Ignorant North Carolina Bans Civil Unions

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Their ignorance against anything not Right Wing agenda is disgusting to say the least...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/north-carolina-voters-banned-gay-marriage-civil-unions-011158194.html

By Liz Goodwin | The Ticket – 39 mins ago

North Carolinians voted to change the state constitution Tuesday to say that the only valid "domestic legal partnership" in the state is marriage between a man and a woman, according to the AP's projection. The amendment passed 61 to 39 percent with most counties reporting, making North Carolina the 29th state with a gay marriage ban in its constitution.

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Wdpogn4QAjuoQzq657be6g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/AP120508022403.jpg
Lynda Miller casts her vote Tuesday, May 8, 2012, at Belville Elementary School in Brunswick County, N.C. (AP Photo/The …

The state already outlawed gay marriage, but the constitutional amendment makes it more difficult for politicians to ever change the law. The amendment also means that a handful of North Carolina municipalities that extended benefits to the domestic partners of their employees will no longer be able to do so, since marriage is now the only valid legal partnership in the state. Former President Bill Clinton urged the state's voters not to support the amendment in robocalls, while President Barack Obama's office said he was also against the change.

Supporters of gay marriage out-raised and out-advertised their opponents in the lead up to the vote, emphasizing in TV ads that the amendment could also have repercussions for unmarried straight couples because of its vague language. The anti-amendment coalition raised more than $2 million, according to campaign finance disclosures, most of which came from small and large individual donations. The pro-amendment crowd, called Vote for Marriage NC, raised a little more than $1 million, with most of the money being donated by nonprofit groups, not individuals.

Only 46 percent of voters realized that the amendment would ban civil unions for gay couples as well as marriage, according to a Public Policy Polling poll. A majority of North Carolina voters support civil unions.

Minnesota faces a ballot gay marriage ban in November, while Maine activists are hoping that residents have changed their minds and will vote to approve gay marriage this November after repealing its legalization in 2009. Lawmakers in Maryland, Washington and New Jersey passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage this year, though Gov. Chris Christie vetoed New Jersey's law.

[spdirty]

Well if gay couples that want to be in a civil union who live in North Carolina don't like it, they can vote with their legs.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Well if gay couples that want to be in a civil union who live in North Carolina don't like it, they can vote with their legs.

Is that suppose to be funny? I mean you are suggesting that not all Americans have equals rights to medical benefits and state laws, is that your position?

And what, no comment on this ....

Only 46 percent of voters realized that the amendment would ban civil unions for gay couples as well as marriage, according to a Public Policy Polling poll. A majority of North Carolina voters support civil unions.

[Kid A]

Well if gay couples that want to be in a civil union who live in North Carolina don't like it, they can vote with their legs.

wow.

"Quit bitching about having your civil liberties stripped! Just move hundreds of miles away from the place where you may have spent your entire life/where all your family lives if you don't like it!"

[ant1999e]

The people of France vote in a Socialist and you think it's great. But North Carolina ban small sex marriage and they're ignorant. You have something in common with the people of North Carolina.

[spdirty]

Is that suppose to be funny? I mean you are suggesting that not all Americans have equals rights to medical benefits and state laws, is that your position?


No I don't mean to be funny. Or cute. Or an a-hole. Just merely a suggestion to gay couples who really don't have any power to change the law who live in North Carolina who want to be married or in a Civil Union.

Look this is where I sit on the matter. My position on homosexuality is that the act is a sin. It doesn't matter whether you're married, or in a civil union, or just a couple who has rights or doesn't have rights. The act itself is a sin. Just like drunkenness, adultry, or premarital sex. Doesn't make homosexuals bad people, just means they're living in sin. Just like my dad, whom I love to death. But he's a man-whore. He doesn't want a relationship, so he has 2-5 women that he has relations with. IMO, doesn't make him much different from a homosexual. We have free will to live how we want. That is a blessing as well as a curse. So I really don't care whether they make gay marriage legal or not. I won't crusade against them having any kind of rights, and I won't fight for their rights either. All I want is for their perverted behavior not to be shoved down my throat, or my family's throat. So if North Carolinians are negatively affected by this bill, they can vote with their feet.

And what, no comment on this ....

Well, the people who voted should have educated themselves better on the matter, and the people who were against this bill didn't do a good enough job getting the word out. Isn't the first time we've had uneducated voters, won't be the last. Remember many people voted for a president based solely on the color of his skin. Some for, some against. That's why I believe people should have to pass a test before being given the right to vote. Make em take it every ten years. If we had that law, maybe this bill doesn't pass.

[That One Guy]

So when they said only a certain part of the population should vote, people went up in arms and threw a fit. Now, once everyone can cast a vote, you bitch because the people are too stupid to know what they voted for? Well what the **** did you expect, geniuses?

I was equally aghast watching "I won't have to pay for my gas anymore" lady celebrating Obama's election. Welcome to the downside of "everyone get's a vote".

And for those griping because he said vote with your feet, isn't that what you guys say when people complain about the US becoming more and more socialist-esque? "Har, Har, move to Lybia if you don't want the government to..., har har!"

[spdirty]

wow.

"Quit b****ing about having your civil liberties stripped! Just move hundreds of miles away from the place where you may have spent your entire life/where all your family lives if you don't like it!"

Yeah, if you don't like the tax law in a state, move to a state where you like the tax laws. If you don't like the business regulations in a state, move to a state with less restrictive business regulations. If you don't like a state stripping away your civil liberties, move to a state that doesn't. If I were a poor black person with a family in the deep south in the 50's and 60's, I'd have moved to a state that wouldn't persecute me.

Its called "vote with your feet" and its a tradition that's been going on since this country was founded.

[Requiem]

Good article on the subject. (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/north-carolina-amendment-one-passes.php?ref=fpblg)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The people of France vote in a Socialist and you think it's great. But North Carolina ban small sex marriage and they're ignorant. You have something in common with the people of North Carolina.Maybe you ought to try and actually address who you are talking to or did you just assume again you know what I'm thinking of France's latest elections?

They banned civil unions and yes they are ignorant as hell as I pointed out, half of them didn't have any idea on what they just voted on.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yeah, if you don't like the tax law in a state, move to a state where you like the tax laws. If you don't like the business regulations in a state, move to a state with less restrictive business regulations. If you don't like a state stripping away your civil liberties, move to a state that doesn't. If I were a poor black person with a family in the deep south in the 50's and 60's, I'd have moved to a state that wouldn't persecute me.

Its called "vote with your feet" and its a tradition that's been going on since this country was founded.
It's called bigotry and racism and should not be tolerated in this country, under any circumstances.

[That One Guy]

It's called bigotry and racism and should not be tolerated in this country, no excuses.

What exactly is racist?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What exactly is racist?

The definition is clear, what don't you understand about it?

[That One Guy]

The definition is clear, what don't you understand about it?

Where race and gay marriage intersect.

[cutthemdown]

Good this will force Obama to make gay marriage legal and to push for a constitutional amendment making it so. His wishy washy well my view is evolving BS is a joke and not leadership. The only reason states are doing their own immigration laws, making laws on marriage, is because our fed govt does not lead the way on them.

Cmon Obama step up, say you believe all people no matter what gender, transgender, should be able to marry.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Where race and gay marriage intersect.
No, racism is hatred and bigotry against any group of people.


In politics, racism is commonly located on the far right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism) due to the far right’s common association with nativism, racism, and xenophobia. In history, racism has been a major part of the political and ideological underpinning of genocides such as the holocaust, but also in colonial contexts such as the rubber booms in South America and the Congo, and in the European conquest of the Americas and colonization of Africa, Asia and Australia. It was also a driving force behind the transatlantic slave trade, and behind states based on racial segregation such as the USA in the 19th and early twentieth centuries and South Africa under apartheid. Practices and ideologies of racism are universally condemned by the United Nations in the Declaration of Human Rights.

Racism has existed throughout human history (http://www.adl.org/hate-patrol/racism.asp). It may be defined as the hatred of one person by another -- or the belief that another person is less than human -- because of skin color, language, customs, place of birth or any factor that supposedly reveals the basic nature of that person. It has influenced wars, slavery, the formation of nations, and legal codes.

[That One Guy]

Good this will force Obama to make gay marriage legal and to push for a constitutional amendment making it so. His wishy washy well my view is evolving BS is a joke and not leadership. The only reason states are doing their own immigration laws, making laws on marriage, is because our fed govt does not lead the way on them.

Cmon Obama step up, say you believe all people no matter what gender, transgender, should be able to marry.

There was an article about this earlier comparing him to LBJ. Apparently LBJ said F it and embraced the civil rights movement while claiming the presidency should lead the way whereas the Obama administration is increasingly showing support for the movement while Obama stays quiet. Apparently they expect him to make his move after the election and fully embrace it.

[That One Guy]

No, racism is hatred and bigotry against any group of people.

[Garble Garble Garble...]


So... you just threw in racism for dramatic effect. Figured so. Got it.

[spdirty]

It's called bigotry and racism and should not be tolerated in this country, under any circumstances.

Kind of funny how you said that. Bigotry is stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. So in effect you're saying that "intolerance should not be tolerated!"

Anyway, just a question, but what do you think we should do about bigotry and racism in this country?

[Kid A]

Yeah, if you don't like the tax law in a state, move to a state where you like the tax laws. If you don't like the business regulations in a state, move to a state with less restrictive business regulations. If you don't like a state stripping away your civil liberties, move to a state that doesn't. If I were a poor black person with a family in the deep south in the 50's and 60's, I'd have moved to a state that wouldn't persecute me.

Its called "vote with your feet" and its a tradition that's been going on since this country was founded.

I don't know where to even begin.

1) You start by comparing impoverished, persecuted black families in the 50s to large companies that wants a tax break? That is so insane...I just. One wants to keep slightly more money, the other was having every constitutional right trampled upon by bigotry, fearing for their lives, looking at bleak futures for their children. One can relocate for economic convenience, the other would have to risk every cent they owned (if they even had enough) to start a new life...

2) Civil right didn't come from "people voting with their feet." It came from staying put and fighting for equality, making the nation aware of the moral outrage. Moving away is what the bigots wanted them to do. It's probably what these NC a-holes want too - get the "******s" out of Jesusland.

I mean, I get you probably don't view gay rights as an equal to race issues. Fair enough. But you seem to be seriously suggesting that even when it came to issues of racism in the 50s/60s, the issue was not with the injustice committed by a racist majority, but by the persecuted minority not giving into the hate and leaving. That civil rights are equal to any other minor difference between states, whether it be sales tax or "white's only" restaurants. Please tell me I misunderstood you.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So... you just threw in racism for dramatic effect. Figured so. Got it.BS, learn the term and understand how the Right defines it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Kind of funny how you said that. Bigotry is stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. So in effect you're saying that "intolerance should not be tolerated!"

Anyway, just a question, but what do you think we should do about bigotry and racism in this country?
Not allow it to define which humans are entitled to basic benefits and which aren't.

[That One Guy]

BS, learn the term and understand how the Right defines it.

Racism=Race

Simple as that. This thread is about sexuality not race.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Racism=Race

Simple as that. This thread is about sexuality not race.Incorrect, like I said, educate yourself and learn the definition.

[cutthemdown]

There was an article about this earlier comparing him to LBJ. Apparently LBJ said F it and embraced the civil rights movement while claiming the presidency should lead the way whereas the Obama administration is increasingly showing support for the movement while Obama stays quiet. Apparently they expect him to make his move after the election and fully embrace it.

He's sort of the same way with Syria. He agrees with things, but then doesn't really push to bring them about. That way he can say he isn't to blame but still take credit for it if it happens to turn out well. I guess its not a bad gameplan.

Fact is Obama knows about 50/50 split in USA on gay marriage. Since it is a winner for him he stays away as much as possible. He doesn't want to lose that 5% conservative dem and indy votes in places like Ohio, Fla etc.

[That One Guy]

Simple solution: Rewrite legislation to only provide benefits as a family if you have children. As the situations change and two income households become more common while more people choose to go kid-free, it seems the need for dependency benefits are decreasing as well. Just take the benefit from everyone that doesn't need it.

[That One Guy]

Incorrect, like I said, educate yourself and learn the definition.

Racism is ****ing race. I don't care who tried to redefine the word but it, simply and literally, means race. It ****ing has race in the word, dumb****.

[That One Guy]

He's sort of the same way with Syria. He agrees with things, but then doesn't really push to bring them about. That way he can say he isn't to blame but still take credit for it if it happens to turn out well. I guess its not a bad gameplan.

Fact is Obama knows about 50/50 split in USA on gay marriage. Since it is a winner for him he stays away as much as possible. He doesn't want to lose that 5% conservative dem and indy votes in places like Ohio, Fla etc.

Well one day, maybe, the presidency will be about leadership rather than campaigning again. It's a problem overtaking the presidency, congress, and all the rest of the elected positions.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Simple solution: Rewrite legislation to only provide benefits as a family if you have children. As the situations change and two income households become more common while more people choose to go kid-free, it seems the need for dependency benefits are decreasing as well. Just take the benefit from everyone that doesn't need it.
Are you fricking serious? Everyone no mater what their sex, what their marriage status, what their age, what color they are, what their sexual preference, etc (every American)... needs health insurance and access to basic benefits offered in our society today.

[That One Guy]

Are you fricking serious? Everyone no mater what their sex, what their marriage status, what their age, what color they are, what their sexula preference, etc... needs health insurance and access to basic benefits offered in our society today.

But if you're not supporting children, you can go get a job that offers benefits. Why should we be paying for people who are sitting on their cans?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

But if you're not supporting children, you can go get a job that offers benefits. Why should we be paying for people who are sitting on their cans?That is a non argument as EVERY taxpayer pays for the uninsured and that is what is killing this country.

And in a service economy which we now have, only approx. 50% of those jobs offer health insurance.

[That One Guy]

That is a non argument as EVERY taxpayer pays for the uninsured and that is what is killing this country.

And in a service economy which we now have, only approx. 50% of those jobs offer health insurance.

If we didn't have as many people, the worker would have more leverage in demanding extra benefits.

And I'm all for denying healthcare to people without coverage. The only ones I think should be covered are children. Everyone else made a decision somewhere along the way that left them either with, or without, coverage.

So, in short, the problem grew out of our need to forcibly take from everyone to give to others without consideration of how and why they got where they are.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If we didn't have as many people, the worker would have more leverage in demanding extra benefits.

And I'm all for denying healthcare to people without coverage. The only ones I think should be covered are children. Everyone else made a decision somewhere along the way that left them either with, or without, coverage.
.

Please, how can you even suggest that since many employers don't offer it and millions of Americans lost their jobs starting with Bush's final years.

The healthcare crisis in this country is real and no one wants to address it, just bash Obama's attempt at fixing it and everything will be OK. Uhh

[cutthemdown]

Please, how can you even suggest that since many employers don't offer it and millions of Americans lost their jobs starting with Bush's final years.

The healthcare crisis in this country is real and no one wants to address it, just bash Obama's attempt at fixing it and everything will be OK. Uhh

If his attempt gets butchered by the Supreme Court then it's epic fail. If not then a huge victory. No way you can say 2 yrs down the drain to then have the courts rip it to shreds is good leadership.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If his attempt gets butchered by the Supreme Court then it's epic fail. If not then a huge victory. No way you can say 2 yrs down the drain to then have the courts rip it to shreds is good leadership.
Uh, no, the SC is a Right Wing majority which renders your statement completely inaccurate.

[spdirty]

I don't know where to even begin.

1) You start by comparing impoverished, persecuted black families in the 50s to large companies that wants a tax break? That is so insane...I just. One wants to keep slightly more money, the other was having every constitutional right trampled upon by bigotry, fearing for their lives, looking at bleak futures for their children. One can relocate for economic convenience, the other would have to risk every cent they owned (if they even had enough) to start a new life....

No, I'm not comparing anyone to anyone. The only point I made was, if you don't like a states laws, or the people in it, then move. Yes, I would scrounge and risk every cent I owned, to move my family to a place where I wouldn't have to worry about getting shot for no reason, or having a bomb thrown into a church where I'd go to. To a place where I, or any of my family members wouldn't have to worry about getting picked up and lynched for simply walking home in the dark. I wouldve MOVED!

2) Civil right didn't come from "people voting with their feet." It came from staying put and fighting for equality, making the nation aware of the moral outrage. Moving away is what the bigots wanted them to do. It's probably what these NC a-holes want too - get the "******s" out of Jesusland.
I mean, I get you probably don't view gay rights as an equal to race issues. Fair enough. But you seem to be seriously suggesting that even when it came to issues of racism in the 50s/60s, the issue was not with the injustice committed by a racist majority, but by the persecuted minority not giving into the hate and leaving. That civil rights are equal to any other minor difference between states, whether it be sales tax or "white's only" restaurants. Please tell me I misunderstood you.

I think we're arguing from 2 different perspectives. Mine is from a lower-middle class person that works 40-60 hours a week to support their family. What are they to do that's in the best interests for themselves right now? I read the vote passed by a wide margin.

OK, let me change the subject and give a hypothetical so that I can relate to the point your are making. K, I am raising a family of 4, work 40-60 hours a week, make 40K-50K per year. Go to church, try to raise my family to be good christians. Lets say the voters of Colorado passed a state constitutional amendment banning the right to practice religion the way my family practices it. What am I to do? Go out and crusade to change the law? Where do I start? Remember, I have a family to take care of. Where do I find the time to do this? Do I just quit my job, so I can fight it, and let my family starve? Go out and start rallies and march in downtown Denver? No, its not what I'd do. I'd say the hell with Colorado and move to a state that allows my family practice religion the way we see fit. That's just me. Of course, before you start, I know the first amendment prevents this from happening, I'm just giving a hypothetical.

[spdirty]

He's sort of the same way with Syria. He agrees with things, but then doesn't really push to bring them about. That way he can say he isn't to blame but still take credit for it if it happens to turn out well. I guess its not a bad gameplan.

Fact is Obama knows about 50/50 split in USA on gay marriage. Since it is a winner for him he stays away as much as possible. He doesn't want to lose that 5% conservative dem and indy votes in places like Ohio, Fla etc.

That's Obama's version of "Leadership."

[That One Guy]

Please, how can you even suggest that since many employers don't offer it and millions of Americans lost their jobs starting with Bush's final years.

The healthcare crisis in this country is real and no one wants to address it, just bash Obama's attempt at fixing it and everything will be OK. Uhh

If you've spent your life working hard, you have a good job. If you have a good job, you have benefits. If you don't have benefits, you probably didn't spend your life working hard.

It's a simple cycle and I know you can find that person with down syndrome that is the exception but generally, it applies.

[Missouribronc]

So 29 states believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's a majority of people in a majority of states.

Why is this one so groundbreaking?

Personally, I believe people should do what they want and that gay couples and straight couples should be able to apply for a government-recognized union and that their church or place of worship should recognize if it is or is not considered wedding.

However, my view is not supported by voters in many states, therefore it is law. It doesn't make those people ignorant or stupid. That's their opinion.

You should show some compassion for other view points and not call them ignorant. That's not very tolerant.

[spdirty]

You should show some compassion for other view points and not call them ignorant. That's not very tolerant.

It's pretty bigoted, actually.

[That One Guy]

So 29 states believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's a majority of people in a majority of states.

Why is this one so groundbreaking?

Personally, I believe people should do what they want and that gay couples and straight couples should be able to apply for a government-recognized union and that their church or place of worship should recognize if it is or is not considered wedding.

However, my view is not supported by voters in many states, therefore it is law. It doesn't make those people ignorant or stupid. That's their opinion.

You should show some compassion for other view points and not call them ignorant. That's not very tolerant.

I think I read 32 in one of the links.

Let's not forget the federal gov't.

And if you want to see what the most important issue is, ask a person if they want the recognized marriage or the benefits that come with it. Many will say the recognized marriage but when you ask if they'd accept a recognized marriage where they didn't get survivors benefits, healthcare, etc. then it's a deal breaker. This isn't about calling it anything, anymore. I sincerely think it used to be about that. Now that times have gotten tougher, it's about the benefits.

[Missouribronc]

Because people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't make them ignorant. It doesn't mean they aren't diverse and it doesn't make you enlightened. It just means you share a different opinion.

I have a different opinion. I think marriage should be completely separated from government and that government should recognize "unions."

[That One Guy]

Because people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't make them ignorant. It doesn't mean they aren't diverse and it doesn't make you enlightened. It just means you share a different opinion.

I have a different opinion. I think marriage should be completely separated from government and that government should recognize "unions."

And I believe that if the gov't actually spent our money the way they should be, they wouldn't be in the business of rewarding whether people couple or not.

[cutthemdown]

Uh, no, the SC is a Right Wing majority which renders your statement completely inaccurate.

The makeup of the court was known to all before he wrote the law. Also the court basically is 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and one middle of the road. Or at worst 5 conservatives and 4 liberals. Not exactly a right wing court. Not that I don't agree the right has an advantage, just that its not like all 5 are Scalia conservative.

[NUB]

Getting a good laugh at the pleas for compassion, tolerance, and respect for an inherently intolerant decision.

[TonyR]

What North Carolina Reveals
It reveals that the anti-marriage equality peeps are not simply anti-marriage. They are against any civil recognition of gay couples' commitment, responsibility and equality. The Amendment today would ban any relationship rights whatever to gay couples in the state. No domestic partnerships, no civil unions - nada. It renders spouses strangers at hospitals, it ensures no legal stability for shared homes or shared children. It is in many ways a simple declaration that gay relationships are anathema to the people of North Carolina. That's what drives the anti-marriage equality movement: the removal of gay people from full family life.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/what-north-carolina-reveals.html

[TonyR]

A reader writes:

I am a professor at the University of North Carolina. I am a Westerner by birth and temperament, but after nearly two decades in this gentle, Southern state, I was until recently proud to call it home.

Today, it looks likely to be the case that my beloved home will pass an amendment to its Constitution that will make me a permanent second-class citizen. Last night, I talked with my husband of 12 years what we should do. Should I look for a job elsewhere? I love UNC. I love its students. But it is clear that a majority of its voters will carve in large, bloody letters hatred into the Constitution.

Should I uproot myself? I plan on writing the Chancellor of the University on Wednesday to let him know that I will start the years-long process of finding a new job. I am heartbroken. American Theocracy is a real thing - and the machinery of a pluralist, democratic state has been hijacked.

Truly, my heart breaks.

Mine too.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/email.html

[Rohirrim]

This country started swinging to the Right in 1980 and is now pegged about as far as it can go (at least to my imagination). Much farther right and we're going into fascism territory. I keep waiting for the pendulum to move back, but so far, no go. I'm guessing that has a lot to do with the massive Right Wing propaganda machine that manipulates people (using social issues like gay unions) into voting for the financial interests of the oligarchs who fund the propaganda. My assumption is that at some point, people see through the propaganda and it loses its effect, but that's only a hypothesis. Might not be true at all.

Given that it's an election year, I expect a whole lot more of these "issues" to be tossed like matches out into the political landscape until one of them catches fire. I don't think gay marriage will do the trick. The rabid Right is pretty sated on that red meat. Immigration is a fail, because the numbers are going backwards now. Gas prices? They're due to start going down. Flag burning is dead and buried. I can't think what the fear mongering propagandists will come up with next, but I'm sure they're working hard on it. If I were to guess, I would think it will be abortion. The angle will be that Obama might pick two justices in the next term and they won't be able to overthrow Roe v Wade, or something like that. Whatever it takes to keep the fear alive.

[That One Guy]

This country started swinging to the Right in 1980 and is now pegged about as far as it can go (at least to my imagination). Much farther right and we're going into fascism territory. I keep waiting for the pendulum to move back, but so far, no go. I'm guessing that has a lot to do with the massive Right Wing propaganda machine that manipulates people (using social issues like gay unions) into voting for the financial interests of the oligarchs who fund the propaganda. My assumption is that at some point, people see through the propaganda and it loses its effect, but that's only a hypothesis. Might not be true at all.

Given that it's an election year, I expect a whole lot more of these "issues" to be tossed like matches out into the political landscape until one of them catches fire. I don't think gay marriage will do the trick. The rabid Right is pretty sated on that red meat. Immigration is a fail, because the numbers are going backwards now. Gas prices? They're due to start going down. Flag burning is dead and buried. I can't think what the fear mongering propagandists will come up with next, but I'm sure they're working hard on it. If I were to guess, I would think it will be abortion. The angle will be that Obama might pick two justices in the next term and they won't be able to overthrow Roe v Wade, or something like that. Whatever it takes to keep the fear alive.

on some matters there may be some right movement but it's usually in response to left movement. This whole situation came because of the movement to force gay marriage on every state. Just 10 or 15 years ago, it was near-unanimously opposed. The left reached, had some successes, then the right pulled back. You really see this as the country moving right?

[Requiem]

God we have a lot of stupid people on this forum.

[Rohirrim]

on some matters there may be some right movement but it's usually in response to left movement. This whole situation came because of the movement to force gay marriage on every state. Just 10 or 15 years ago, it was near-unanimously opposed. The left reached, had some successes, then the right pulled back. You really see this as the country moving right?

Reactionaryism is, by its very nature, a Right Wing attribute, and this action in NC is purely reactionary, and created and promulgated by reactionaries. Gay marriage is an expansion of rights, an acceptance of the fact that the state of being homosexual is a phenomenon of nature, and has been with mankind no doubt since he left the trees to live on the savannas. The religion-based argument against the expansion of acceptance of that reality is purely reactionary, by definition.

Across a broad spectrum of issues, social, economic and political, this country has been getting steered hard Right for thirty years, basically through a manipulation of fear exerted mostly on the under-educated. It's laughable that you think there is a equivalent force on the Left, counter-balancing it. That is just one of the facets of Right Wing propaganda: False equivalency. The political "Left" in America, at this point in time (Obama included), would have been to the right of Nixon. The Right moves the goalposts a hundred yards, and when the so-called "left" scrambles the fifty yards it takes for them to catch up and find the middle, the Right calls them "socialists." :rofl:

[That One Guy]

I can't go all-out because I'm on a phone but I don't care if they want all the free rights in the world. I don't like the idea of rewarding more economic benefits. I have no religious opposition. Who should get benefits is a political issue not an ethical one which inherently evolves.

[alkemical]

http://www.dangerousminds.net/images/uploads/dirtyharry.jpg

[alkemical]

The Last Time North Carolina Amended Their Constitution On Marriage


http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web04/2012/5/8/22/enhanced-buzz-4907-1336528821-1.jpg


http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2012/5/8/22/enhanced-buzz-20967-1336528998-1.jpg

[Requiem]

I can't go all-out because I'm on a phone but I don't care if they want all the free rights in the world. I don't like the idea of rewarding more economic benefits. I have no religious opposition. Who should get benefits is a political issue not an ethical one which inherently evolves.

This isn't an economical issue. It is a civil rights issue.

Chances are, you probably get a lot of benefits and things you really don't deserve -- but that isn't the point, now is it?

[That One Guy]

This isn't an economical issue. It is a civil rights issue.

Chances are, you probably get a lot of benefits and things you really don't deserve -- but that isn't the point, now is it?

Take away the promise of economic benefit and gay marriage passes with flying colors.

[alkemical]

PRIVILEGE: From the Latin privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.

[Requiem]

Take away the promise of economic benefit and gay marriage passes with flying colors.

If you really think that you are incredibly naive.

[peacepipe]

Take away the promise of economic benefit and gay marriage passes with flying colors.the good old seperate but equal arguement. which is a load of bull.

[alkemical]

I wonder how many people are opposed to gay marriage, but watch gay pr0n.

[Garcia Bronco]

Well if gay couples that want to be in a civil union who live in North Carolina don't like it, they can vote with their legs.

Exactly. There is no law that says you have to live in North Carolina (thank god)

[errand]

Why is it whenever a liberal issue loses at the ballot box it's always because the voters are ignorant?

It's the will of the people..... the same ignorant voters helped put barack obama in office.....so were they ignorant in 2008 too?

If I was a liberal I'd be more concerned that 42% of the people of west virginia thought that a guy serving a prison term would be a better option to run for president

[Fedaykin]

Did I read this right in that _all_ civil unions are now banned -- even those for hetero couples?

If so:

Hilarious!

[TonyR]

...it's always because the voters are ignorant?


There's actually a lot to it in this case. There are a lot of stories that people really didn't understand what they were voting for/against. When you cast a vote and you don't understand what it is you're casting it for that is the very definition of ignorance.

[peacepipe]

Why is it whenever a liberal issue loses at the ballot box it's always because the voters are ignorant?

It's the will of the people..... the same ignorant voters helped put barack obama in office.....so were they ignorant in 2008 too?

If I was a liberal I'd be more concerned that 42% of the people of west virginia thought that a guy serving a prison term would be a better option to run for presidentits because the rights of citizens should never be determined by what a majority think. a majority of people were against womens right to vote,against the civil rights act, interracial marriage. if were up to the majority we would still have whites only establishments here in the south.

[Fedaykin]

its because the rights of citizens should never be determined by what a majority think

BINGO!

Why is this, something that is THE core concept of our government, so hard for people to accept and understand?

[errand]

Exactly. There is no law that says you have to live in North Carolina (thank god)

......... there's also no law that says you have to live in the united states of america either.

I may not agree with who some other people put in office or what they vote for.... but I do acknowledge that it is the will of the people who voted. If I don't like something then I will organize people who think like me to vote it out....

[Fedaykin]

......... there's also no law that says you have to live in the united states of america either.

I may not agree with some other people put in office on who to vote for but I do Acknowledge that it is the will of the people who voted. If I don't like something then I will organize people who think like me to vote it out....

You're one of the 2 sheep in a society that includes 10 wolves. The wolves decide you're on the dinner menu.

What do you do?

[errand]

serious question.... how many times has gay marriage won at the ballot box?

I'm not counting where an activist judge said you had to allow it...

I am talking about where it was put to a vote of the people and it was voted in?

[El Guapo]

I'm witholding comment except to say that you were just inviting a heated debate with this thread title.

[errand]

You're one of the 2 sheep in a society that includes 10 wolves. The wolves decide you're on the dinner menu.

What do you do?

I'm guessing you would have to learn to fight..... the problem that they have is that they tried to force it down peoples throats.

Instead of trying to convince them to think differently in the arena of ideas....they have activist judges say "no.. you will allow it"

[Garcia Bronco]

serious question.... how many times has gay marriage won at the ballot box?

I'm not counting where an activist judge said you had to allow it...

I am talking about where it was put to a vote of the people and it was voted in?

I don't believe it's ever won. Personally I don't think Government should be in the marriage business. It's retarded to me that we keep having to have this discussion because I don't care whether they marry each other or not. Enjoy divorce court because that's where you'll most likely end up.

[Fedaykin]

I'm guessing you would have to learn to fight..... the problem that they have is that they tried to force it down peoples throats.

Instead of trying to convince them to think differently in the arena of ideas....they have activist judges say "no.. you will allow it"

Whenever someone starts talking about "activist judges" they are almost certainly ignorant of the role of the judiciary.

The purpose of the judiciary is to determine the legality/constitutionality of legislation.

All law is subject to constitutional authority (both federal and state level). No matter what the majority, a particular law (say one which violates an individual's civic rights) can be struck down if it violates the constitution.

Striking down an unconstitutional law is not being "activist" -- it's judges doing their job.

[DenverBrit]

serious question.... how many times has gay marriage won at the ballot box?

I'm not counting where an activist judge said you had to allow it...

I am talking about where it was put to a vote of the people and it was voted in?

It should never have been on a ballot.

We are talking equal rights for all, but there are neanderthals out there who think they have the right to decide who gets married and who doesn't.

We have real issues the country must face, social engineering isn't one of them.

[gyldenlove]

Whenever someone starts talking about "activist judges" they are almost certainly ignorant of the role of the judiciary.

The purpose of the judiciary is to determine the legality/constitutionality of legislation.

All law is subject to constitutional authority (both federal and state level). No matter what the majority, a particular law (say one which violates an individual's civic rights) can be struck down if it violates the constitution.

Striking down an unconstitutional law is not being "activist" -- it's judges doing their job.

The vast majority of legislation from the bench is interpretation of old laws to new phenomena - very little of what is called activist judging has to do with striking down laws, most of it has to do with interpreting old laws in a new frame-work.

[Fedaykin]

The vast majority of legislation from the bench is interpretation of old laws to new phenomena - very little of what is called activist judging has to do with striking down laws, most of it has to do with interpreting old laws in a new frame-work.

Such as?

[Fedaykin]

It should never have been on a ballot.

We are talking equal rights for all, but there are neanderthals out there who think they have the right to decide who gets married and who doesn't.

We have real issues the country must face, social engineering isn't one of them.

Figures a damn brit would understand it better =P

(no offense)

By the way, I know a great dentist...

;)

[Bob]

Most Americans are against gay marriage -- should this be a surprise to anyone?

[peacepipe]

Most Americans are against gay marriage -- should this be a surprise to anyone?most NC voters are against it not most americans.

[Bob]

most NC voters are against it not most americans.

Well, I guess I am wrong according to PEW research -- got this from a NYT article. I guess we will have to do something about California...:welcome:

Seems like just yesterday that opposition to gay marriage was the strategy of choice to rally and energize the conservative base. In the 2004 presidential election, analysts believed that proposed state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage increased the turnout of socially conservative voters in as many as 11 states, where the measures appeared on the ballot.


The shift is partly generational, but also, many older Americans have changed their minds.
That was then, when 60 percent of the American public opposed gay marriage, and only 29 percent supported it. At the time, the intensity was at the right: 35 percent of respondents were strongly opposed, while very few indeed (8 percent) strongly favored it. But since then, many Americans have changed their minds, and a whole new generation has come of age with a different point of view on this issue.



Acceptance of gay marriage has grown steadily over the past eight years. By 2008, support for gay marriage had risen to 39 percent, while opposition had slipped to 52 percent. And in recent years, support has markedly increased as opposition has ebbed. Today, the latest Pew Research Center survey finds a 47 to 43 percent plurality favoring gay marriage, with as many Americans saying they strongly favor (22 percent) as saying they strongly oppose (22 percent).

[DenverBrit]

Figures a damn brit would understand it better =P

(no offense)

By the way, I know a great dentist...

;)

Be sure to visit that dentist. ;)

[Garcia Bronco]

The vast majority of legislation from the bench is interpretation of old laws to new phenomena - very little of what is called activist judging has to do with striking down laws, most of it has to do with interpreting old laws in a new frame-work.

Exactly.

[peacepipe]

Well, I guess I am wrong according to PEW research -- got this from a NYT article. I guess we will have to do something about California...:welcome:

Seems like just yesterday that opposition to gay marriage was the strategy of choice to rally and energize the conservative base. In the 2004 presidential election, analysts believed that proposed state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage increased the turnout of socially conservative voters in as many as 11 states, where the measures appeared on the ballot.


The shift is partly generational, but also, many older Americans have changed their minds.
That was then, when 60 percent of the American public opposed gay marriage, and only 29 percent supported it. At the time, the intensity was at the right: 35 percent of respondents were strongly opposed, while very few indeed (8 percent) strongly favored it. But since then, many Americans have changed their minds, and a whole new generation has come of age with a different point of view on this issue.



Acceptance of gay marriage has grown steadily over the past eight years. By 2008, support for gay marriage had risen to 39 percent, while opposition had slipped to 52 percent. And in recent years, support has markedly increased as opposition has ebbed. Today, the latest Pew Research Center survey finds a 47 to 43 percent plurality favoring gay marriage, with as many Americans saying they strongly favor (22 percent) as saying they strongly oppose (22 percent).
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-polls-americans-closely-divided-on-samesex-marriage-20120508,0,7646348.story
Nationally, roughly half of all Americans say they support allowing same-sex couples to marry. A newly released Gallup poll puts the split at 50% in favor, 48% opposed. A Pew Research Center poll released two weeks ago had a similar 47%-43% division.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/05/07/wsjnbc-poll-on-gay-marriage-2012-vs-2009-vs-2004/
According to the March 2012 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll (the most WSJ/NBC News poll recent to include a question on gay marriage) currently 49% of Americans favor gay marriage, with 40% opposed. That represents a flip from October 2009, when 49% were opposed and 41% were in favor. Go back to March 2004, and 62% were opposed, vs. only 30% in favor.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76027.html#ixzz1uOyTFlGV
Half of all Americans, or 50 percent, believe same-sex marriage should be legally recognized in the United States, the latest Gallup poll found. That’s a slight drop from last year’s 53 percent, but it still marks just the second time that at least half have supported gay marriage in Gallup’s history.


Along party lines, 65 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents support recognizing gay marriages by law, while just 22 percent of Republicans agree. Nearly three-fourths of Republicans, or 74 percent, say gay marriage should not be legal, along with 34 percent of Democrats and 40 percent of independents

BTW,can you provide a link to your post. for all we know you just that from an article 5 yrs ago

[peacepipe]

BTW,obama has officially endorsed same sex marriage.

[snowspot66]

I think the most frustrating thing for me about this whole "debate" is that it's pointless. It's quite obvious that gay marriage will be allowed in all states by the time the next generation is grown up if not earlier. So much time and money wasted on fighting the inevitable when it could be going to useful causes.

[peacepipe]

I think the most frustrating thing for me about this whole "debate" is that it's pointless. It's quite obvious that gay marriage will be allowed in all states by the time the next generation is grown up if not earlier. So much time and money wasted on fighting the inevitable when it could be going to useful causes.IMO,It'll happen within the next few years. repeal DOMA & pass a fed law recognising gay marriage. this is not going to be left to states individually comming around to legalizing gay marriage. civil rights issues are never pointless.

[snowspot66]

IMO,It'll happen within the next few years. repeal DOMA & pass a fed law recognising gay marriage. this is not going to be left to states individually comming around to legalizing gay marriage

I could see the Supreme Court deciding in favor of it shortly. I don't remember the case name (dealing with California prop 8 I believe) but they heard one recently on the subject and practically had to beg the proponents of "traditional" marriage to give them a reasonable argument for keeping the ban in place. The Court may be a conservative majority and it may **** all over the individual any chance it gets but I can't imagine they like having to work that hard to justify the position.

[TonyR]

most NC voters are against it not most americans.

Taking this even further...


...Please don't go around saying a majority of North Carolinians support this. A majority of about 1/3 of the registered electorate supported it...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/the-politics-of-spite-ctd.html

[alkemical]

I think the most frustrating thing for me about this whole "debate" is that it's pointless. It's quite obvious that gay marriage will be allowed in all states by the time the next generation is grown up if not earlier. So much time and money wasted on fighting the inevitable when it could be going to useful causes.

http://www.dangerousminds.net/images/uploads/dirtyharry.jpg

[peacepipe]

Taking this even further...


...Please don't go around saying a majority of North Carolinians support this. A majority of about 1/3 of the registered electorate supported it...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/the-politics-of-spite-ctd.html

I stand corrected;D

[Pony Boy]

BTW,obama has officially endorsed same sex marriage.

Hope and Change it's what Obama is all about ...........

[peacepipe]

whatever makes you happy.

[gyldenlove]

Such as?

Gates v Collier is an example, Grutter v Bolinger, Adarand constructors vs Pena, Philips v Martin Marietta, Reed v Reed.

Of course the really famous cases such as Roe v Wade, Brown v Board of Education etc are about the constitutionality of some part of legislation but many cases revolve around the constitutionality of practice rather than legislation.

[A Different Guy]

You're one of the 2 sheep in a society that includes 10 wolves. The wolves decide you're on the dinner menu.

What do you do?

Funny, that's exactly what is happening now except it's a few rich guys and the wolves are deciding they should be used to pay the bills for everyone.

How can you trust a majority to elect the president, the most powerful person in the world, but claim they're too ignorant to vote for the other matters. The president has way more influence.

[ant1999e]

FTR I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I understand the insurance, benefits thing. But that's why we vote.

[ant1999e]

I wonder how many people are opposed to gay marriage, but watch gay pr0n.

Wow really, TMI.

[Rohirrim]

I think the most frustrating thing for me about this whole "debate" is that it's pointless. It's quite obvious that gay marriage will be allowed in all states by the time the next generation is grown up if not earlier. So much time and money wasted on fighting the inevitable when it could be going to useful causes.

It's nothing but more pathetic fear mongering and issue baiting from the Right. They pull the same old tired trick out for every election. The last thing they want to do is actually engage on the economy, tax reform, energy, jobs, or all the other crucial issues facing us today. Their chances are better if they stick with fear. It's worked since Reagan. It worked for Rove. It will work for Romney. Reagan got elected on race baiting and fear politics. And that's been the Republican theme ever since.

[Fedaykin]

Gates v Collier is an example, Grutter v Bolinger, Adarand constructors vs Pena, Philips v Martin Marietta, Reed v Reed.

Of course the really famous cases such as Roe v Wade, Brown v Board of Education etc are about the constitutionality of some part of legislation but many cases revolve around the constitutionality of practice rather than legislation.

So what makes these 'activist decisions' rather than just decisions you disagree with? I don't follow what you mean by 'constitutionality of practice rather than legislation'.

In my experience, the label 'activist' almost universally applies to decisions people don't agree with.

How about you take one, say BvBoE and explain why that's 'activist'?

[TonyR]

Most Americans are against gay marriage -- should this be a surprise to anyone?

Wrong.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/support-for-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/

[TonyR]

From today:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z7jZbF_SO3U?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TonyR]

And of course look at how Fox News frames it to incite fear and hatred:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/headline-of-the-day-1.html

[TonyR]

Shep Smith, one of the most respectable people on Fox News:

<object id="rg_player_40e579c0-778e-012f-2dff-12313d00d151" name="rg_player_40e579c0-778e-012f-2dff-12313d00d151" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"

[TonyR]

<object id="rg_player_40e579c0-778e-012f-2dff-12313d00d151" name="rg_player_40e579c0-778e-012f-2dff-12313d00d151" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"

[TonyR]

Couldn't get the embed to work in the post above, and can't delete the post for some reason. Here's a link to the vid I tried to post.

http://mediacast.realgravity.com/sharing/40e579c0-778e-012f-2dff-12313d00d151/517490b0-7c3d-012f-2e37-12313d00d151.html

[Requiem]

Funny, that's exactly what is happening now except it's a few rich guys and the wolves are deciding they should be used to pay the bills for everyone.

How can you trust a majority to elect the president, the most powerful person in the world, but claim they're too ignorant to vote for the other matters. The president has way more influence.

That One Guy!? You are back!?

[alkemical]

Wow really, TMI.

it'd be an interesting finding. Just like how UT downloads a boatload of pr0n...

[Requiem]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XzWCofEJVMo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

RAISE UP TAKE YA SHIRT OFF -- SLAP A RELIGIOUS NUT AND HATEFUL HUMAN LIKE A HELLIIPPCOTAH

[Totally New Guy]

That One Guy!? You are back!?

That was clearly not That One Guy. It was A Different Guy, duh.

[El Minion]

From today:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z7jZbF_SO3U?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Finally! The POTUS stopping the gays from diminishing my heterosexual bachelorhood. Job well done Obama on the gay war on single Americans everywhere. Can't wait to round up all the gays and ship them all to marriage camps for couple reeducation.

[Totally New Guy]

I do have to admit, I'm surprised that he took the stand. It was the right thing to do. I really expected it to be pushed further down the line to avoid alienating anyone. I guess if they were going to do it pre-election, the earlier the better. Now they'll have a chance for it to all blow over beforehand.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So 29 states believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's a majority of people in a majority of states.

Why is this one so groundbreaking?

Personally, I believe people should do what they want and that gay couples and straight couples should be able to apply for a government-recognized union and that their church or place of worship should recognize if it is or is not considered wedding.

However, my view is not supported by voters in many states, therefore it is law. It doesn't make those people ignorant or stupid. That's their opinion.

You should show some compassion for other view points and not call them ignorant. That's not very tolerant.
Uh, you missed it also. They banned civil unions and asked after wards what they voted on almost 50% stated they didn't know.

If that doesn't equal "ignorance" nothing does.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I do have to admit, I'm surprised that he took the stand. It was the right thing to do. I really expected it to be pushed further down the line to avoid alienating anyone. I guess if they were going to do it pre-election, the earlier the better. Now they'll have a chance for it to all blow over beforehand.
Who are you, one of the recently banned Right Wingers here?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The makeup of the court was known to all before he wrote the law. Also the court basically is 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and one middle of the road. Or at worst 5 conservatives and 4 liberals. Not exactly a right wing court. Not that I don't agree the right has an advantage, just that its not like all 5 are Scalia conservative.

LOL

Uh, it is exactly that, 5 Right Wingers and 4 Liberals, equals ...................

[snowspot66]

And of course look at how Fox News frames it to incite fear and hatred:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/headline-of-the-day-1.html

I think it's time for the war on editors who insist on calling everything a war on something.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm witholding comment except to say that you were just inviting a heated debate with this thread title. Probably so but the thread title was 100% accurate when you consider almost 50% of those "voters" had no idea they were voting to ban civil unions.

[Requiem]

Who are you, one of the recently banned Right Wingers here?

Banned and he can't even stay away. LOL. They are going to know it is him every time. What a clown.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Banned and he can't even stay away. LOL. They are going to know it is him every time. What a clown.
Yeah, he can't even take his punishment like a man, they should banned his pitiful arse for another 2 weeks for creating multiple usernames.

[Missouribronc]

Uh, you missed it also. They banned civil unions and asked after wards what they voted on almost 50% stated they didn't know.

If that doesn't equal "ignorance" nothing does.

There's this funny thing about democracy...

[errand]

Gay marriage has never won at the ballot box..and 30 or more states regardless if they're considered red or blue....even alleged "swing " states have turned it down....

And yet people truly think half or more of Americans support gay marriage?

[snowspot66]

Gay marriage has never won at the ballot box..and 30 or more states regardless if they're considered red or blue....even alleged "swing " states have turned it down....

And yet people truly think half or more of Americans support gay marriage?

California's Proposition 8 passed 52%-48% in 2008. Polling in 2012 shows 59% of California voters approve of same sex marriage. Just because it's on the books doesn't mean it's supported. This is especially true for states that enacted the laws against gay marriage in the 90's and early 2000's.

[cutthemdown]

I do have to admit, I'm surprised that he took the stand. It was the right thing to do. I really expected it to be pushed further down the line to avoid alienating anyone. I guess if they were going to do it pre-election, the earlier the better. Now they'll have a chance for it to all blow over beforehand.

He had no choice because Biden opened his mouth on the issue. It doesn't loko good for VP to be saying make it legal, and President to be saying I am still mulling it over. The President has to take the lead or he isn't a leader.

I agree I am happy he did. I personally believe gays should be able to marry. It's hard enough to be happy in life without the govt interfering in who you can marry.

Having said that Obama has taken a big political gamble. I doubt he gains votes by doing this. It remains to be seen how many he loses.

The talk in Calif is that gay Hollywood wasn't sending him money like before. That also could be part of the reason he is coming out for it now. Get it coming out! HAHAHA!

I think he probably loses N Carolina and Virginia over this. I doubt its a big enough issue in any other battleground state. Sure people in CA will love it but they aleady were voting Obama.

Still the President stood up and took a stand instead of poo pooing the issue. For that he deserves some respect.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Gay marriage has never won at the ballot box..and 30 or more states regardless if they're considered red or blue....even alleged "swing " states have turned it down....

And yet people truly think half or more of Americans support gay marriage?
Marriages between man and woman end up in divorce 50% of the time which kinda renders the whole man and women marriage thing a joke.

The whole point of this argument that the Right likes to cast as (evil) is access to the same rights as everyone else is not available to one group of people because of their sexual orientation.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States)

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States is a widely reported topic, with most recent polls showing majority support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Support has increased steadily for more than a decade, with supporters first achieving a majority in 2010.[1]

When the Defense of Marriage Act was signed in 1996, only 25% of the American public supported same-sex marriage; support has increased gradually ever since. An August 2010 CNN poll became the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage,[2] with numerous polls after it showing majority support.[3][4][5][6]

Support for same-sex marriage generally correlates with lack of religious fundamentalism, young age,[7] Democratic Party affiliation, and residence in the Northeast and West Coast of the United States.[8] Women are also more likely to be in support than men.[4] Opposition to same-sex marriage is generally correlated with fundamental religious belief, older age, Republican Party affiliation, and residence in the Southeast and Midwest.[9][8]

[Johnykbr]

Their ignorance against anything not Right Wing agenda is disgusting to say the least...

You keep saying this is all the right wing. Do you even know the demographic made this pass in NC with such an overwhelming majority? The strong democratic bastion of African-Americans. So this is not a left/right issue.

[Rohirrim]

You keep saying this is all the right wing. Do you even know the demographic made this pass in NC with such an overwhelming majority? The strong democratic bastion of African-Americans. So this is not a left/right issue.

I believe the majority of the Catholic, hispanic community is also opposed, which only highlights that this is basically religion imposing a decision in opposition to human rights. But when has religion not been in that business?

[peacepipe]

.

[Garcia Bronco]

I believe the majority of the Catholic, hispanic community is also opposed, which only highlights that this is basically religion imposing a decision in opposition to human rights. But when has religion not been in that business?

That's moving the goal posts. I would not define getting a federal or state recognized marriage as a human right.

[Rohirrim]

That's moving the goal posts. I would not define getting a federal or state recognized marriage as a human right.

I know all about your "definitions." The state attaches certain benefits, not just in taxation, to being a married person. To sanction those benefits for one group and deny them to another, especially based on narrow, religious doctrine, is by definition, denying them a human right. It becomes a right when it is sanctioned for some, and denied to others.

[peacepipe]

I know all about your "definitions." The state attaches certain benefits, not just in taxation, to being a married person. To sanction those benefits for one group and deny them to another, especially based on narrow, religious doctrine, is by definition, denying them a human right. It becomes a right when it is sanctioned for some, and denied to others.sounds like GB is moving the goal post.

[Garcia Bronco]

I know all about your "definitions." The state attaches certain benefits, not just in taxation, to being a married person. To sanction those benefits for one group and deny them to another, especially based on narrow, religious doctrine, is by definition, denying them a human right. It becomes a right when it is sanctioned for some, and denied to others.

I can accept your point of view; From my position as a single person, from a federal tax perspective, can apply that same logic. I am being denied a tax benefit as well. As such I believe it's inappropriate for the government to acknowledge a maritial union between two people at all. That's why I say it's not a human right. The populace should not be in a position to deny a union between two people.

[Johnykbr]

I know all about your "definitions." The state attaches certain benefits, not just in taxation, to being a married person. To sanction those benefits for one group and deny them to another, especially based on narrow, religious doctrine, is by definition, denying them a human right. It becomes a right when it is sanctioned for some, and denied to others.

The tax benefits aren't based off a religious reason. They were created with the short sighted assumption that people would get married, reproduce, and stay married.

Reality doesn't quite work that way though...

[Bob]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-polls-americans-closely-divided-on-samesex-marriage-20120508,0,7646348.story

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/05/07/wsjnbc-poll-on-gay-marriage-2012-vs-2009-vs-2004/


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76027.html#ixzz1uOyTFlGV





BTW,can you provide a link to your post. for all we know you just that from an article 5 yrs ago

It was from yesterday -- and pretty much said the same thing you posted...

Polling numbers seem to have swung to the pro gay marriage crowd. Likely voters however, dont support gay marraige when it has come up in most states -- so Obama is taking a political chance. The truth is Obama has changed his mind a few times on this issue -- which he is welcome to do, but this is a political choice, and the Pres seems to need every little minority group to win, like FDR was able to pit/put together.

[Bob]

What I have not given enough thought to is ...is this a federal issue or a state issue? It seems that Big Brother will eventually try to intrude on this issue at some point soon to dictate to the states what we should do. The 9th and 10th amendments leaves such non enumerated matters up “to the states or the people” -- wondering if there were some Constitutional scholars out there that could shed some light?

Until proven otherwise, to me it seems like a state issue -- and those who wish to toss 6000 years of tradition away believing that they are more evolved, and have more wisdom than everyone who went before them can do so – if they can get the votes in their respective state.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You keep saying this is all the right wing. Do you even know the demographic made this pass in NC with such an overwhelming majority? The strong democratic bastion of African-Americans. So this is not a left/right issue.Please elaborate (show the percentages)....

Just looked at a couple Sites and Whites make up 70% of the population in that state and Blacks 21%, so waiting for you to show how 21% of the population ruled this voting.

And BTW, are you another banned Right Winger on this forum?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What I have not given enough thought to is ...is this a federal issue or a state issue? It's a human rights issue, one group of people being discriminated against because of their sexual preference, while another group of people get those benefits from society because of their sexual behavior).

[Johnykbr]

Please elaborate (show the percentages)....

Just looked at a couple Sites and Whites make up 70% of the population in that state and Blacks 21%, so waiting for you to show how 21% of the population ruled this voting.

And BTW, are you another banned Right Winger on this forum?

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11604355-north-carolina-approves-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-by-wide-margin

This is one example. When I find more later I will post them if this isn't enough. I moved to NC a couple years ago and I also consult with the state government so I'm more informed of this issue than most.

Besides, it should be mentioned this didn't have that great of a turnout considering gay marriage has been illegal in this state for close to two decades.

I'm not arguing validity but as a "right-winger" I don't like being insulted by generalizations.

And no, I have never been banned, I'm just a lurker who's bored by the slowdown on the main board.

[El Minion]

Support for Gay Marriage Outweighs Opposition in Polls (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/support-for-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/#more-30767)

<address class="byline author vcard">By NATE SILVER (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/)</address>

President Obama’s decision to endorse same-sex marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html?_r=1&hp) undoubtedly entails some political risk, but recent polls suggest that public opinion is increasingly on his side.

According to surveys included in the PollingReport.com database (http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm), an average of 50 percent of American adults support same-sex marriage rights while 45 percent oppose it, based on an average of nine surveys conducted in the past year.

This is a reversal from earlier periods: support for same-sex marriage has been increasing, and opposition to it has been decreasing, at a relatively steady rate of perhaps two or three percentage points a year since 2004.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/10/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0509-ssm1/fivethirtyeight-0509-ssm1-blog480.png

It should be remembered that support for same-sex marriage in polls has not necessarily translated into support at the ballot booth. On Tuesday, North Carolina became the latest state to adopt a Constitutional ban (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/north-carolina-voters-pass-same-sex-marriage-ban.html) on same-sex marriage and did so by a margin of about 20 percentage points, somewhat larger than polls forecast. The North Carolina measure also banned domestic partnerships and other types of civil unions.

Still, even if polls have sometimes overstated support for same-sex marriage (http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_marriage_polling.pdf), and if some of the Americans who support same-sex marriage are less likely to turn out to vote than those who oppose it, the issue now seems to have a bit of wiggle room, with supporters slightly outnumbering opponents in recent national surveys. In addition, there is no longer evidence of an “enthusiasm gap” with respect to same-sex marriage: an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in March found that 32 percent of Americans said they strongly favored same-sex marriage, while 31 percent strongly opposed it.

Mr. Obama’s electoral calculation may hinge upon three questions related to the politics of the Democratic and Republican base. Social issues often do more to reinforce the loyalties of each party’s core voting groups than to sway the opinions of swing voters, especially in middling economic circumstances.

First, there is the question of how much emphasis Republicans will choose to place on gay marriage, which could motivate their base but increasingly divide (http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication) Republican voters and independent ones. Next, how much might Mr. Obama’s stance be embraced or opposed by African-Americans, who have more conservative attitudes about same-sex marriage than other Democrats? Finally, could the issue motivate younger liberals and Democrats, who tend to support same-sex marriage, to turn out for Mr. Obama when they might not otherwise?

Nevertheless, with the broader shift in public opinion, Mr. Obama is not accepting the same risks by endorsing same-sex marriage that he would have even a year or two ago.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11604355-north-carolina-approves-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-by-wide-margin

This is one example. When I find more later I will post them if this isn't enough. I moved to NC a couple years ago and I also consult with the state government so I'm more informed of this issue than most.

Besides, it should be mentioned this didn't have that great of a turnout considering gay marriage has been illegal in this state for close to two decades.

I'm not arguing validity but as a "right-winger" I don't like being insulted by generalizations.

And no, I have never been banned, I'm just a lurker who's bored by the slowdown on the main board.
Ok, you just posted nothing that shows Black voters at 21% influenced these elections.

The 70% of White Right Wingers in this state made their choice clear (without even knowing what they voted on). The three Gs rule your state and many more in the South. I know, I have lived there.
You cannot mitigate their bias and racial prejudice with the "Blacks did it"
BS.

[Missouribronc]

It's a human rights issue, one group of people being discriminated against because of their sexual preference, while another group of people get those benefits from society because of their sexual behavior).

I'm single.

The government is impeding on my civil rights because of my sexual behavior.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm single.

The government is impeding on my civil rights because of my sexual behavior.
What are you doing, jacking off in the street?

[Missouribronc]

What are you doing, jacking off in the street?

You said society is getting different benefits than you because of their sexual behavior. Well, married people are getting more benefits than me from their sexual behavior.

That's violating my rights.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You said society is getting different benefits than you because of their sexual behavior. Well, married people are getting more benefits than me from their sexual behavior.

That's violating my rights.
I said nothing of the kind, please try and keep up.
Try again.

[Missouribronc]

I said nothing of the kind, please try and keep up.
Try again.

My sexual behavior is penalized because I've not chosen to settle down.

My rights are being violated.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

My sexual behavior is penalized because I've not chosen to settle down.

My rights are being violated.If this your point of view then you qualify as part of the dumb and ignorant South, which doesn't surprise me at all.

It doesn't matter if you take it in the arse or give it in the arse amigo.
If you are single then you are single. This thread is about civil unions and marriage, and the prejudice that prevails predominately with Right Wingers unable to accept anything different that what they perceive in our world.

[cutthemdown]

Next up is when 3 consenting adults want to marry. Seriously why can't a man have more then 1 wife or a woman more then 1 husband if that is what they want. 2 bi dudes and a female would make more sense the 2 dudes. At least you could have kids and propagate society.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Next up is when 3 consenting adults want to marry. Seriously why can't a man have more then 1 wife or a woman more then 1 husband if that is what they want. 2 bi dudes and a female would make more sense the 2 dudes. At least you could have kids and propagate society.
The usual Ignorant, uneducated, and generally stupid reply from those who are scarred of anything that the Bible doesn't condone or Fox news says is "wrong". Congratulations you now are a confirmed member of the radical Right.

[Missouribronc]

If this your point of view then you qualify as part of the dumb and ignorant South, which doesn't surprise me at all.

It doesn't matter if you take it in the arse or give it in the arse amigo.
If you are single then you are single. This thread is about civil unions and marriage, and the prejudice that prevails predominately with Right Wingers unable to accept anything different that what they perceive in our world.

Wait. My sexual behavior as a single male seeking a female is being discriminated against and my rights are being violated, and all you can jabber about is married people who receive special treatment under the law?

Shallow, man.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Wait. My sexual behavior as a single male seeking a female is being discriminated against and my rights are being violated, and all you can jabber about is married people who receive special treatment under the law?

Shallow, man.
Geeeezus, are you this really ignorant and stupid?
Look at the thread title and report back.

[Missouribronc]

Geeeezus, are you this really ignorant and stupid?
Look at the thread title and report back.

What is ignorant about being single and the fact that my rights are violated because of it?

The thread title babbles something about ignorant North Carolinians who exercised their democratic rights.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What is ignorant about being single and the fact that my rights are violated because of it?

The thread title babbles something about ignorant North Carolinians who exercised their democratic rights.

Listen Einstein, NC citizens voted down civil unions, not single NC jackoffs who couldn't get laid if they tried, so your "single" arse is the same as it always was, so crying about it probably won't help you get laid.

[Missouribronc]

Listen Einstein, NC citizens voted down civil unions, not single NC jackoffs who couldn't get laid if they tried, so your "single" arse is the same as it always was, so crying about it probably won't help you get laid.

Wait, they voted on it, and a majority of people don't believe it is a violation of civil rights?

Damn the freedom of a Democracy.

I hate how this country allows laws to interject on the truly enlightened.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Wait, they voted on it, and a majority of people don't believe it is a violation of civil rights?
Damn the freedom of a Democracy.
I hate how this country allows laws to interject on the truly enlightened.
One more time. The "enlightened" citizens of NC voted down "civil unions" and later asked what they voted for, 43% said they didn't realize they voted to deny civil unions to people who have different sexual preferences than the Religious Right have.

If you are trying to defend this ignorant bigotry and prejudice, you need to do better than "I'm single and can't get laid".

[Missouribronc]

One more time. The "enlightened" citizens of NC voted down "civil unions" and later asked what they voted for, 43% said they didn't realize they voted to deny civil unions to people who have different sexual preferences than the Religious Right have.

If you are trying to defend this ignorant bigotry and prejudice, you need to do better than "I'm single and can't get laid".

So, you're saying the democratic process is a sham?

Man, you must really hate being American. You are an American, right?

[Vrrroooommm]

Listen Einstein, NC citizens voted down civil unions, not single NC jackoffs who couldn't get laid if they tried, so your "single" arse is the same as it always was, so crying about it probably won't help you get laid.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge his argument doesn't invalidate it.

Consider his point: the US government chooses to tax married or unmarried people differently. Why?

And if it is the right of the government to choose to tax different groups differently, how can anything be considered a right? Aren't rights absolute?

I know it's your better nature to rant back but try to skip the insults and at least acknowledge the issue. If it's illogical, it should be easy to prove so without having to resort to personal attacks.

[Garcia Bronco]

The usual Ignorant, uneducated, and generally stupid reply from those who are scarred of anything that the Bible doesn't condone or Fox news says is "wrong". Congratulations you now are a confirmed member of the radical Right.

He didn't say any if that, nor imply it. That BS exists on the 8 inch space between your ears. You can marry your buddy and will him all your stuff. Its just a contract.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So, you're saying the democratic process is a sham?
Man, you must really hate being American. You are an American, right?
Geeezus, I'm saying NC voters are ignorant as shown from many posts before now, and you, not being able to comprehend that, are the definition of NC voters that don't have a fricking clue, (as evidenced in the aforementioned election).

[cutthemdown]

The usual Ignorant, uneducated, and generally stupid reply from those who are scarred of anything that the Bible doesn't condone or Fox news says is "wrong". Congratulations you now are a confirmed member of the radical Right.

Not at all I support gay marriage and think you should be able to have 2 wives if you want. I've never read the bible and haven't been to church in 30 yrs. I believe in evolution and everything.

I don't see one good reason a woman shouldn't be able to have 2 husbands if that is what all 3 people want. Had the country wanted to abide by some old religious tradition laid down in the bible I also would not have a real problem with that. But since it seems we don't want to follow religious traditions why not have 2 or 3 wives, if you can afford it lol. It was done many times by many cultures so obviously its something humans do naturally.

Why are you against it? Do you feel humans unable to love more then one person?

[Missouribronc]

Geeezus, I'm saying NC voters are ignorant as shown from many posts before now, and you, not being able to comprehend that, are the definition of NC voters that don't have a fricking clue, (as evidenced in the aforementioned election).

So. You're saying the democratic process is ignorant?

[cutthemdown]

Maybe if men could have more then one wife we wouldn't dump the old one for a young one so often like we do. You just get a new younger wife to come in and help out. :)

[Vrrroooommm]

Geeezus, I'm saying NC voters are ignorant as shown from many posts before now...

If that were all you were arguing, we have the '08 election to refer to. That point was never in doubt.

:)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

He didn't say any if that, nor imply it. Correct, he didn't say anything that correlates with this thread.

[Vrrroooommm]

Maybe if men could have more then one wife we wouldn't dump the old one for a young one so often like we do. You just get a new younger wife to come in and help out. :)

Can you imagine the cockblocking we'd have to deal with? You'd get laid even less than if you just stuck with the first one.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So. You're saying the democratic process is ignorant?
In NC, the Right Wing embarrassed it on this issue.

[Vrrroooommm]

So. You're saying the democratic process is ignorant?

I've long thought so.

I think anytime you allow someone to vote in something they have no stake in, they don't have to consider any repercussions. At the very least, no vote in the Federal Gov't unless you pay taxes to it. I'd probably be all for going back to landowners having the vote but that's a generalization without considering all the ramifications.

[Missouribronc]

In NC, the Right Wing embarrassed it on this issue.

So, the democratic process is embarrassing?

Wow.

[cutthemdown]

So. You're saying the democratic process is ignorant?

He's saying anyone who opposes an issue is ignorant. If you think rich people shouldn't pay more tax, you're ignorant. If you feel marriage should be between a man and a women, and nothing else, then you're ignorant.

Unless you are enlightened and feel the bible is a joke you are ignorant.

[Missouribronc]

He's saying anyone who opposes an issue is ignorant. If you think rich people shouldn't pay more tax, you're ignorant. If you feel marriage should be between a man and a women, and nothing else, then you're ignorant.

Unless you are enlightened and feel the bible is a joke you are ignorant.

Having principals, like trusting in the democratic process, is totally ignorant.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

He's saying anyone who opposes an issue is ignorant. If you think rich people shouldn't pay more tax, you're ignorant. If you feel marriage should be between a man and a women, and nothing else, then you're ignorant.
Unless you are enlightened and feel the bible is a joke you are ignorant.
Uh, don't ever try and speak for me, you aren't nearly informed enough to do so.

[NUB]

What is ignorant about being single and the fact that my rights are violated because of it?

No rights are lost or violated. You have lost neither the right to marry nor the right to be single. Nothing is forced upon you. North Carolina now claims that all homosexuals are strangers to one another, regardless of their relationships. Does that apply to you? No. You're just an idiot drama queen unable to grasp simple concepts.

And no analysis of a decision should be weighed by the number of people who voted on it. That is probably one of the flimsiest fallacies in debate and you shouldn't be coy in wondering why people are treating you like a moron. These same people voted against interracial marriages and desegregation; they believed that human chattel were worth more than the country itself. The federal government had to swoop into the south to put this country into the modern age, lest you forget.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So, the democratic process is embarrassing?

Wow.In NC absolutely, live with it, you are part of the problem.

[cutthemdown]

I've long thought so.

I think anytime you allow someone to vote in something they have no stake in, they don't have to consider any repercussions. At the very least, no vote in the Federal Gov't unless you pay taxes to it. I'd probably be all for going back to landowners having the vote but that's a generalization without considering all the ramifications.

So unless your gay you shouldn't be able to vote on gay marriage? LOL I love it, that is some modus ponus right there! Hmm lets think who has a stake in gay marriage. This will be fun!

The first group i would like to add to people who have a stake in gay marriage are.........

1- Wedding planners because gays love to party and throw big events.

Hell the more I think about it the more repubs should be all over gay marriage. They have money, and will spend it to get married. It's like the gay stimulus act of 2012. Seriously this and killing Bin Laden are the 2 best things he has done. The 2 times he just did it and worried about how it turns out later. I like him more now.

[Vrrroooommm]

No rights are lost or violated. You have lost neither the right to marry nor the right to be single. Nothing is forced upon you. North Carolina now claims that all homosexuals are strangers to one another, regardless of their relationships. Does that apply to you? No. You're just an idiot drama queen unable to grasp simple concepts.

And no analysis of a decision should be weighed by the number of people who voted on it. That is probably one of the flimsiest fallacies in debate and you shouldn't be coy in wondering why people are treating you like a moron. These same people voted against interracial marriages and desegregation; they believed that human chattel were worth more than the country itself. The federal government had to swoop into the south to put this country into the modern age, lest you forget.

How about the right to equally carry the burden of governance? That has to have some validity.

[cutthemdown]

In NC absolutely, live with it, you are part of the problem.

Really its more to decide whether or not we want states rights, or federal govt. But the feds need to be careful they don't go too far either way.

[cutthemdown]

No rights are lost or violated. You have lost neither the right to marry nor the right to be single. Nothing is forced upon you. North Carolina now claims that all homosexuals are strangers to one another, regardless of their relationships. Does that apply to you? No. You're just an idiot drama queen unable to grasp simple concepts.

And no analysis of a decision should be weighed by the number of people who voted on it. That is probably one of the flimsiest fallacies in debate and you shouldn't be coy in wondering why people are treating you like a moron. These same people voted against interracial marriages and desegregation; they believed that human chattel were worth more than the country itself. The federal government had to swoop into the south to put this country into the modern age, lest you forget.

Ok so lets take that and apply it to the insurance mandate.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Really its more to decide whether or not we want states rights, or federal govt. But the feds need to be careful they don't go too far either way.
Complete BS. Discriminating against one group of people for whatever reason is not acceptable under any circumstances. It is a "people" issue that spans all aspects of American society.

It's the same thing as saying all people with a certain length of hair are not eligible, or all people of a certain age, or all people who are bald, or all people who sh*t on Saturday, or all people who pray to the moon, or all people who have one eye, etc....

[Vrrroooommm]

So unless your gay you shouldn't be able to vote on gay marriage? LOL I love it, that is some modus ponus right there! Hmm lets think who has a stake in gay marriage. This will be fun!

The first group i would like to add to people who have a stake in gay marriage are.........

1- Wedding planners because gays love to party and throw big events.

Hell the more I think about it the more repubs should be all over gay marriage. They have money, and will spend it to get married. It's like the gay stimulus act of 2012. Seriously this and killing Bin Laden are the 2 best things he has done. The 2 times he just did it and worried about how it turns out later. I like him more now.

LOL

Not exactly what I was getting at. I've thought this should be a state issue and, in this case, everyone would have a stake because it's a social issue. Economic issues are moreso what I'm saying should fall to a reserved group.

It's easy for welfare queen in her Cadillac to vote for a candidate who says he'll tax the rich and give to the poor because she has nothing to lose. She wouldn't necessarily vote in the best interests of anyone but herself. For those actually paying the taxes, however, they get to vote what their money is used for.

Social issues that come at no cost really have no place in government, in my opinion. Marry a beaver and let it chew on your wood, I don't care. Just don't put it on your tax forms.

[cutthemdown]

Complete BS. Discriminating against one group of people for whatever reason is not acceptable under any circumstances. It is a "people" issue that spans all aspects of American society.

Thats fine so on this issue the feds rightly step in. I never said doing this was going to far. Still didn't Obama say it is still up to the states? It's not like he asked for a constitutional amendment on it.

[Vrrroooommm]

Complete BS. Discriminating against one group of people for whatever reason is not acceptable under any circumstances. It is a "people" issue that spans all aspects of American society.

So why exactly do white males get a fraction of scholarship money that other groups get? Discrimination definitely occurs - it's just a matter of the severity and the side of the cause that you're on.

[cutthemdown]

LOL

Not exactly what I was getting at. I've thought this should be a state issue and, in this case, everyone would have a stake because it's a social issue. Economic issues are moreso what I'm saying should fall to a reserved group.

It's easy for welfare queen in her Cadillac to vote for a candidate who says he'll tax the rich and give to the poor because she has nothing to lose. She wouldn't necessarily vote in the best interests of anyone but herself. For those actually paying the taxes, however, they get to vote what their money is used for.

Social issues that come at no cost really have no place in government, in my opinion. Marry a beaver and let it chew on your wood, I don't care. Just don't put it on your tax forms.


I still respect the feds power to step in when it becomes a matter of a basic human right. Not saying gay marriage that important, but it seems to me they deserve to marry. Not sure why civil unions with all the same parameters wasn't enough, but they want it to be called the same thing....but it still won't be, it will still be gay marriage not marriage. Whatever though its a stupid issue for the President to worry about. I like how he just got it out of the way and can now move on.

[Vrrroooommm]

Really its more to decide whether or not we want states rights, or federal govt. But the feds need to be careful they don't go too far either way.

The problem is there's no one to check the federal gov't absent a civil war. With today's technology, there's no way that happens without a military coup. Even then, there's probably a reason people get assigned all over the country. You won't have any military following a state/segment that secedes.

Other than that, who fights for the states' rights? The Supreme Court is all about expanding interstate commerce reach and the federal gov't obviously wants the control.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So why exactly do white males get a fraction of scholarship money that other groups get? Discrimination definitely occurs - it's just a matter of the severity and the side of the cause that you're on.That's not correct either. There should be no favoritism nor bias against any individuals or groups.

[Vrrroooommm]

I still respect the feds power to step in when it becomes a matter of a basic human right. Not saying gay marriage that important, but it seems to me they deserve to marry. Not sure why civil unions with all the same parameters wasn't enough, but they want it to be called the same thing....but it still won't be, it will still be gay marriage not marriage. Whatever though its a stupid issue for the President to worry about. I like how he just got it out of the way and can now move on.

But in today's world, we don't know what a right is. Heck, I bet if I put it in google, I'll find that someone has uttered "Broadband internet is a right". The Federal gov't should step in for rights but the Bill of Rights identifies "the pursuit of happiness" as an unalienable right. How the F do you define that? Is it merely the right to live? The right to live comfortably? The right to live in the same conditions as your peers?

We have to define rights before we can defend them.

[Vrrroooommm]

That's not correct either. There should be no favoritism nor bias against any individuals or groups.

The first sentence makes it sound like you're disagreeing with me. The second makes it sound like you're disagreeing with the concept as I do.

If the latter is your position, I agree and think it could change the dynamics of the situation. Start treating every individual as an individual absent characteristics for any preferential treatment and it'd be something I'd support. In that could be gay people, transvestites, and every other minority people claim everyone is prejudiced against right alongside the average everyday American.

The problem is that there's a lot of inequalities and the ones that are officially condoned never favor the male white people who still have a lot of influence in this country.

[Johnykbr]

Ok, you just posted nothing that shows Black voters at 21% influenced these elections.

The 70% of White Right Wingers in this state made their choice clear (without even knowing what they voted on). The three Gs rule your state and many more in the South. I know, I have lived there.
You cannot mitigate their bias and racial prejudice with the "Blacks did it"
BS.

The article clearly states that the counties that gave the most support to Obama in 2008 are also counties that were the most ardently supportive of this amendment. Not coincidentally, those counties have large African American communities with strong religious beliefs. Also if you look at the returns at the voting stations in the counties that strongly were against Amendment 1, they saw strong support for it in the areas of those cities/counties (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Wilmington, and Charlotte) that had more diversity.

But it is apparent now that, even though you have NO idea how I voted in this election, just because I currently live in North Carolina, I am a ignorant right-wing redneck. So I should probably just stop reading your posts.

[sirhcyennek81]

The NC law is disappointing, but not entirely unexpected. I'm not going to bash a state for deciding this is how they want to go.

Just means gay marriage will take a little longer to be realized in some places.

:Broncos:

[Garcia Bronco]

The NC law is disappointing, but not entirely unexpected. I'm not going to bash a state for deciding this is how they want to go.

Just means gay marriage will take a little longer to be realized in some places.

:Broncos:

It'll happen eventually one way or another.

[Bob]

So, the democratic process is embarrassing?

Wow.

Glad it turned out the way it did -- but there are too many voter iniatives --

In a Republic we should vote for those who have the guts to make choices -- not pawn it over to the populace.

[Bob]

Please elaborate (show the percentages)....

Just looked at a couple Sites and Whites make up 70% of the population in that state and Blacks 21%, so waiting for you to show how 21% of the population ruled this voting.

And BTW, are you another banned Right Winger on this forum?

I have heard that African Americans, as a whole dont support gay marriage -- I could be wrong though...

[Bob]

It's a human rights issue, one group of people being discriminated against because of their sexual preference, while another group of people get those benefits from society because of their sexual behavior).

What bennefits are denied by civil unions?

[peacepipe]

I have heard that African Americans, as a whole dont support gay marriage -- I could be wrong though...

50/50

[Bob]

What are you doing, jacking off in the street?

No, he wants to marry his gerbal -- and how dare you say he cant? Or how dare you define anything related to marriage? How about plural marriage?

Who decides what is right or wrong in society? In this case the majority -- but ten years from now, you will get your way, and all the pandora problems that come with it.

[peacepipe]

What bennefits are denied by civil unions?

the seperate but equal arguement.

[Bob]

The usual Ignorant, uneducated, and generally stupid reply from those who are scarred of anything that the Bible doesn't condone or Fox news says is "wrong". Congratulations you now are a confirmed member of the radical Right.

Part of this might come down to those who believe in the Bible and what it teaches, and those who want to throw out 6000 years of tradition -- because you are now "more evolved."

If that is the dividing line -- fine.

[Bob]

the seperate but equal arguement.

I guess I don’t buy the equivalency augment of comparing the Plessey V. Ferguson decision and black segregation – to the current moral crisis we are in the 21st century.

One is connected to race, the other is connected to actions.

[peacepipe]

Part of this might come down to those who believe in the Bible and what it teaches, and those who want to throw out 6000 years of tradition -- because you are now "more evolved."

If that is the dividing line -- fine. I hate to burst your bubble the bible itself recognizes polygamy as a legit marriage. polygamy has been for centuries considered "traditional marriage". it wasn't until people in 1862 passed a law banning it & reaffirmed it with the edmunds polygamy act of 1882 that marriage was changed to just 1 man 1 woman. before that it was quite tradional to marry more than one person. BTW marriage has been around in some form for about 200,000+ yrs. yes the planet earth is older than 6,000 yrs.

[peacepipe]

I guess I don’t buy the equivalency augment of comparing the Plessey V. Ferguson decision and black segregation – to the current moral crisis we are in the 21st century.

One is connected to race, the other is connected to actions.

sexual orientation isn't a action/choice.

[sirhcyennek81]

No, he wants to marry his gerbal -- and how dare you say he cant? Or how dare you define anything related to marriage? How about plural marriage?

Who decides what is right or wrong in society? In this case the majority -- but ten years from now, you will get your way, and all the pandora problems that come with it.

Oh yes. The consequences of gays getting married.

Like aliens invading. Or people marrying horses. Cats and dogs, living together. Mass hysteria.

:Broncos:

[ant1999e]

I'll say one thing, comparing this to the civil rights movement is fu ci ng insulting. But what else do you expect liberals to do but yell "racism".

[peacepipe]

I'll say one thing, comparing this to the civil rights movement is fu ci ng insulting. But what else do you expect liberals to do but yell "racism".I didn't realize that any particular group had cornered the market on civil rights. right now american citizens are being denied rights. where in the constitution does it say sexual orientation determines citizenship.

[ghwk]

I'll say one thing, comparing this to the civil rights movement is fu ci ng insulting. But what else do you expect liberals to do but yell "racism".

Why is it insulting?

[chadta]

Why is it insulting?

Its pretty obvious if a person is black, not so much the gay thing, (although it is in most cases) but that's a bit of a stereotype now ain't it.

They cry if we use the stereotype to categorize them as such, so its not fair for them to use it now that it suits their needs, you cant have it both ways. (that's bi sexual not homosexual)

Last time i checked nobody purchased or sold and gay people as slaves.

[cutthemdown]

Its pretty obvious if a person is black, not so much the gay thing, (although it is in most cases) but that's a bit of a stereotype now ain't it.

They cry if we use the stereotype to categorize them as such, so its not fair for them to use it now that it suits their needs, you cant have it both ways. (that's bi sexual not homosexual)

Last time i checked nobody purchased or sold and gay people as slaves.


So lets say sexual orientation is biological. That a person can't help being straight, bi, or gay. It's in our DNA.

So if that is true then aren't bisexual people being totally left out now? How are you supposed to pursue happiness if you can only have 1 partner to marry? but you are bisexual and want a man and a woman?

Shouldn't bisexual people be allowed to marry 2 people?

[ant1999e]

Why is it insulting?

Comparing the way blacks were mistreated to gays not being allowed to marry? Come on. I agree that it sucks, but it isn't even close to the same thing.

[peacepipe]

So lets say sexual orientation is biological. That a person can't help being straight, bi, or gay. It's in our DNA.

So if that is true then aren't bisexual people being totally left out now? How are you supposed to pursue happiness if you can only have 1 partner to marry? but you are bisexual and want a man and a woman?

Shouldn't bisexual people be allowed to marry 2 people? considering polygamy was for centuries a traditional marriage,even recognized as traditional marriage by the bible,you may have a point.

[cutthemdown]

considering polygamy was for centuries a traditional marriage,even recognized as traditional marriage by the bible,you may have a point.

I'd venture to say 2 women one man, or 1 man 2 women makes more sense then 2 men or 2 women being married. At least the polygamous marriage can produce offspring.

[peacepipe]

I'd venture to say 2 women one man, or 1 man 2 women makes more sense then 2 men or 2 women being married. At least the polygamous marriage can produce offspring.prociation isn't required to get married. plenty of people get married & don't have children.

[cutthemdown]

prociation isn't required to get married. plenty of people get married & don't have children.

So? That doesn't mean relationships with the chance to produce kids isn't what nature was going for.

[peacepipe]

So? That doesn't mean relationships with the chance to produce kids isn't what nature was going for.so because you think same sex marriage to be unnatural we should ignore the constitution.

[TonyR]

Below is a remarkable document. It's a memo circulated by Jan van Lohuizen, a highly respected Republican pollster, (he polled for George W. Bush in 2004), to various leading Republican operatives, candidates and insiders. It's on the fast-shifting poll data on marriage equality and gay rights in general, and how that should affect Republican policy and language. And the pollster's conclusion is clear: if the GOP keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse.

Read the bluntness of this. This is the GOP establishment talking to itself. And the Republican pollster who arguably knows more about the politics of the gay issue than anyone else (how else to explain the Ohio campaign of 2004?) is advising them in no uncertain terms that they need to evolve and fast, if they're not going to damage their brand for an entire generation:

For the whole thing, including the memo itself, go here: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/top-gop-pollster-to-gop-reverse-on-gay-issues.html

[cutthemdown]

so because you think same sex marriage to be unnatural we should ignore the constitution.

No I am saying we should allow both gay marriage and polygamy because we aren't basing things in morality anymore. We are basing them on logic, science, and the fact people should be able to live how they want without govt or church telling them who they can marry.

Really there is no logical reason to oppose a man having 2 wives, or vice versa. I am all for economics. Gay marriage means jobs for bands to play wedding receptions, catering, hall rentals, church rentals, divorce lawyers (LOL) etc etc. So whatever makes people money I am all for.

I don't have a problem with gays marrying peace, i am very socially liberal. Been trying to tell you.

[Vrrroooommm]

so because you think same sex marriage to be unnatural we should ignore the constitution.

LOL

Which constitution is it, exactly, that references gay people's right to get married?

The one I recall reading in my youth just had a bunch of stuff about vague laws written in weird old words. No reference to gay people that I recall.

[cutthemdown]

Considering Thomas Jefferson once said gays should be castrated, i think its safe to say the founders would not have agreed the constitution supports gay marriage. For sure the founding fathers would have considered men committing sodomy on each other to be totally aberrant behavior.

[peacepipe]

LOL

Which constitution is it, exactly, that references gay people's right to get married?

The one I recall reading in my youth just had a bunch of stuff about vague laws written in weird old words. No reference to gay people that I recall.

there's no reference to marriage at all in our constitution either. but there is this funny thing in our constitution about ...something about a 14th amendment.

[peacepipe]

Considering Thomas Jefferson once said gays should be castrated, i think its safe to say the founders would not have agreed the constitution supports gay marriage. For sure the founding fathers would have considered men committing sodomy on each other to be totally aberrant behavior.it's a damn shame he didn't put it in the constitution. regardless of what the founders intended or didn't intend the constitution is what we base our laws/rights on,not what we think our founders would've wanted. until we find some phsycic(sp) that can talk to the dead,all we have is what was written into the constitution.

[chadta]

With straight people sex has consequences, childbirth, the gays have found a way to eliminate those consequences. Sex is and always was for procreation, humans are the only ones who do it for pleasure, which leads to another issue, if gay people are genetically different as some have said, how to they manage to overcome the urge to procreate ? isn't that basically all anybody or anything wants to do ? 1 survive, 2 procreate ?

I dunno, i guess i dont really understand it, it doesnt effect me so it dont matter, im in the same boat as cut, i really dont have a problem with them doing it, what i have a problem with is them getting in the face of everybody about it, I dont run around telling people im straight, so why is the first thing out of a gay persons mouth the fact that they are gay ? Who cares.

[DenverBrit]

With straight people sex has consequences, childbirth, the gays have found a way to eliminate those consequences. Sex is and always was for procreation, humans are the only ones who do it for pleasure, which leads to another issue, if gay people are genetically different as some have said, how to they manage to overcome the urge to procreate ? isn't that basically all anybody or anything wants to do ? 1 survive, 2 procreate ?

I dunno, i guess i dont really understand it, it doesnt effect me so it dont matter, im in the same boat as cut, i really dont have a problem with them doing it, what i have a problem with is them getting in the face of everybody about it, I dont run around telling people im straight, so why is the first thing out of a gay persons mouth the fact that they are gay ? Who cares.

You? :sunshine:

[Vrrroooommm]

there's no reference to marriage at all in our constitution either. but there is this funny thing in our constitution about ...something about a 14th amendment.

So, the 14th Amendment references gay people's right to marry?

I mean, even if it's a ratified amendment, that's valid. I just don't recall every reading anything about gays in the thing. Surely you wouldn't use it as justification if they weren't mentioned, though.

[peacepipe]

So, the 14th Amendment references gay people's right to marry?

I mean, even if it's a ratified amendment, that's valid. I just don't recall every reading anything about gays in the thing. Surely you wouldn't use it as justification if they weren't mentioned, though.

where in our constitution does it say that only heterosexuals can get married.
it references US citizens rights. last I checked being gay doesn't disqualify you from being a US citizen.

[Vrrroooommm]

where in our constitution does it say that only heterosexuals can get married.
it references US citizens rights. last I checked being gay doesn't disqualify you from being a US citizen.

We're not inferring from the constitution. That's not what this is about. You said not granting gay rights would be ignoring the constitution. As you've said, marriage is neither defined as a right nor is the federal gov't given domain. So it's not a guaranteed right and it's reserved for the states - according to the constitution. YOU don't want to ignore the constitution by taking it from the states just because it would support your views, do you?

[peacepipe]

We're not inferring from the constitution. That's not what this is about. You said not granting gay rights would be ignoring the constitution. As you've said, marriage is neither defined as a right nor is the federal gov't given domain. So it's not a guaranteed right and it's reserved for the states - according to the constitution. YOU don't want to ignore the constitution by taking it from the states just because it would support your views, do you?

first off,every citizen is entitled the same rights/protections as every other citizen,hence the 14th amendment,which btw puts it into the federal gov'ts domain. for example if the SCOTUS rules bans on same sex marriage as unconstitutional all states will have to recognize same sex marriage..

[Vrrroooommm]

first off,every citizen is entitled the same rights/protections as every other citizen,hence the 14th amendment,which btw puts it into the federal gov'ts domain. for example if the SCOTUS rules bans on same sex marriage as unconstitutional all states will have to recognize same sex marriage..

Rich folks get called upon more for their money to run the gov't than poor folks do. Men get forced to put their lives on the line in times of draft while women don't. Some people are protected more or less than others.

As to the rights, where has it been established that marriage is a right, yet? I would actually buy those theories that say healthcare is a right before I'd say marriage is a right. Constitution doesn't identify it as a right, laws don't identify it as a right, and the constitution says it is a state right.

Just because the supreme court decides something is a federal matter doesn't actually mean it is. According to the constitution, they should tell a LOT of cases to figure it out in their state courts. They don't do that very often, however.

[peacepipe]

Rich folks get called upon more for their money to run the gov't than poor folks do. Men get forced to put their lives on the line in times of draft while women don't. Some people are protected more or less than others.

As to the rights, where has it been established that marriage is a right, yet? I would actually buy those theories that say healthcare is a right before I'd say marriage is a right. Constitution doesn't identify it as a right, laws don't identify it as a right, and the constitution says it is a state right.

Just because the supreme court decides something is a federal matter doesn't actually mean it is. According to the constitution, they should tell a LOT of cases to figure it out in their state courts. They don't do that very often, however.constitution also affirms that federal law supercedes state law. you may not like it but that is a fact. SCOTUS rulings supercede state laws.
look at montana with citizens united. monatana tried getting around it but got shot down.

[peacepipe]

also look at loving vs virginia, SCOTUS ruled not allowing inter-racial marriage as unconstitutional. SCOTUS seems to think of marriage as a right.

[Vrrroooommm]

constitution also affirms that federal law supercedes state law. you may not like it but that is a fact. SCOTUS rulings supercede state laws.
look at montana with citizens united. monatana tried getting around it but got shot down.

Only on matters where jurisdiction is shared does federal law supercede. Again, though, federal law has been going way outside its boundaries since the interstate commerce nonsense was introduced. Just because it works that way doesn't mean the constitution intended it to work that way.

[Vrrroooommm]

also look at loving vs virginia, SCOTUS ruled not allowing inter-racial marriage as unconstitutional. SCOTUS seems to think of marriage as a right.

But there you're directly deal with race and racial segregation has been previously addressed.

[peacepipe]

But there you're directly deal with race and racial segregation has been previously addressed.loving vs virginia is an example of the point I was making with regards to marriage equallity being a federal issue.

[peacepipe]

Only on matters where jurisdiction is shared does federal law supercede. Again, though, federal law has been going way outside its boundaries since the interstate commerce nonsense was introduced. Just because it works that way doesn't mean the constitution intended it to work that way.well fortunately,how you understand the constitution isn't what determines this countries laws/rights.

[Vrrroooommm]

loving vs virginia is an example of the point I was making with regards to marriage equallity being a federal issue.

It wasn't a question of marriage being a federal issue, it was a matter of racial discrimination. That'd be like saying Brown vs Board of Education was actually about school quality.

[Vrrroooommm]

well fortunately,how you understand the constitution isn't what determines this countries laws/rights.

Well, unfortunately, noone seems capable of interpreting the constitution anymore.

[Requiem]

Well, unfortunately, noone seems capable of interpreting the constitution anymore.

You certainly aren't among those who should be attempting it.

[Requiem]

--quoted post has been deleted by forum moderator--

And how you are still here after having your That One Guy and other various accounts banned is beyond me. Are you really that desperate that you can't take your ban with grace and have to attempt to troll? You aren't fooling anyone. You aren't "new to the forum." Lol. Seriously, that is sad.

[Bob]

I hate to burst your bubble the bible itself recognizes polygamy as a legit marriage. polygamy has been for centuries considered "traditional marriage". it wasn't until people in 1862 passed a law banning it & reaffirmed it with the edmunds polygamy act of 1882 that marriage was changed to just 1 man 1 woman. before that it was quite tradional to marry more than one person. BTW marriage has been around in some form for about 200,000+ yrs. yes the planet earth is older than 6,000 yrs.

As I am LDS, I might have some knowledge of this issue. I might be bringing up this issue to point out that if definitions are widened, then it is logical to assume there might be many sexual practices, and traditional notions that will also be tossed aside. For those who wish to devolve western morality they may enjoy the trip, but for those with any foresight to understand natural consequences I doubt it.

[peacepipe]

And how you are still here after having your That One Guy and other various accounts banned is beyond me. Are you really that desperate that you can't take your ban with grace and have to attempt to troll? You aren't fooling anyone. You aren't "new to the forum." Lol. Seriously, that is sad.i was thinking lonesstar or hobo.

[Bob]

sexual orientation isn't a action/choice.

Hilarious! does "I do" involve a choice or are they born with that phrase on their forehead?

If one is born gay or not does not matter to me. I am just like half the nation, that believes that putting the stamp of approval on what has been considered wrong for 6000 years might be a tad presumptuous...

[Missouribronc]

sexual orientation isn't a action/choice.

You'd be surprised.

[Rohirrim]

Hilarious! does "I do" involve a choice or are they born with that phrase on their forehead?

If one is born gay or not does not matter to me. I am just like half the nation, that believes that putting the stamp of approval on what has been considered wrong for 6000 years might be a tad presumptuous...

Really? And who puts the stamp of "right" or "wrong" on what is an inherent, genetic trait?

[Bob]

Comparing the way blacks were mistreated to gays not being allowed to marry? Come on. I agree that it sucks, but it isn't even close to the same thing.

But it needs to be made into a false equivalency so that everyone will forget what an incredibly inept president we have...and the five trillion of debt he has created.

[peacepipe]

But it needs to be made into a false equivalency so that everyone will forget what an incredibly inept president we have...and the five trillion of debt he has created.the more you post the more worthless your POV becomes.

[Missouribronc]

Really? And who puts the stamp of "right" or "wrong" on what is an inherent, genetic trait?

Its been proven that this is a genetic thing?

[W*GS]

I am just like half the nation, that believes that putting the stamp of approval on what has been considered wrong for 6000 years might be a tad presumptuous...

It's more than a little presumptuous for you to assert that the particular myths (arising from a small part of the world over a small part of its entire history) that you follow are incumbent upon and representative of the entirety of history and of humanity.

In short, when are you xtians gonna get it through your thick heads that your myths ain't the be-all and end-all of morality and ethics?

[peacepipe]

Hilarious! does "I do" involve a choice or are they born with that phrase on their forehead?

If one is born gay or not does not matter to me. I am just like half the nation, that believes that putting the stamp of approval on what has been considered wrong for 6000 years might be a tad presumptuous...

a lot longer than that

[Bob]

Below is a remarkable document. It's a memo circulated by Jan van Lohuizen, a highly respected Republican pollster, (he polled for George W. Bush in 2004), to various leading Republican operatives, candidates and insiders. It's on the fast-shifting poll data on marriage equality and gay rights in general, and how that should affect Republican policy and language. And the pollster's conclusion is clear: if the GOP keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse.

Read the bluntness of this. This is the GOP establishment talking to itself. And the Republican pollster who arguably knows more about the politics of the gay issue than anyone else (how else to explain the Ohio campaign of 2004?) is advising them in no uncertain terms that they need to evolve and fast, if they're not going to damage their brand for an entire generation:

For the whole thing, including the memo itself, go here: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/top-gop-pollster-to-gop-reverse-on-gay-issues.html

So your truth can go ahead and evolve, and Rhinos with no convictions can evolve and put party above principles, but for those who believe in something there are absolutes.

[W*GS]

Its been proven that this is a genetic thing?

Many species exhibit homosexual behavior. Are those gays the work of Satan or something?

You certainly don't find this objectionable and evil:

http://anjruw.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/girls_kissing.jpg

[sirhcyennek81]

Hilarious! does "I do" involve a choice or are they born with that phrase on their forehead?

If one is born gay or not does not matter to me. I am just like half the nation, that believes that putting the stamp of approval on what has been considered wrong for 6000 years might be a tad presumptuous...


Way too many "buts" associated with the bolded to list. Most glaring example were the Minoans and the Greeks.

:Broncos:

[sirhcyennek81]

I think being gay has a genetic and an environmental factor. You are born predisposed to same sex attraction, but in utero environment probably kicks it "on".

If that makes any sense. But its on the Mane, so therefore it is now true.

:Broncos:

[Bob]

Considering Thomas Jefferson once said gays should be castrated, i think its safe to say the founders would not have agreed the constitution supports gay marriage. For sure the founding fathers would have considered men committing sodomy on each other to be totally aberrant behavior.

Not to mention what Washington would do...

I am not into those types of punishments -- what people do behind closed doors is their business, but what society puts its stamp of approval on, I believe is an important thing.

[Missouribronc]

Many species exhibit homosexual behavior. Are those gays the work of Satan or something?

You certainly don't find this objectionable and evil:

http://anjruw.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/girls_kissing.jpg

That didnt really answer the question, as is pretty typical when this question is asked.

[Rohirrim]

Its been proven that this is a genetic thing?

Well, he says it's been around at least 6,000 years. Sounds genetic to me.

[W*GS]

That didnt really answer the question, as is pretty typical when this question is asked.

If homosexuality is a choice, then how do you explain homosexual behavior in animals, given that most lack the mental ability to choose?

[Missouribronc]

Well, he says it's been around at least 6,000 years. Sounds genetic to me.

Well, then. I've been proven wrong by, well, really, nothing, but I've been proven wrong.

Good work fellas.

[Requiem]

Broncos Forums not much fun anymore, Mo?