marriage altogether and only handing out civil unions (which would have the same powers as marriage currently has) for both heter and homo couples?

 

[actuarial]

Actually, it has always meant that (provided they disagree to the point of saying the opposing view should not be allowed):

Who has said the opposing VIEW should not be allowed? I don't think a single person here has suggested a law against thinking gays shouldn't marry.