North Carolina bans same-sex marriage

[cybrsage]

But being intolerant of intolerance is not intolerance.

I have to laugh at you over this. You actually believe this, don't you?

 

[PokerGuy]

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?

Actually, yes. The people can vote to create whatever laws they want, which includes changing the constitution. Society can and does create all sorts of laws regulating and restricting things.

The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.

No, it doesn't. Notice that it doesn't define marriage to whom. For example, marriage to my sister is not allowed, and neither is marriage to multiple people, and neither is marriage to my car. We've already established that restrictions can be imposed, the only question is which ones do the people feel are warranted.

 

[cybrsage]

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.

The law says you cannot consider gays who marry to not be married. This view is legislated against. Just try to not give married benefits to a gay married couple (if it is legal) and watch the law hammer you.

 

[actuarial]

By definition, it makes you a bigot.

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.

Can you please explain to me exactly how people in this thread have been intolerant of your opinion, and what they could do to become tolerant of it. I'm wondering if you have something specific or if you are just throwing around the word intolerant trivially as you claim others are doing.

 

[zsdersw]

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

That's the law... it is not forcing you to do anything differently.

 

[nehalem256]

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?



The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you.

And established legal precedent also says that their is no right to same-sex marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

The Court was not persuaded that an equal-protection violation was present either. Childless heterosexual marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection, which doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The couple's reliance on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia (striking down an anti-miscegenation law) also failed: "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."

 

[Veliko]

I have to laugh at you over this. You actually believe this, don't you?

Laugh away.

I don't have to be tolerant of your intolerance in order to be tolerant.

 

[Veliko]

By definition, it makes you a bigot.

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.

That is because you don't actually understand the concept of intolerance or bigotry.

 

[actuarial]

The law says you cannot consider gays who marry to not be married. This view is legislated against. Just try to not give married benefits to a gay married couple (if it is legal) and watch the law hammer you.

The law does not say that. It may say you have to afford them the same rights as other married couples, but you can certainly 'consider' them not married if that is your prerogative.

If I believe women shouldn't be allowed to work or vote, is the law intolerant of that belief? If I believe minimum wage shouldn't exist, is the law intolerant of that belief? If I am against paying taxes, is the law intolerant of that belief? If I believe in old testament justice, is the law intolerant of that belief? Your definition of tolerance is so narrow that it makes everyone a bigot.

 

[zsdersw]

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.

Are heterosexuals unable to control themselves unless they get married? Of course not. Same with homosexuals.

The point, though, is that being married has benefits to society... whether you're hetero- or homo-sexual.

 

[jackstar7]

I didn't provide any links at all.

But being intolerant of intolerance is not intolerance.

Actually it is, it just happens to be correct to be bigoted towards fucking morons.

That's where that crap counterpoint falls apart.

Something I posted in the other thread: Just to clear something up, it's okay to be bigoted, intolerant, and hateful towards ignorance and irrationality. These are not virtues or states of being that need protection and tolerance. They need to be rooted out and loathed. Hopefully this brings more of the crazy into the light and we can collectively shame and humiliate them for their idiocy.

 

[zsdersw]

What freedom from nakedness do you have?

You have the freedom to not be forced to view or listen to anything.

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?

Yes I do. The problem, though, is that this is not supported by majorities on either side of the sexual orientation spectrum. In particular, the heterosexual side. They're a lot more numerous, and their support is required.

Do you think a majority of heterosexuals would agree to have their marriages (if they're married) changed in the eyes of government to civil unions?

How many would actively support making that change?

The cynic in me thinks proposals like yours aren't a sincere desire to either get government out of the marriage business or include everyone in access to civil unions... and are, instead, a diversion.

 

[nehalem256]

The law does not say that. It may say you have to afford them the same rights as other married couples, but you can certainly 'consider' them not married if that is your prerogative.

If I believe women shouldn't be allowed to work or vote, is the law intolerant of that belief? If I believe minimum wage shouldn't exist, is the law intolerant of that belief? If I am against paying taxes, is the law intolerant of that belief? If I believe in old testament justice, is the law intolerant of that belief? Your definition of tolerance is so narrow that it makes everyone a bigot.

It seems to me that tolerance is just code for liberalism.

 

[cybrsage]

You have the freedom to not be forced to view or listen to anything.

Then gay pride parades are illegal, right? There are many who do not want to see or listen to them. You cannot have it both ways, you know.



Yes I do. The problem, though, is that this is not supported by majorities on either side of the sexual orientation spectrum. In particular, the heterosexual side. They're a lot more numerous, and their support is required. [/quote]

I think many would support it if they knew it existed as an option, but it is good to see you support the creation of rights over the redefinition of a word.

Do you think a majority of heterosexuals would agree to have their marriages (if they're married) changed in the eyes of government to civil unions?

I doubt they would care, since nothing changes in their life except when they next fill out a government form, it will say civil union instead of marriage. It would be prudent to put "(previously called marriage)" on the forms for several years to prevent confusion, though.

How many would actively support making that change?

To be honest, I wish the homosexual groups would shift and support this change, for it would be the best way to get it to the forefront and then we could find out. Everyone I know supports it, but that is not a good representation of society.

The cynic in me thinks proposals like yours aren't a sincere desire to either get government out of the marriage business or include everyone in access to civil unions... and are, instead, a diversion.

I think it is the only solution which makes everyone happy (except the extremists on both sides, but nothing makes extremists happy). The religious institution (which existed in the US prior to the creation of the legal institution upon which it is based) remains unchallenged and the new legal rights are created. It also makes it easier to create other types of legal unions without having to fight these same battles over and over again.

 

[jackstar7]

It seems to me that tolerance is just code for liberalism.

Your ring is broken.

 

[zsdersw]

Then gay pride parades are illegal, right? There are many who do not want to see or listen to them. You cannot have it both ways, you know.

If a majority in a community do not want them, then they shouldn't be allowed. That is the only situation in which gay pride parades are illegal.

Show me a city that has gay pride parades in which a majority of residents do not want them.

I think many would support it if they knew it existed as an option, but it is good to see you support the creation of rights over the redefinition of a word.

I support both, but am willing to do the former for libertarian reasons.

I doubt they would care, since nothing changes in their life except when they next fill out a government form, it will say civil union instead of marriage. It would be prudent to put "(previously called marriage)" on the forms for several years to prevent confusion, though.

You think they'll say "we're unionized" instead of "we're married", too? That's an interesting, if not totally realistic, perspective.

To be honest, I wish the homosexual groups would shift and support this change, for it would be the best way to get it to the forefront and then we could find out. Everyone I know supports it, but that is not a good representation of society.

I am far more cynical about anti-gay groups. I expect them to scream bloody murder that "the gays" are trying to change their marriages.

 

[cybrsage]

If a majority in a community do not want them, then they shouldn't be allowed. That is the only situation in which gay pride parades are illegal.

Show me a city that has gay pride parades in which a majority of residents do not want them.

The constitution says the majority is irrelevant, the freedom of speech allows the parade even if zero people want it. Nazis have held marches through Jewish communities and their right to do it fought for by the ACLU.

You think they'll say "we're unionized" instead of "we're married", too? That's an interesting, if not totally realistic, perspective.

No more than I would expect homosexuals to say it. I fully expect everyone to simply use the term married for civil unions. This is part of why I am baffled that gay marriage groups are fighting so hard to change the meaning of something instead of rights when it is obvious that society itself would change the meaning of the word over a short amount of time.

Rights would already be given and people would already be using the term marriage for the newly created homosexual civil unions if the battle had not been over a word instead of for rights.

I am far more cynical about anti-gay groups. I expect them to scream bloody murder that "the gays" are trying to change their marriages.

Maybe, but they would lose the support of mainstream America. Over a short amount of time, these groups would only retain the support of the extremists. Same with the more rabid pro gay marriage groups.

 

[nehalem256]

You have the freedom to not be forced to view or listen to anything.

So if someone does not want to view black people in his restaurant he should be able to ban black people from his restaurant? :hmm:

 

[nehalem256]

No more than I would expect homosexuals to say it. I fully expect everyone to simply use the term married for civil unions. This is part of why I am baffled that gay marriage groups are fighting so hard to change the meaning of something instead of rights when it is obvious that society itself would change the meaning of the word over a short amount of time.

Its because gay people want to force people to pat them on the back for being gay. It is the only explanation for why the choose the strategy of ramming gay marriage down everyone's throats.

 

[zsdersw]

The constitution says the majority is irrelevant, the freedom of speech allows the parade even if zero people want it. Nazis have held marches through Jewish communities and their right to do it fought for by the ACLU.

Those are things that fall under the rules that communities set for themselves regarding who gets a license/permit to have a parade. I don't care what the ACLU says... it's a local issue and it's a licensing/permit issue, not a free-speech issue.

 

[zsdersw]

So if someone does not want to view black people in his restaurant he should be able to ban black people from his restaurant? :hmm:

I actually believe so, yes. I also think that if a business owner doesn't want to have customers who are black, women, or homosexuals he/she should be free to do so. The market will penalize him for it... as it should be.

If you want to open a straight-white-men-only business in an area in which the demographics don't fit, you go right ahead. Good luck.. you'll need it.

 

[zsdersw]

Its because gay people want to force people to pat them on the back for being gay. It is the only explanation for why the choose the strategy of ramming gay marriage down everyone's throats.

I think you overestimate the ability of a minority in the overall population (homosexuals) to scheme and plot so insidiously.

I appreciate the imagery of "ramming down everyone's throats", though.

 

[fskimospy]

I actually believe so, yes. I also think that if a business owner doesn't want to have customers who are black, women, or homosexuals he/she should be free to do so. The market will penalize him for it... as it should be.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure all those whites only businesses in the south were just a breath away from going under.

 

[PokerGuy]

That is because you don't actually understand the concept of intolerance or bigotry.

No, actually, I do understand them very well, that's why I know how they are misapplied and used as a slur for anyone who doesn't agree with a lib held position.

 

[fskimospy]

No, actually, I do understand them very well, that's why I know how they are misapplied and used as a slur for anyone who doesn't agree with a lib held position.

Of course bigots never realize they are bigoted, they think that everyone else is just being all politically correct or whatever. No one ever wants to admit that they are a terrible person. That's why they develop excuses about how it must be a 'librul' conspiracy.