North Carolina bans gay marriage.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

omicron1:
The will of the people, gentlemen. That's what being in a democracy means - sometimes people you don't personally agree with win.

Move along; nothing to see here. Just democracy in action.

That doesn't magically make it right. Will of the people? So what?

This just in: North Carolina also bans worship of and sacrifices to Molok.

Shun the heretics of Molok! The Bible demands it!

Well, honestly, it's an expected minor setback. Really, I'd have less of a problem if it was only an issue of which term to apply, wether if it was about calling gay marriage marriage or some less sensitive term. But since it also effectively bans civil unions, well... It's just good ol' discrimination to me.

Mortai Gravesend:

omicron1:
The will of the people, gentlemen. That's what being in a democracy means - sometimes people you don't personally agree with win.

Move along; nothing to see here. Just democracy in action.

That doesn't magically make it right. Will of the people? So what?

Let me spell it out. There is no magically right solution here. Both sides have merit, arguments on their side, and firm adherents to their cause. And saying "I believe gay marriage is right, so let's make it law regardless of what the people want" is, quite simply, wrong.
To go around the people, in a democracy, is tyranny. It does not matter how right you think you are. Your view is no more valid, no more valued, than ours. We believe we're equally as right, and as long as we are the majority, that is that. The end. The only acceptable option you have is, simply, convince the people. Any questions?

omicron1:

Mortai Gravesend:

omicron1:
The will of the people, gentlemen. That's what being in a democracy means - sometimes people you don't personally agree with win.

Move along; nothing to see here. Just democracy in action.

That doesn't magically make it right. Will of the people? So what?

Let me spell it out. There is no magically right solution here. Both sides have merit, arguments on their side, and firm adherents to their cause

Saying it does not make it true

And saying "I believe gay marriage is right, so let's make it law regardless of what the people want" is, quite simply, wrong.

Being against bigotry isn't wrong really.

To go around the people, in a democracy, is tyranny.

I believe in human rights first. Now you may be cool with genocide and slavery and all that if democracy says so, but I'm not.

It does not matter how right you think you are.

Says the pot to the kettle.

Your view is no more valid, no more valued, than ours.

A weak argument. Specifically because it's just you saying it's not more valid instead of showing.

We believe we're equally as right, and as long as we are the majority, that is that.

I'm supposed to care that people believe bigotry against gays is alright?

The end.

Not really.

The only acceptable option you have is, simply, convince the people.

Or if it goes to the Supreme Court just laugh if the backwards crap gets repealed.

Any questions?

Do you have anything to back your argument or just empty words about how it's just as valid?

Matthew94:
That's a bit shit

But one the whole I see many areas heading for legalisation so I view this as 2 steps forward, one step back rather than the opposite of which is usually said.

I don't know. The number of states that have banned same sex marriage recently would appear to outstrip the number that have allowed it.

Fieldy409:
Huh...

It was legal in North Carolina?

What happens if a gay couple get married in one of the states where its legal then head back home to a state where it isnt? Does the marriage get recognised? Probably not...

Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, states do not have to recognise a gay marriage if it happened in another state.

TheRightToArmBears:
Oh dear. I really understand people trying to ban gay marriage; if you're against gay marriage, then my advice is not to marry someone of the same sex. There's no need to be a twat to all of the decent homosexual people of the world just because you're a homophobe.

That's what you think. I mean, if you allow gay marriage, the temptation is always there. As we all know, you could have a gay impulse at any moment. And then...And then...You're married to a duude!

*faints*

Well what do you expect? NC is a red-state, tax-drain, shit-hole. Just like the rest of the South.

EeveeElectro:
I don't know America that well. It NC a "Redneck" state?
This sums it up pretty well. It is probably out of date by now, but you get the message.

From that, Im atleast greatful that it isnt legal to marry your cousin in Pennsylvania. Some people I know would take that and hold it agianst me (not maliciously, but there only so much kidding around before it gets old.)

omicron1:
The will of the people, gentlemen. That's what being in a democracy means - sometimes people you don't personally agree with win.

Move along; nothing to see here. Just democracy in action.

Just so we're clear...If a state voted that black people couldn't occupy the same facilities as whites, you would be okay with that, too? I mean, democracyinactionmirite?

Zachary Amaranth:

omicron1:
The will of the people, gentlemen. That's what being in a democracy means - sometimes people you don't personally agree with win.

Move along; nothing to see here. Just democracy in action.

Just so we're clear...If a state voted that black people couldn't occupy the same facilities as whites, you would be okay with that, too? I mean, democracyinactionmirite?

Or if they voted that the entire state had to get a married to someone of the same sex, would he do it? I mean he has to respect the will of the people, right?

After spending so much time on this website it's hard to believe there are still so many ignorant religious fanatics who would deny the rights of others on the basis they don't like those types of people or their religion doesn't like those types of people.

Not that it really matters. in 30 years most of the people who voted against gay marriage will be dead and hopefully the younger generation will stick it to the man...By allowing men to put their stick in another man.

State issue my ass. This is a Human rights issue. It's Sexual discrimination. Period.

Mortai Gravesend:

omicron1:

Mortai Gravesend:

That doesn't magically make it right. Will of the people? So what?

Let me spell it out. There is no magically right solution here. Both sides have merit, arguments on their side, and firm adherents to their cause

Saying it does not make it true

And saying "I believe gay marriage is right, so let's make it law regardless of what the people want" is, quite simply, wrong.

Being against bigotry isn't wrong really.

To go around the people, in a democracy, is tyranny.

I believe in human rights first. Now you may be cool with genocide and slavery and all that if democracy says so, but I'm not.

It does not matter how right you think you are.

Says the pot to the kettle.

Your view is no more valid, no more valued, than ours.

A weak argument. Specifically because it's just you saying it's not more valid instead of showing.

We believe we're equally as right, and as long as we are the majority, that is that.

I'm supposed to care that people believe bigotry against gays is alright?

The end.

Not really.

The only acceptable option you have is, simply, convince the people.

Or if it goes to the Supreme Court just laugh if the backwards crap gets repealed.

Any questions?

Do you have anything to back your argument or just empty words about how it's just as valid?

The debate over gay marriage is something for the R&P forum. My argument here, sir, is not about what NC voted on. It is about the fact that they voted. And that said vote is legally, ethically, and morally valid.
What you are saying, paraphrased, is, "I am right, therefore all you stupid backwards people should get out of the way and let me decide what to do."
America was designed precisely to prevent that happening. Precisely so people with puffed-up egos, intellectual superiority complexes, and an unwillingness to consider others could not take command and force the people down paths the people did not agree to.
This is the chief tenet of my post, and it is one you have ignored in favor of making my point better than I ever could.
"will of the people? So what." That, sir, is the belief system from which many of the world's most reviled "leaders" were forged. I will just mention one - Stalin.

Consider, sir, your own arguments inverted. The belief of many conservatives is that the "homosexual agenda" is made to force them into compliance. Pastors jailed in Canada, couples in Britain unable to adopt because of their beliefs, and wedding planners in california forced to cater to things they don't believe in. Now, from your perspective the Christians are the bigots, discriminating against people "born different." but from ours, it is quite the opposite.
So. I am against bigots; against those who would seek to criminalize what I fundamentally believe is truth. I am in no way seeking to marginalize or discriminate against those who are different. For the issue of whether homosexuality is innate or extrinsic is just that, an unsolved issue.
In fact, my policy (and that of many social conservatives) is simply: "Do what you want. But don't expect me to respect it, believe it, or vote for it."

I have said much, but do not wish to be drawn into an endless argument here. Suffice it to say, we don't believe you, and are perfectly in our rights to do so.

Mortai Gravesend:

omicron1:
The will of the people, gentlemen. That's what being in a democracy means - sometimes people you don't personally agree with win.

Move along; nothing to see here. Just democracy in action.

That doesn't magically make it right. Will of the people? So what?

I agree. The will of the People should not supersede basic Civil rights. Everyman is created equal and has the right to Life,Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I believe Marriage would strongly correlate with the Pursuit of happines.

I'll believe that the religious right are serious about "the sanctity of marriage" when the only permitted form of divorce involves a cyanide pill. Until then, I will continue to call them out as the hypocritical, hateful idiots that they are.

Helmholtz Watson:

Rocklobster99:

Thoughts?

It's the states right to decide I guess.

Like how it was the right of each individual state to decide if other human beings could be treated as property due to the color of their skin?

The Rogue Wolf:
I'll believe that the religious right are serious about "the sanctity of marriage" when the only permitted form of divorce involves a cyanide pill. Until then, I will continue to call them out as the hypocritical, hateful idiots that they are.

Helmholtz Watson:

Rocklobster99:

Thoughts?

It's the states right to decide I guess.

Like how it was the right of each individual state to decide if other human beings could be treated as property due to the color of their skin?

Its not the same thing, nobody is preventing Gay Americans to move to a place where Gay marriage is legal. The same can't be said for slavery.

Zachary Amaranth:

omicron1:
The will of the people, gentlemen. That's what being in a democracy means - sometimes people you don't personally agree with win.

Move along; nothing to see here. Just democracy in action.

Just so we're clear...If a state voted that black people couldn't occupy the same facilities as whites, you would be okay with that, too? I mean, democracyinactionmirite?

Just so we're clear... If a state voted that Christians should keep their beliefs behind closed doors, you'd be opposed to it, right?

This is not a civil rights issue. No more than "trees are people, too" makes logging equivalent to racial genocide. Racism, sexism were about denying fundamental human rights on the basis of obviously fundamental properties of human nature. This is a created distinction, of tenuous-at-best scientific support, being called fundamental and inalienable. It is equivalent to having Christianity declared a fundamental right (after all, a not insignificant portion of Americans believe it to be the natural state of things) and then having anti-Christian speech, belief, and action outlawed.

omicron1:

Mortai Gravesend:

omicron1:

Let me spell it out. There is no magically right solution here. Both sides have merit, arguments on their side, and firm adherents to their cause

Saying it does not make it true

And saying "I believe gay marriage is right, so let's make it law regardless of what the people want" is, quite simply, wrong.

Being against bigotry isn't wrong really.

To go around the people, in a democracy, is tyranny.

I believe in human rights first. Now you may be cool with genocide and slavery and all that if democracy says so, but I'm not.

It does not matter how right you think you are.

Says the pot to the kettle.

Your view is no more valid, no more valued, than ours.

A weak argument. Specifically because it's just you saying it's not more valid instead of showing.

We believe we're equally as right, and as long as we are the majority, that is that.

I'm supposed to care that people believe bigotry against gays is alright?

The end.

Not really.

The only acceptable option you have is, simply, convince the people.

Or if it goes to the Supreme Court just laugh if the backwards crap gets repealed.

Any questions?

Do you have anything to back your argument or just empty words about how it's just as valid?

The debate over gay marriage is something for the R&P forum. My argument here, sir, is not about what NC voted on. It is about the fact that they voted. And that said vote is legally, ethically, and morally valid.
What you are saying, paraphrased, is, "I am right, therefore all you stupid backwards people should get out of the way and let me decide what to do."
America was designed precisely to prevent that happening. Precisely so people with puffed-up egos, intellectual superiority complexes, and an unwillingness to consider others could not take command and force the people down paths the people did not agree to.
This is the chief tenet of my post, and it is one you have ignored in favor of making my point better than I ever could.
"will of the people? So what." That, sir, is the belief system from which many of the world's most reviled "leaders" were forged. I will just mention one - Stalin.

Consider, sir, your own arguments inverted. The belief of many conservatives is that the "homosexual agenda" is made to force them into compliance. Pastors jailed in Canada, couples in Britain unable to adopt because of their beliefs, and wedding planners in california forced to cater to things they don't believe in. Now, from your perspective the Christians are the bigots, discriminating against people "born different." but from ours, it is quite the opposite.
So. I am against bigots; against those who would seek to criminalize what I fundamentally believe is truth. I am in no way seeking to marginalize or discriminate against those who are different. For the issue of whether homosexuality is innate or extrinsic is just that, an unsolved issue.
In fact, my policy (and that of many social conservatives) is simply: "Do what you want. But don't expect me to respect it, believe it, or vote for it."

I have said much, but do not wish to be drawn into an endless argument here. Suffice it to say, we don't believe you, and are perfectly in our rights to do so.

So what you're saying is those who support Gay marriage are bigots and that the american system was designed to prevent people so they could not "take command and force the people down paths the people did not agree to" Even though that's exactly what social conservatives are doing here by forcing everyone in a state to listen to the law of your god because you deem they must.

K....

omicron1:

Mortai Gravesend:

omicron1:

Let me spell it out. There is no magically right solution here. Both sides have merit, arguments on their side, and firm adherents to their cause

Saying it does not make it true

And saying "I believe gay marriage is right, so let's make it law regardless of what the people want" is, quite simply, wrong.

Being against bigotry isn't wrong really.

To go around the people, in a democracy, is tyranny.

I believe in human rights first. Now you may be cool with genocide and slavery and all that if democracy says so, but I'm not.

It does not matter how right you think you are.

Says the pot to the kettle.

Your view is no more valid, no more valued, than ours.

A weak argument. Specifically because it's just you saying it's not more valid instead of showing.

We believe we're equally as right, and as long as we are the majority, that is that.

I'm supposed to care that people believe bigotry against gays is alright?

The end.

Not really.

The only acceptable option you have is, simply, convince the people.

Or if it goes to the Supreme Court just laugh if the backwards crap gets repealed.

Any questions?

Do you have anything to back your argument or just empty words about how it's just as valid?

The debate over gay marriage is something for the R&P forum.

A cop out. You said it's as valid? Well then prove it. If it's an argument for R&P then don't claim it and then run off saying "Oh but that's not an argument for here!"

My argument here, sir, is not about what NC voted on.

Then don't make claims about it? Do try to backtrack less in the future.

It is about the fact that they voted. And that said vote is legally, ethically, and morally valid.

Prove it is. Don't just say it like a broken record.

What you are saying, paraphrased, is, "I am right, therefore all you stupid backwards people should get out of the way and let me decide what to do."

No, that isn't what I said. That is a strawman. Is intellectual integrity anathema to you? Is your position so pathetic that you need to lie to defend it?

America was designed precisely to prevent that happening.

Lol? Someone apparently doesn't realize that we have certain rights enshrined in the Constitution specifically so they can't be taken away. It's merely a matter of which ones belong and which don't. I'm not surprised, though, to hear this uneducated crap.

Precisely so people with puffed-up egos, intellectual superiority complexes, and an unwillingness to consider others could not take command and force the people down paths the people did not agree to.

Right, so why are you for denying gays the right to marry?

This is the chief tenet of my post, and it is one you have ignored in favor of making my point better than I ever could.

You made no points really, you keep claiming crap but not supporting it.

"will of the people? So what." That, sir, is the belief system from which many of the world's most reviled "leaders" were forged. I will just mention one - Stalin.

And America gave us shining examples of what happens with slavish adherence. See: Slavery. But you're probably cool with that kind of shit. Also, why the hell don't you have the guts to address my argument properly? See where I mentioned human rights? Do tell how that fits with Stalin.

Consider, sir, your own arguments inverted. The belief of many conservatives is that the "homosexual agenda" is made to force them into compliance.

So many conservatives are delusional. I'm supposed to care?

Pastors jailed in Canada, couples in Britain unable to adopt because of their beliefs, and wedding planners in california forced to cater to things they don't believe in.

So in other words they're not smart enough to tell the difference between allowing gay marriage and other things? Okay. Hint: Allowing gay marriage doesn't lead to those.

Now, from your perspective the Christians are the bigots, discriminating against people "born different." but from ours, it is quite the opposite.

No, I wouldn't say that about all Christians. They're not all bigots, only a sadly large amount.

So. I am against bigots; against those who would seek to criminalize what I fundamentally believe is truth.

No, actually I'm not for criminalizing anything. You are. You're for criminalizing gay marriage. I'm simply against you forcing your bigotted views where they don't belong.

I am in no way seeking to marginalize or discriminate against those who are different.

You're just doing it.

For the issue of whether homosexuality is innate or extrinsic is just that, an unsolved issue.

It's quite irrelevant whether it is or is not.

In fact, my policy (and that of many social conservatives) is simply: "Do what you want. But don't expect me to respect it, believe it, or vote for it."

Apparently more are for shoving their rotten beliefs into law. See: NC.

I have said much, but do not wish to be drawn into an endless argument here. Suffice it to say, we don't believe you, and are perfectly in our rights to do so.

Sure, just like Hitler was in his right to believe as he did. The problem was when it became more than a personal belief.

Slycne:

zehydra:
It's 1 state out of 50. It's nothing to get worried about (unless you live in North Carolina).

Actually it's the 31st state to pass something along these lines.

Now THAT's a little more alarming.

Ginger768:
After spending so much time on this website it's hard to believe there are still so many ignorant religious fanatics who would deny the rights of others on the basis they don't like those types of people or their religion doesn't like those types of people.

Not that it really matters. in 30 years most of the people who voted against gay marriage will be dead and hopefully the younger generation will stick it to the man...By allowing men to put their stick in another man.

State issue my ass. This is a Human rights issue. It's Sexual discrimination. Period.

It IS a state issue, but it's not like it can't be both a state issue AND a human rights issue, no?

In any case, people who think that homophobes have to be religious are going to be sadly surprised.

Homophobia doesn't stem from religious fanatics, it stems from our (culture+human nature).
Most people that dislike Homosexuals dislike them because what they do "feels wrong" to them, not because the bible tells them its wrong.

It's the religious fanatics however, who are the most vocal, and are the ones that use the bible as a way to justify their homophobia.

My point is, we've got a MUCH bigger problem than just religious fanaticism.

Congratulations, people who voted yes. Fifty years from now you'll be remembered in history! How cool is that! Right alongside the people who supported segregating black people, opposed women's rights, or argued that slavery wasn't unethical.

Firstmark_Bannor:

Jegsimmons:

rolfwesselius:
Fuck religious people.
People should be allowed to love their lives like they want to.

well fuck non religious people. (yeah, sounds bigoted and single minded doesn't it?)

we should be allowed to have opinions and views, you may not like it....but then again we may not like your view as well.

seriously, im religious, and i could care less either way, but its when people EXPECT me to accept something that i get pissed at. Just because some one has a right to do something, doesn't mean i have to like it. Your free to do what ever you do behind close doors, and your allowed to protest for civil partnership rights, but dont assume im against you when im not with you.
thats really the one thing that pisses me off about this gay rights movement, its either you support them, or your an over religious zealot bigot. I know plenty of gay people who support gay marriage, what are they? self hating gays?

If a state votes and decides 'well, i guess we dont allow gay marriage here' who the fuck cares?! Other states allow it, this one doesnt. Some states allow certain items while some ban them.
get over it! how many people who bitch about north carolina actually live in north carolina?

im guessing not many in this thread. so why is it hurting YOU? because you dont agree with it?
WOOPDESHIT!!! other states do shit i dont agree with but i dont bitch about it!

I DO live in North Carolina, I voted against the amendment. And I can honestly say that it's implications reach far beyond our state borders. This amendment not only bans gay marriage, but unmarried civil unions as well. Which means that unmarried straight couples that had their significant other covered on their health insurance no longer get that benefit, or that children living with spit up parents no longer get health coverage.

This bill may only be in the state constitution but its unintended consequences will ripple through the nation. Every American everywhere has a right, and in this case a duty, to bitch about it.

well now this is nice to have insight from some that actually lives there. Thank you for including clauses that most news channels won't cover however do you any links to any .pdf's for back-up? I always like having full info before doing an article.

My favorite part about stuff like this too is people who say "I am fine with gays doing whatever they want, I just don't think they should be able to marry."
It is like, I am cool with them doing whatever, so long as they don't have equal rights. Democracy or not, it should be able to take away human rights. I don't care if the majority of everyone in this country are cool with treating gays like second class citizens, it is still wrong.

EeveeElectro:
I don't know America that well. It NC a "Redneck" state?
This sums it up pretty well. It is probably out of date by now, but you get the message.

I want to live in Iowa. Iowa sounds nice.

Labyrinth:
Not only was gay marriage specifically banned, but the wording means that de facto and civil union couples are not recognised by the state, which really fucks over anyone who was relying on their partner for health insurance, plus changing the pension system, plus a whole lot of other things.

In general, it's a bit shit.

I'd say it's more than a bit shit. But, I wouldn't expect any different from a bunch of aging Republicans who believe this is a nation of "God".

RyoScar:
Well that's total bullshit. Why shouldn't gay people have the right to marry.

Because it's wrong in the bible (even though the bible bans far more than sleeping with another man). That's just one of their piss poor excuses though. The real reason is these fuck wits just personally find it disgusting and only think what is good for them.

Ok, I shall allow myself one full response. Then feel free to cast all the stones you wish.

Mortai Gravesend:

A cop out. You said it's as valid? Well then prove it. If it's an argument for R&P then don't claim it and then run off saying "Oh but that's not an argument for here!"

What I said is, shortly, "This is democratic." Also "This is no less valid than your view." Consider: One and two are both numbers. If, given no outside information, I claim the value of X is 1 and you claim it is 2, our answers are both equally valid. This does not mean either is right, and saying that "x=1" is as valid as "x=2" does not equate to claiming that X is actually 1.

Then don't make claims about it? Do try to backtrack less in the future.

See above. Or actually, let me provide my original post for reference: Here.
Note the lack of "Homosexuality is wrong." What I said is "Both sides are valid sides." Also, "Your view is no more valid than mine." See above.

Prove it is. Don't just say it like a broken record.

Fine. One - ONE - open post. Just so you'll put an end to the "Prove what you didn't claim to prove, already!" posts, k?
Homosexuality has on its side some studies claiming to show immutability and the word of a lot of people trained to believe it's immutable, claiming it's immutable.
Against it are some studies showing a preference towards homosexual behavior in children from abusive families, the existence of ex-gays, and personal experience.

Fact of the matter is, there's very little scientific work done on either proving or disproving it. Both sides seem content simply to say what is, and leave it at that.

No, that isn't what I said. That is a strawman. Is intellectual integrity anathema to you? Is your position so pathetic that you need to lie to defend it?

"Being against bigotry isn't wrong really."
"I'm supposed to care that people believe bigotry against gays is alright?"
"Or if it goes to the Supreme Court just laugh if the backwards crap gets repealed."
Translation: You're bigots. Your beliefs are backwards, idiotic, and wrong.
Here, I think, is a space for delicious irony: "Prove it." Prove that homosexuality is innate and immutable before claiming that the people who don't believe it is are bigoted, evil souls.

Lol? Someone apparently doesn't realize that we have certain rights enshrined in the Constitution specifically so they can't be taken away. It's merely a matter of which ones belong and which don't. I'm not surprised, though, to hear this uneducated crap.

It's merely a matter of which ones belong and which don't, indeed. You seem convinced that yours belong. I wonder why, considering that said Constitution does not say. And indeed, the fact that the Constitution does not say is the very basis for this question consuming our nation at present. We are attempting to decide the truth of the matter, and until such truth is decided, you have no more claim to call your side "truth" than I.

Right, so why are you for denying gays the right to marry?

It's not a right. It's an institution for the bearing and raising of children and properly belongs outside the realm of government altogether. As such, homosexual couples have about as much need of it as bestialists or people "married to their work."

You made no points really, you keep claiming crap but not supporting it.

Just one point, oft ignored: All democratic decisions are valid, whether or not you believe them to be, until such time as, and unless, the democratic process sees fit to overturn them.

And America gave us shining examples of what happens with slavish adherence. See: Slavery. But you're probably cool with that kind of shit. Also, why the hell don't you have the guts to address my argument properly? See where I mentioned human rights? Do tell how that fits with Stalin.

1. 200 years ago, you and I both would have thought very differently on this issue. Kindly cease attempting to conflate the solved questions of the past with the unsolved questions of the present.
2. Ad hominem attacks. Charming.
3. Stalin, who violated practically every human right (and everything we in America call rights) in the book in the interest of creating and enforcing a so-called Marxist utopia? Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? Right to ownership of property?

So many conservatives are delusional. I'm supposed to care?

You are brimming with self-confidence. Sadly, this will not get you anywhere in our nation of D-R-I 33.1-35.1-31.8. You are not a majority, sir. You cannot act like one and expect to get anywhere.

So in other words they're not smart enough to tell the difference between allowing gay marriage and other things? Okay. Hint: Allowing gay marriage doesn't lead to those.

Allowing gay marriage led directly to those, by way of "Hate Speech" and "Human rights". I quoted literal examples of things that have happened in the past few years.

No, I wouldn't say that about all Christians. They're not all bigots, only a sadly large amount.

You're not all Christophobic conservative-haters - only a sadly large amount.

No, actually I'm not for criminalizing anything. You are. You're for criminalizing gay marriage. I'm simply against you forcing your bigotted views where they don't belong.

And you're (probably; I don't know for certain) for criminalizing the teaching of creationism. Doesn't matter that it's not currently allowed anyway, simply because of policy; I can gain pity points by making you out to be the controlling villain trying to take away something fundamental.

You're just doing it.

Sure. Whatever you say, champ. While we're at it, there's this small portion of the population that are naturally predisposed to fraternize with animals. They're just different from you and I, and as such 1. should be allowed to marry their pets and 2. should not be criticized in public discourse. After all, they're just different. 'Cause I say so. So they are.

It's quite irrelevant whether it is or is not.

Actually, it's at the heart of the question. Iff it is intrinsic, this is a human rights issue. Iff it is not, this is an issue of actions and beliefs, neither of which deserve special government consideration beyond "You can do it, if it doesn't hurt others."

Apparently more are for shoving their rotten beliefs into law. See: NC.

As long as you continue to denigrate and devalue the positions of others in favor of your own, debate (such as it can be) is pointless.

Sure, just like Hitler was in his right to believe as he did. The problem was when it became more than a personal belief.

Is that Godwin I see? Welcome back, old chap. Also, do consider that your argument can be applied to yourself in an exact 1-1 fashion: the problem is when your beliefs become more than personal beliefs.

Mortai Gravesend:
-snip-

Don't normally agree with you, mortai, but gotta say, liking your stance on this one. (:

chickenhound:
All I have to say is watch this video

These kind of video's make me sad. They're right, about everything, but we all know the people who need to hear it aren't listening.

And there goes any chance of me going to Escapist Expo...

omicron1:
The will of the people, gentlemen. That's what being in a democracy means - sometimes people you don't personally agree with win.

Move along; nothing to see here. Just democracy in action.

Barely a quarter of Americans approved of Loving v. Virginia when it passed and said that states don't get to decide certain things about who can marry. Were they wrong then to limit 'democracy'?

omicron1:
Ok, I shall allow myself one full response. Then feel free to cast all the stones you wish.

Mortai Gravesend:

A cop out. You said it's as valid? Well then prove it. If it's an argument for R&P then don't claim it and then run off saying "Oh but that's not an argument for here!"

What I said is, shortly, "This is democratic." Also "This is no less valid than your view." Consider: One and two are both numbers. If, given no outside information, I claim the value of X is 1 and you claim it is 2, our answers are both equally valid. This does not mean either is right, and saying that "x=1" is as valid as "x=2" does not equate to claiming that X is actually 1.

Utter bullshit. That they would be equally valid depends on the situation. If we're just given some random number X, then it would be nonsense to say it is 1 or 2. And if the context is some problem, then one might be more valid. It would be irrational to claim both are valid without knowing the context. But anyway that isn't even close to analogous to this case. Pulling a case out of nowhere where you might be able to claim two answers are equally valid does not mean it applies to this case.

Then don't make claims about it? Do try to backtrack less in the future.

See above. Or actually, let me provide my original post for reference: Here.
Note the lack of "Homosexuality is wrong." What I said is "Both sides are valid sides." Also, "Your view is no more valid than mine." See above.

You claimed that they're equally valid. Ergo you made claims about it. I shouldn't have to point something this obvious out. You said they're equally valid, prove it.

Prove it is. Don't just say it like a broken record.

Fine. One - ONE - open post. Just so you'll put an end to the "Prove what you didn't claim to prove, already!" posts, k?
[/quote]

I'm asking you to prove things you claimed. In this instance it was: "And that said vote is legally, ethically, and morally valid."

Homosexuality has on its side some studies claiming to show immutability and the word of a lot of people trained to believe it's immutable, claiming it's immutable.
Against it are some studies showing a preference towards homosexual behavior in children from abusive families, the existence of ex-gays, and personal experience.

I am astonished at how many studies you provided. Namely 0.

Fact of the matter is, there's very little scientific work done on either proving or disproving it. Both sides seem content simply to say what is, and leave it at that.

Fact of the matter is, that's false. I can play that game too, see? I can just say "Fact of the matter", follow up with whatever I like, and then not provide a real argument. Is that the game they taught you?

No, that isn't what I said. That is a strawman. Is intellectual integrity anathema to you? Is your position so pathetic that you need to lie to defend it?

"Being against bigotry isn't wrong really."
"I'm supposed to care that people believe bigotry against gays is alright?"
"Or if it goes to the Supreme Court just laugh if the backwards crap gets repealed."
Translation: You're bigots. Your beliefs are backwards, idiotic, and wrong.
Here, I think, is a space for delicious irony: "Prove it." Prove that homosexuality is innate and immutable before claiming that the people who don't believe it is are bigoted, evil souls.

Which is something I believe to be true, not an argument, like you presented it as. Furthemore you're switching from what you previously said it was.

I didn't say it was innate and immutable. Doesn't need to be for people against it to be bigots. Sure I think it is, my argument doesn't hinge on it.

Lol? Someone apparently doesn't realize that we have certain rights enshrined in the Constitution specifically so they can't be taken away. It's merely a matter of which ones belong and which don't. I'm not surprised, though, to hear this uneducated crap.

It's merely a matter of which ones belong and which don't, indeed. You seem convinced that yours belong. I wonder why, considering that said Constitution does not say. And indeed, the fact that the Constitution does not say is the very basis for this question consuming our nation at present. We are attempting to decide the truth of the matter, and until such truth is decided, you have no more claim to call your side "truth" than I.

Sure I do. Truth is not decided by consensus. It's true prior to it.

Right, so why are you for denying gays the right to marry?

It's not a right. It's an institution for the bearing and raising of children and properly belongs outside the realm of government altogether. As such, homosexual couples have about as much need of it as bestialists or people "married to their work."

Right, prove that it's an institution for that. No doubt you'll cite scary things like the laws that force married people to have children and... oh wait. Also, I invented this awesome thing called... ADOPTION. Have you heard about it yet?

You made no points really, you keep claiming crap but not supporting it.

Just one point, oft ignored: All democratic decisions are valid, whether or not you believe them to be, until such time as, and unless, the democratic process sees fit to overturn them.

You've failed to prove they are valid. Like said, you keep claiming crap, but not supporting it.

And America gave us shining examples of what happens with slavish adherence. See: Slavery. But you're probably cool with that kind of shit. Also, why the hell don't you have the guts to address my argument properly? See where I mentioned human rights? Do tell how that fits with Stalin.

1. 200 years ago, you and I both would have thought very differently on this issue. Kindly cease attempting to conflate the solved questions of the past with the unsolved questions of the present.

Doesn't matter what we might have thought. And kindly stop avoiding the fact that your position is one that says slavery would have been okay.

2. Ad hominem attacks. Charming.

Ignorance of what ad hominem actually is. Expected.

3. Stalin, who violated practically every human right (and everything we in America call rights) in the book in the interest of creating and enforcing a so-called Marxist utopia? Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press? Right to ownership of property?

Exactly. I said I was concerned with human rights first, and then for some reason *cough* lack of integrity *cough* you tried to claim that my position would be the kind Stalin would take.

So many conservatives are delusional. I'm supposed to care?

You are brimming with self-confidence. Sadly, this will not get you anywhere in our nation of D-R-I 33.1-35.1-31.8. You are not a majority, sir. You cannot act like one and expect to get anywhere.

Majority position is irrelevant. It's delusional to think there's some sort of gay agenda.

So in other words they're not smart enough to tell the difference between allowing gay marriage and other things? Okay. Hint: Allowing gay marriage doesn't lead to those.

Allowing gay marriage led directly to those, by way of "Hate Speech" and "Human rights". I quoted literal examples of things that have happened in the past few years.

Directly? Untrue.

No, I wouldn't say that about all Christians. They're not all bigots, only a sadly large amount.

You're not all Christophobic conservative-haters - only a sadly large amount.

Christophobic? What a laugh. You probably have a persecution complex a mile high.

No, actually I'm not for criminalizing anything. You are. You're for criminalizing gay marriage. I'm simply against you forcing your bigotted views where they don't belong.

And you're (probably; I don't know for certain) for criminalizing the teaching of creationism. Doesn't matter that it's not currently allowed anyway, simply because of policy; I can gain pity points by making you out to be the controlling villain trying to take away something fundamental.

Oh noez, I'm for not teaching lies in school. How horrible of me.

You're just doing it.

Sure. Whatever you say, champ. While we're at it, there's this small portion of the population that are naturally predisposed to fraternize with animals. They're just different from you and I, and as such 1. should be allowed to marry their pets and 2. should not be criticized in public discourse. After all, they're just different. 'Cause I say so. So they are.

How odd. I never said anything about difference itself justifying things. It's as if you're making yet another strawman.

It's quite irrelevant whether it is or is not.

Actually, it's at the heart of the question. Iff it is intrinsic, this is a human rights issue. Iff it is not, this is an issue of actions and beliefs, neither of which deserve special government consideration beyond "You can do it, if it doesn't hurt others."

What people are free to do is a matter of human rights.

Apparently more are for shoving their rotten beliefs into law. See: NC.

As long as you continue to denigrate and devalue the positions of others in favor of your own, debate (such as it can be) is pointless.

Not really, you just want an excuse.

Sure, just like Hitler was in his right to believe as he did. The problem was when it became more than a personal belief.

Is that Godwin I see? Welcome back, old chap. Also, do consider that your argument can be applied to yourself in an exact 1-1 fashion: the problem is when your beliefs become more than personal beliefs.

Except I'm not the one who is for uncritical acceptance of beliefs. You are.

Samantha Burt:

Mortai Gravesend:
-snip-

Don't normally agree with you, mortai, but gotta say, liking your stance on this one. (:

Thanks =D

I can't please everyone *all* the time, but I'm sure I agree with any given person on at least *one* thing XD

Technically North Carolina double-banned gay marriage, first in the legislature and then again by amending the State Constitution.

It must be nice to live in a state that has so much free time on its hands. I can only assume NC has bumper employment, low taxes, excellent government services and no deficit. Because I mean, otherwise you might think they were wasting time for partisan advantage...

My thinking :
People can get married to who they want to marry, if you want to marry someone of the same gender, cool, is there a problem with being happy?

/Shrug

also People who say "America is so conservative" Yea your right from a guy who lives in Backwater Nebraska

It was just a smokescreen to keep people from seeing the shit they aren't doing right.

You know, maintaining buildings and roads.
Us having one of the shittiest, underfunded education systems in the country.
One of the lowest employment rates in the country.

You know, shit like that. Political leaders currently don't wanna bother addressing those issues, because they are lazy, or are probably making an easy buck off of it for now. Who knows.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked