North Carolina: No Gays allowed

[Symmetry]

I don't think I've portrayed you as demonic at all Patrick. If you'll bear with me for a moment, I see the idea of a "pro-gay agenda" as a little homophobic. I've never considered myself "pro-gay", as it's a term primarily employed by people who object to homosexuals in some form and need to invent a largely invisible counter argument, as if there's a force out there making people gay.

Lunacy, of course, and I hope you haven't fully bought in to the lingo without taking a look at what you're saying.

Now, of course, you understand that I think your arguments are a bit crappy. I think, if I'm reading you right, you realised the same thing about half way through your post, and started to back down, set up strawmen, and climaxed with an emoticon.

For what it's worth, there's an odd kind of admirable ethical quality in your posts, even as you abandon morality.

[patrickaa317]

I don't think I've portrayed you as demonic at all Patrick. If you'll bear with me for a moment, I see the idea of a "pro-gay agenda" as a little homophobic. I've never considered myself "pro-gay", as it's a term primarily employed by people who object to homosexuals in some form and need to invent a largely invisible counter argument, as if there's a force out there making people gay.

Lunacy, of course, and I hope you haven't fully bought in to the lingo without taking a look at what you're saying.

Now, of course, you understand that I think your arguments are a bit crappy. I think, if I'm reading you right, you realised the same thing about half way through your post, and started to back down, set up strawmen, and climaxed with an emoticon.

For what it's worth, there's an odd kind of admirable ethical quality in your posts, even as you abandon morality.

Nothing changed half way through. I just honestly lack further motivation to discuss something that we both completely disagree on. Neither of us will change our mind regardless of what the other one says. This topic in general has been beaten to a pretty bloody pulp in the OT forums over the last few weeks, not sure what new stuff could be added to the discussion.

[PLAYER57832]

So there are no merits to it? None at all? Good to know. The only reason things are decided at the state level is because some men have decided 200+ years ago that we should.

Well, you wouldn't want to ignore ALL the infrastructure that has been built based on that decision, would you? A decision that was voted on unanimously which recognized state independence? Or should we redefine independence as well? That is our founding, and our principles. It's what our people believe in and have for centuries. Every court case, every law, every bit of progress, has been built on the original model. It's not perfect, but I think we have done and are doing a pretty darn good job....Societies base law and other things according to and facilitative to the norm, not the exception.

Unless....you are literally arguing to abolish the USA as we know it.....

Just acknowledge reality dude. States make their own laws in many areas, and I simply argue that citizens having a say in making those laws is a much better system which protects Liberty. I have never heard anyone argue for the need to abolish governors and state legislatures and mayors and city councils though.

You have to realize you are arguing for more power to the central government, and attacking state sovereignty. That is the issue, and in fact it has little to do with gay marriage at all.

You know who's rights outstrip state's rights? Its INDIVIDUAL rights. And that is why the federal government, not the individual states are given the ultimate authority to protect individuals.

States protect liberties better? They do a better job than localities, yes. But that "freedom" you refer to is seen as oppression by people who disagree. The advantage of states is that they are more easily swayed. That is OK if the issue is relatively minor or an issue that does not seriously impact other people. Only if you happen to be in the majority. Else, it has historically been the federal government ultimately tasked with ensuring that the majority don't unreasonably impose their will upon those who disagree.

Strange that a supposed student of the constitution and freedom remains ignorant of that.

[Phatscotty]

The only thing strange is what some people continually ignore in their blind greed. Nobody's rights are being denied. This is not about rights of the individual (as much as you need them to seem). The individual can love and be with and marry whoever they want. The issue you guys are fighting for is universal recognition of a new definition of marriage, and it's overreaching and dishonest to frame this as an individual rights issue.

The only 2 people the definition should matter to are the ones that are married in their hearts, and that is a highly private issue, not public, and should not be subject to public opinion or policy changes. Marriage is not an issue that should be redefined and dictated from a central authority 3,000 miles away.

If the people want it, they will have it. If the people do not want it, they will not have it forced on them either. This is 100% fair. Leave it for the people to decide. Leave it to be free. It's the only way that all of our rights can be protected.

[comic boy]

The only thing strange is what some people continually ignore in their blind greed. Nobody's rights are being denied. This is not about rights of the individual (as much as you need them to seem). The individual can love and be with and marry whoever they want. The issue you guys are fighting for is universal recognition of a new definition of marriage, and it's overreaching and dishonest to frame this as an individual rights issue.

The only 2 people the definition should matter to are the ones that are married in their hearts, and that is a highly private issue, not public, and should not be subject to public opinion or policy changes. Marriage is not an issue that should be redefined and dictated from a central authority 3,000 miles away.

If the people want it, they will have it. If the people do not want it, they will not have it forced on them either. This is 100% fair. Leave it for the people to decide. Leave it to be free. It's the only way that all of our rights can be protected.

Yep if a couple wish to be 'married' than neither neighbours , state or federal authority should attempt to prevent them, the North Carolina legislation is wrong!

[Phatscotty]

The only thing strange is what some people continually ignore in their blind greed. Nobody's rights are being denied. This is not about rights of the individual (as much as you need them to seem). The individual can love and be with and marry whoever they want. The issue you guys are fighting for is universal recognition of a new definition of marriage, and it's overreaching and dishonest to frame this as an individual rights issue.

The only 2 people the definition should matter to are the ones that are married in their hearts, and that is a highly private issue, not public, and should not be subject to public opinion or policy changes. Marriage is not an issue that should be redefined and dictated from a central authority 3,000 miles away.

If the people want it, they will have it. If the people do not want it, they will not have it forced on them either. This is 100% fair. Leave it for the people to decide. Leave it to be free. It's the only way that all of our rights can be protected.

Yep if a couple wish to be 'married' than neither neighbours , state or federal authority should attempt to prevent them, the North Carolina legislation is wrong!

Your twisting of the issue aside....you mean the people of North Carolina, not the legislation....don't you?

[Symmetry]

I don't think I've portrayed you as demonic at all Patrick. If you'll bear with me for a moment, I see the idea of a "pro-gay agenda" as a little homophobic. I've never considered myself "pro-gay", as it's a term primarily employed by people who object to homosexuals in some form and need to invent a largely invisible counter argument, as if there's a force out there making people gay.

Lunacy, of course, and I hope you haven't fully bought in to the lingo without taking a look at what you're saying.

Now, of course, you understand that I think your arguments are a bit crappy. I think, if I'm reading you right, you realised the same thing about half way through your post, and started to back down, set up strawmen, and climaxed with an emoticon.

For what it's worth, there's an odd kind of admirable ethical quality in your posts, even as you abandon morality.

Nothing changed half way through. I just honestly lack further motivation to discuss something that we both completely disagree on. Neither of us will change our mind regardless of what the other one says. This topic in general has been beaten to a pretty bloody pulp in the OT forums over the last few weeks, not sure what new stuff could be added to the discussion.

That's fair comment, and I appreciate you coming clean. I'm a little surprised this thread lasted so long, but anyway...

[patrickaa317]

I don't think I've portrayed you as demonic at all Patrick. If you'll bear with me for a moment, I see the idea of a "pro-gay agenda" as a little homophobic. I've never considered myself "pro-gay", as it's a term primarily employed by people who object to homosexuals in some form and need to invent a largely invisible counter argument, as if there's a force out there making people gay.

Lunacy, of course, and I hope you haven't fully bought in to the lingo without taking a look at what you're saying.

Now, of course, you understand that I think your arguments are a bit crappy. I think, if I'm reading you right, you realised the same thing about half way through your post, and started to back down, set up strawmen, and climaxed with an emoticon.

For what it's worth, there's an odd kind of admirable ethical quality in your posts, even as you abandon morality.

Nothing changed half way through. I just honestly lack further motivation to discuss something that we both completely disagree on. Neither of us will change our mind regardless of what the other one says. This topic in general has been beaten to a pretty bloody pulp in the OT forums over the last few weeks, not sure what new stuff could be added to the discussion.

That's fair comment, and I appreciate you coming clean. I'm a little surprised this thread lasted so long, but anyway...

agreed on that!

[huamulan]

The most ancient civilizations (Rome, Greece, Egypt and China) were all perfectly tolerant of homosexual acts/relationships and of relationships between adults and pubescents. The old South American civilizations and the historic tribes of Africa and the Oceanic islands also exhibited such behavior and thought nothing of it. Indeed, most had no concept of the 'homosexual' versus the 'heterosexual' - there was no need to be either one or the other because people just were.

Then 'Enlightenment' happened and those countries who follow the new religions (Islam and Christianity) spread their influence and created a variety of arbitrary boxes that sexual relationships had to fit within or else be deemed 'immoral'.

In short: the creation and persecution of 'homosexuality' is a present from Europe, USA and the Middle East to the rest of the world.

[Phatscotty]

Can you supply some sources for that?

[huamulan]

Google is just a click away, my friend. A good starting point for you might be searches such as:

'ancient greece homosexuality'
'ancient rome homosexuality'
'ancient china homosexuality'
'aztecs homosexuality'

I have seen academic articles about Pacific island tribes who were made to feel ashamed of their adult-pubescent sexual relationships by Western education, but I can't be bothered to search for those.

[huamulan]

I'm not bashing religion if that's what you're worried about. All of those ancient civilizations were deeply religious.

[Symmetry]

Google is just a click away, my friend. A good starting point for you might be searches such as:

'ancient greece homosexuality'
'ancient rome homosexuality'
'ancient china homosexuality'
'aztecs homosexuality'

I have seen academic articles about Pacific island tribes who were made to feel ashamed of their adult-pubescent sexual relationships by Western education, but I can't be bothered to search for those.

Meh, read a bit of Shakespeare- Romeo is a paedophile and a murderer, Juliet is 13 years old and ends up killing herself. Still their romance is cited as a perfect example of tragic love.

Exploitation of children happens in all cultures, and should be rightly condemned. It ain't even close to equivalency with civil partnerships or marriage between consenting adults.

[Phatscotty]

Google is just a click away, my friend. A good starting point for you might be searches such as:

'ancient greece homosexuality'
'ancient rome homosexuality'
'ancient china homosexuality'
'aztecs homosexuality'

I have seen academic articles about Pacific island tribes who were made to feel ashamed of their adult-pubescent sexual relationships by Western education, but I can't be bothered to search for those.

I'm confused. Did you say your source was "the google" or "the internetz"

[NoSurvivors]

Just one thing to think about. Let me get this clear: Homosexuality should not be something people discriminate against, however; It is okay for places (my school, for instance) to have "gay pride" day. HOWEVER the second I post a poster up saying "Straight Pride", I will be hated by my schoolmates. Just some food for thought...

[Symmetry]

Just one thing to think about. Let me get this clear: Homosexuality should not be something people discriminate against, however; It is okay for places (my school, for instance) to have "gay pride" day. HOWEVER the second I post a poster up saying "Straight Pride", I will be hated by my schoolmates. Just some food for thought...

Does that genuinely upset you?

[bradleybadly]

Just one thing to think about. Let me get this clear: Homosexuality should not be something people discriminate against, however; It is okay for places (my school, for instance) to have "gay pride" day. HOWEVER the second I post a poster up saying "Straight Pride", I will be hated by my schoolmates. Just some food for thought...

Yep

That's because the lefties redefine the word tolerance to mean approval or endorsement.

[Symmetry]

Just one thing to think about. Let me get this clear: Homosexuality should not be something people discriminate against, however; It is okay for places (my school, for instance) to have "gay pride" day. HOWEVER the second I post a poster up saying "Straight Pride", I will be hated by my schoolmates. Just some food for thought...

Yep

That's because the lefties redefine the word tolerance to mean approval or endorsement.

Kind of an irrational fear, no? You don't seriously think gay folk have to be left wing do you?

[huamulan]

'the second I post a poster up saying "Straight Pride", I will be hated by my schoolmates. Just some food for thought...'

Are you American? 'Sodomy' was still illegal in many US states in the year 2000 and homosexuals still do not have equal rights (in terms of marriage etc.). Perhaps as a heterosexual male you feel oppressed ( :'( ) but, in truth, you've never had to defend your sexuality. Why would the historically dominant majority have any need to celebrate their identity?

[Phatscotty]

and we found out who would be the first to attack No Survivors in his school.....

Sexuality is a private issue. KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS AND STFU! We don't care where you like to stick your pecker!!!!!

[comic boy]

and we found out who would be the first to attack No Survivors in his school.....

Sexuality is a private issue. KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS AND STFU! We don't care where you like to stick your pecker!!!!!

Attack ?
What a bizarre and slightly worrying post , keep taking the meds Scotty.

[Phatscotty]

and we found out who would be the first to attack No Survivors in his school.....

Sexuality is a private issue. KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS AND STFU! We don't care where you like to stick your pecker!!!!!

Attack ?
What a bizarre and slightly worrying post , keep taking the meds Scotty.

especially verbally, even psychologically it seems.

Hidee-Ho

[PLAYER57832]

98% of my voting career has been third party.

That makes you 118 years old assuming you vote once every two years (you guys have mid terms or something right?).

IN many areas , you can vote every year, though maybe just in primaries or local elections. Two is probably more standard, but not the only time frame.

[thegreekdog]

The only thing strange is what some people continually ignore in their blind greed. Nobody's rights are being denied. This is not about rights of the individual (as much as you need them to seem). The individual can love and be with and marry whoever they want. The issue you guys are fighting for is universal recognition of a new definition of marriage, and it's overreaching and dishonest to frame this as an individual rights issue.

The only 2 people the definition should matter to are the ones that are married in their hearts, and that is a highly private issue, not public, and should not be subject to public opinion or policy changes. Marriage is not an issue that should be redefined and dictated from a central authority 3,000 miles away.

If the people want it, they will have it. If the people do not want it, they will not have it forced on them either. This is 100% fair. Leave it for the people to decide. Leave it to be free. It's the only way that all of our rights can be protected.

You are definitely a social conservative, and this post is a perfect example. Simply put, everyone gets equal protection under the law. There are laws with respect to marriage. Gays don't get to marry, so they are denied equal protection. It's really that simple. Gays are looking for government recognition, not universal recognition. The reason you (and others) bring up universal recognition is to make the issue one about religion rather than one about government recognition. A true libertarian; hell, a true constitutionalist; would have no problem with the government recognizing gay marriage. It doesn't run afoul of the Constitution, which addresses equal protection but does not address marriage.

I'm not denigrating your stance per se. Rather, think of my confusion as denigrating your supposed stance. You can have a social conservative stance on particular issues and still be considered, generally, a Libertarian. I do think your stance on gay marriage necessarily dictates that you are not a strict constitutionalist.

[PLAYER57832]

The only 2 people the definition should matter to are the ones that are married in their hearts, and that is a highly private issue, not public, and should not be subject to public opinion or policy changes.

Then why should the government get involved in this at all?

And, why do you feel that you or anyone else has the right to decide this for anyone else.