North Carolina bans same-sex marriage

[cybrsage]

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.

The law disagrees with you. It is impossible that a Jewish community was fine with a Nazi group marching through their community. THe laws say you do not have to look, but you must allow them to march.

 

[zsdersw]

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

Demographics.

 

[cybrsage]

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.

He will be sued and will lose. He does not have the choice to only serve people of a specific race.

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

I say the same thing when people go on and on about how the 13 million Jews on the planet control all the money and most of the governments of the planet. 🙂

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

I did laugh at this. 🙂

EDIT: I initially used the 😀 smiley, but it looked too much like he has his mouth open! lol

 

[zsdersw]

The law disagrees with you. It is impossible that a Jewish community was fine with a Nazi group marching through their community. THe laws say you do not have to look, but you must allow them to march.

The law is wrong.

 

[zsdersw]

He will be sued and will lose. He does not have the choice to only serve people of a specific race.

He should have that choice... and his patrons should vote with their wallets on whether or not they approve of his choice.

 

[cybrsage]

The law is wrong.

That belief has merit, but it is what it is. I understand the purpose of the laws, since the popular speech does not need to be protected - it is the unpopular speech that needs protection.

Personally, I was upset at the one gay pride parade in Harrisburg, PA because it closed off the entrance to my parking garage. When I used to drive downtown I had a monthly parking pass to a specific garage and they prevented me from using it. I would have been just as upset if it was the Messiac Jews of America parade (though maybe not, as I may have been in the parade and not need the parking - but you know what I mean), so the content of the parade was irrelevant.

 

[jackstar7]

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.

So you're either Luntz's nephew or trolling hard now.

I cannot accept that you chose those phrases accidentally.

 

[cybrsage]

He should have that choice... and his patrons should vote with their wallets on whether or not they approve of his choice.

I agree, due to the change in the times. At one time, all business were that way and laws had to be created to allow blacks entrance into anything (in some areas).

 

[zsdersw]

I understand the purpose of the laws, since the popular speech does not need to be protected - it is the unpopular speech that needs protection.

I agree, but I don't think disallowing a parade is an attack on anyone's free-speech right. A group of like-minded people can organize and assemble, also, without needing a permit/license for a parade.

 

[cybrsage]

I agree, but I don't think disallowing a parade is an attack on anyone's free-speech right. A group of like-minded people can organize and assemble, also, without needing a permit/license for a parade.

While I personally agree with you, the law disagrees with both of us. You and I actually agree on many more things than we disagree on. 🙂


EDIT: Two good friends of mine are gay. They have cohabitated for a very long time (no ieea how long, I will have to ask). From what I gather, they are actually not sexually active with each other...they are cohabitating out of a non-sexual love they hold for each other. Not that it makes a difference, I just wonder how many homo and hetero couples are like that.

They visit me each year for a cookout and stay at my place. They are building a house right now and I am going to visit them for the grand opening. One of them has had a meteoric rise in his company - and deservedly so, his personality is a lot like my wife's - they get along quite well. The other is more like me in personality and we hang out more. I wish they lived close enough to do things with on a regular basis. 🙁


EDIT: At this point I expect someone will say "he stays at the homes of tax collectors and sinners!" lol

 

[Ninjahedge]

So in other words you cant come up with any.

Nope.

What it means is that it was a stupid question and does not deserve an answer.

AAMOF, answering it diverts the actual discussion. Another common "debate" tactic.

 

[Ninjahedge]

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?

Why are there S+M parlors for Heteros?

I think the "Gay Pride" parade is actually a sham, as many deviancies displayed there have nothing to do with homosexuality.

I believe it was originally a means to come out and thumb their noses at "respectable culture", push it even further.

But if you look at the % you will realize that the male pole dancers are not representative of the majority.

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?

Because being "gay" does not mean you are like everyone else.

When homosexuality is actually considered "ok" or "normal", you will see a lot of people parading in the costumes of sexual deviancy to part with what was once considered synonymous.

 

[Abraxas]

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.

I've been debating the gay marriage issue online for over a decade now and in all cases save one the underlying issue was their religion. The last one was a moron who thought gay marriage would cause the population of America to shrink. So, playing the odds, I'm going to run with you are against gay marriage because Jesus will cry unless I find a reason to hold otherwise. It isn't hubris, it is experience.

EDIT: Actually, I see you jabbering on about it being immoral later in the thread, I consider my assumptions confirmed.

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.

No, it isn't. Stabbing you in the head isn't subjectively harmful to you, it is objectively harmful. Likewise, denying you equal treatment under the law is objectively harmful.

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.

Yes, the reason they said no is because Jesus will cry. They aren't interested in protecting the religious freedom of others, they are only interested in enforcing their dogma on 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.

You don't have a right to move around freely. Motion is restricted by property ownership, and since the state owns the roads, the state can decide how you move on them. That you deny rights are being infringed is a simple denial of reality. Not that anyone should be surprised the average gay marriage opponent is in denial.

 

[werepossum]

Why are there S+M parlors for Heteros?

I think the "Gay Pride" parade is actually a sham, as many deviancies displayed there have nothing to do with homosexuality.

I believe it was originally a means to come out and thumb their noses at "respectable culture", push it even further.

But if you look at the % you will realize that the male pole dancers are not representative of the majority.



Because being "gay" does not mean you are like everyone else.

When homosexuality is actually considered "ok" or "normal", you will see a lot of people parading in the costumes of sexual deviancy to part with what was once considered synonymous.

Wait - there are SM parlors for heteros?

Damn it, you people have to tell me this stuff!

 

[cybrsage]

I don't recall anyone saying "Jesus will cry", other than dorks using the phrase to denigrate people who hold religious convictions. Can you provide links to it?

 

[Abraxas]

I don't recall anyone saying "Jesus will cry", other than dorks using the phrase to denigrate people who hold religious convictions. Can you provide links to it?

People who would impose their religious convictions on other people deserve denigration. Obviously those who support equality in marriage do not share those religious convictions that many would still seek to make them binding law for everyone anyway make them absolutely no different than those who would impose the Sharia law that they have a tendency to whine about.

 

[MrColin]

They are hicks & bigots, not surprising since they would probably still make interracial marriage illegal. SCOTUS finally threw those laws out in 1967.

Only about 61% of us are hicks and bigots.

I think its part of an ALEC push so that insurance companies can evade paying for the healthcare for children of unwed mothers.

Putting the rights of a minority to a popular vote is exactly the wrong way to do democracy. I have to admit though, if there was a referendum on whether or not to feed Billy Graham to the lions at the zoo, I might do the wrong thing.

 

[jhu]

Wait - there are SM parlors for heteros?

Damn it, you people have to tell me this stuff!

Montreal has a few.

 

[cybrsage]

People who would impose their religious convictions on other people deserve denigration. Obviously those who support equality in marriage do not share those religious convictions that many would still seek to make them binding law for everyone anyway make them absolutely no different than those who would impose the Sharia law that they have a tendency to whine about.

Wow, do you actually believe this tripe?

 

[nehalem256]

People who would impose their religious convictions on other people deserve denigration. Obviously those who support equality in marriage do not share those religious convictions that many would still seek to make them binding law for everyone anyway make them absolutely no different than those who would impose the Sharia law that they have a tendency to whine about.

But it is okay for you to impose your convictions on society? :hmm:

 

[Craig234]

But it is okay for you to impose your convictions on society? :hmm:

Hitler had a conviction that Jews should be exterminated.

Linus Pauling had a conviction to advance medicine.

They're the same to you.

Just a 'conviction'. Imposing freedom is not the same as imposing oppression.

 

[nehalem256]

Hitler had a conviction that Jews should be exterminated.

Linus Pauling had a conviction to advance medicine.

They're the same to you.

Just a 'conviction'. Imposing freedom is not the same as imposing oppression.

So it is ok to impose your convictions on others as long as they are "good" convictions. Of course the problem then becomes in determining what is "good".

From Hitler's point of view a Jew-free Germany was good. From our point of view the holocaust was bad.

So who gets to determine what is "good"?

 

[dmcowen674]

North Carolina bans same-sex marriage

No surprise there. If that's what the people want, that's what they'll get.

People in Alabama didn't want black kids in their white schools either.

The USSC will fix North Carolina's ass

 

[cybrsage]

People in Alabama didn't want black kids in their white schools either.

The USSC will fix North Carolina's ass

Pun intended? 😉

 

[sportage]

All this commotion over two guys sitting at their table in somewhere USA, sipping their coffee, sharing the morning news paper trying to decide if they should go see THE AVENGERS or DARK SHADOWS tonight at the theater.
All this F-king commotion.....
Seriously.