Amendment One passes by NC vote

[Thunder]

In other words, they're doing it out of a sense of personal conviction that doesn't have to mean hatred, correct?

no, they're doing it out of committment to the Supreme Law of the Land.

 

[cpwill]

Don't worry. The bigots will die off soon enough.

Given the propensity of left-leaning populaces to produce fewer children, you may not want to put all your eggs in the "we can continue to attack conservatives and moderates because eventually we will out last them" basket.

 

[katiegrrl0]

No, it's not hatred. It's people upholding their personal convictions. If the LGBT community was wise they wouldn't be attacking those that oppose them as nothing more than bigoted haters and other offensive labels. All it does is solidify in the opposing view's mind that LGBT individuals and supporters of LGBT rights are immoral people that don't deserve legal recognition.

What I see is hatred of individuals who hold an opposing view, which is wrong.

It's hatred pure and simple. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[WI Crippler]

:shrug: if you are willing to sacrifice moving towards victory for the emotional release.

what, you were just about to support SSM, and then an upset gay person made you change your mind?

c'mon. there are plenty of concise arguments for supporting SSM that go ignored in favor of heated arguments.

 

[katiegrrl0]

I kind of worry. One of my best friends down here is a lesbian, and even if she is from Chicago, she is still one of the coolest persons I have ever met. I hate to think she is prevented from the same pursuits of happiness that I am. I texted her a while ago to say I was sorry it passed. Havent heard from her.

I am sorry for her as well. She is probably broken hearted, devastated, and weeping.

 

[digsbe]

Your assuming that human life starts before birth and as I recall the argument with abortion is that one group says it does and the other says it doesnt. So we arnt even sure that a fetus even has rights. Gay people however do have rights because they are very much alive. And banning SSM is very much ****ing over their lives.

As I biologist I know that it is fact that human life begins before the human fetus leaves the woman's body and becomes an infant. I am sure that as human life a fetus deserves human rights and that it's life shouldn't be denied legal protection. A fetus is just as much "alive" as a gay person. Allowing elective abortion is far worse than banning SSM in my opinion because you are literally giving someone else the power to inhumanely kill another human life for essentially any reason.

My point though is not to debate abortion, but to ask that given my views on the issue if it would be ok for me to believe and state that pro-choicers are hateful bigots because in my view abortion is discrimination against the unborn and that allowing elective abortion only ****s their lives over to the ultimate degree.

 

[cpwill]

It's hatred pure and simple. Nothing more nothing less.

...you do realize that not only do you not have any idea what you are talking about, but that you couldn't have any actual knowledge of what you are claiming to know?

What are they fighting for? little issues of minor importance, while the economy falters.

yeah? which Chamber of Congress has passed a budget that actually addresses our fiscal crises, along with what - 17 now? - other job enabling bills that lie dormant and forgotten in the other?

Not sure what venting has to do with sacrificing a move towards victory, but whatevs yo

well SB, you only say that because you are a ****ing idiot squint eyed coolie who could never understand my superior worldview.



now - how much did that make you want to think seriously about my arguments and maybe concede some of the credibility of the points I would raise? I'm betting, since it's rather horribly abusive, needlessly rude, and degrading.... probably not so much.

Victory for the SSM movement will come when and if they are able to convince a majority of their fellow Americans that they are in the right, that they are actually being wrongfully denied something that they should be allowed to engage in. To do that, they are going to have to win people over who currently disagree with them. The worst way to attempt to do that is currently being expressed in this thread.

 

[Arbo]

That is hatred... You are condemning an entire state of people because you disagree with their beliefs.

It is hatred on their part. I don't hate them. I think they are probably uneducated, and unfortunately brainwashed by their parents by being sent off to church to believe in a spaghetti monster in the sky... which sort of made them grow up with such bigoted beliefs. But there is hope. Education can cure them.

Besides, I said bigots are the majority. Since they passed it, requiring a majority, then that would be the case. That doesn't condemn the rest of the people in the state that are actually tolerant of others and use their brains.

 

[Thunder]

...well SB, you only say that because you are a ****ing idiot squint eyed coolie who could never understand my superior worldview...

what???

.......

 

[katiegrrl0]

When the ACLU fights to have religious symbols barred/removed can I conclude that it's done out of hatred?

No you can't. The government will not establish or support a specific religion. Such Icons in public or on public land represent such support. The government does not have the right to take them down from private property and church property. No it is not hate it is the law. This is hate.

 

[katiegrrl0]

So then as I pointed out with my comparison of abortion, is it right for me to view pro-choicers as hateful? They negatively impact the lives of others and vote away the human rights of the unborn.

I do not believe this and I know better than to believe this. I think the same should apply with the SSM debate and that it's only detrimental to the cause to make these accusations or believe that the opposition is nothing more that hateful bigots.



Gay and straight people are nothing more than a blob of cells :shrug: I don't want to turn this into an abortion debate, but I'm merely bringing up a comparison based on terminology and personal convictions.

The unborn have no rights. When they are birthed they have rights and are protected.

 

[cpwill]

what???

read the rest.

 

[Thunder]

The unborn have no rights. When they are birthed they have rights and are protected.

certainly not when they are single-celled organisms.

 

[Omgitsme]

As I biologist I know that it is fact that human life begins before the human fetus leaves the woman's body and becomes an infant. I am sure that as human life a fetus deserves human rights and that it's life shouldn't be denied legal protection. A fetus is just as much "alive" as a gay person. Allowing elective abortion is far worse than banning SSM in my opinion because you are literally giving someone else the power to inhumanely kill another human life for essentially any reason.

My point though is not to debate abortion, but to ask that given my views on the issue if it would be ok for me to believe and state that pro-choicers are hateful bigots because in my view abortion is discrimination against the unborn and that allowing elective abortion only ****s their lives over to the ultimate degree.

Alright I dont want this to turn into an abortion argument either because I really dont have an opinion on abortion so this is the last thing Im going to say on this. We cant agree if a fetus is alive or not so therefor we cannot agree if one has rights or not. Gay people on the other hand are most definitely alive and most definitely have rights. So the two cannot be compared unless we all come to the conclusion that a fetus is definitely alive.

 

[StillBallin75]

now - how much did that make you want to think seriously about my arguments and maybe concede some of the credibility of the points I would raise? I'm betting, since it's rather horribly abusive, needlessly rude, and degrading.... probably not so much.

Victory for the SSM movement will come when and if they are able to convince a majority of their fellow Americans that they are in the right, that they are actually being wrongfully denied something that they should be allowed to engage in. To do that, they are going to have to win people over who currently disagree with them. The worst way to attempt to do that is currently being expressed in this thread.

Venting on a message board isn't really hurting the cause. That's all I'm sayin :shrug:

 

[Your Star]

I have very dear friends and family members that oppose SSM. I know their hearts and like I was, I know their views are not based on hatred or bigotry. I've only ever met one person who genuinely hated homosexuals, and he was a neonazi racist kid that had a Southern superiority complex and hated me over being from the north. No one else I have ever met who opposes SSM had any kind of hatred behind their beliefs or for homosexuals.

It doesn't have to be an all consuming hatred, even benign hatred is still hatred. And I know you don't want to hear it, but religiously based bigotry is still bigotry. I know you don't want to believe that the people you love and care for are bigots against LGBT people, but if they oppose SSM legally, on some level, deep down they are.

I will agree that it's discrimination, but I don't think it's hatred. Right now sexuality is not fully understood and it isn't specifically protected under the Constitution. There is no clause regarding sexuality. I am upset about this passing in NC, but legally I do not think there is anything that can be done under Constitutional law to reverse this. State's have rights, and in order to reverse this a clear amendment needs to be made to the Constitution that protects sexuality. The strongest case against this would be discrimination against gender, but under the Constitution there is legal gender discrimination to some degree and it is also the state's right to issue marriage licenses to whomever they legally determine may qualify for the contract. A state could chose altogether to ban all marriages at the legal level and recognize none. There is nothing legally forcing a state to recognize any marriage or from setting societal standards for marriage.

My view on the whole issue is that the opposition will never be won over as long as there is a strong vocal element that would say that those who oppose SSM are bigots, haters, and akin to racists. No one has been insulted into changing their opinion, and it only serves to fire them up and fuel the preconceived notion that some who oppose SSM have towards the LGBT community, mainly that they are sexually immoral bitter people. What shaped my view was people like who whom I respect as a lesbian individual. I have met homosexuals in relationships and I do not doubt their sincere love for each other. I respect them as a couple and I think that because we live in a secular state that my religious views should not apply to two individuals that love each other and want to be committed in marriage. They should have full legal marriage benefits and not domestic partnerships or civil unions. I also think it's wrong for many religious individuals to selectively ban gay marriage while upholding divorce laws, we simply can't impose our beliefs on others just like they cannot impose theirs on us. Banning SSM only hurts homosexual couples and I don't think it's any of my business if two people want to take their relationship to the next level. In order to win over those who oppose SSM we need to bring the humanity of their love as a focal point and the fact that all they want is to have the legal benefits of marriage that straight couples can have and that LGBT individuals are just like anyone else and not some odd group of humans separate from straights. Making accusations of hatred, bigotry and ignorance doesn't change anyone's mind and I think these tactics only delay the complete legality of SSM accross the nation.

Don't get mad at me for calling a spade a spade, your blind to this because you don't want to see the hatred, but it's there. A lot of people voted for this because they have a disgust for gay people, and it's horrible. Don't get mad at us for being disgusted, and sickened by their hatred.

I do agree with your point that we should show that LGBT are normal human beings, and that LGBT relationships are no different than straight ones, but that doesn't mean we should law down, and wait for every bigoted little ignorant **** to say it's okay for us to be treated equally under the law.

And your wrong about the Constitution, the 14th amendment guarantees every citizen equal treatment under the law, and just like in Loving v Virginia where the scrutiny level of race was used in order to make all laws against inter-racial marriage illegal, the scrutiny level of sex will be used to make all laws against SSM illegal. This isn't about sexuality, since two straight women can't get married either, it's about sex, I can't marry another woman, because she is a woman, hers, or my sexuality has nothing to do with it legally. That is why SSM is protected under the constitution, and that is why we will more than likely win this fight in the courtroom. And the tears of all the hateful bigots will be sweet.

 

[cpwill]

Venting on a message board isn't really hurting the cause. That's all I'm sayin :shrug:

interesting. so your theory is that nobody who comes here to post or read A) disagrees with SSM and / or B) votes ?


currently we have 79 members on DP.... and 180 guests. rarely is your audience limited to the person you are responding to.

 

[cpwill]

It doesn't have to be an all consuming hatred, even benign hatred is still hatred. And I know you don't want to hear it, but religiously based bigotry is still bigotry. I know you don't want to believe that the people you love and care for are bigots against LGBT people, but if they oppose SSM legally, on some level, deep down they are.

what utter baloney. you don't know my heart any more than I know yours.

 

[Thunder]

Alright I dont want this to turn into an abortion argument either because I really dont have an opinion on abortion so this is the last thing Im going to say on this. We cant agree if a fetus is alive or not so therefor we cannot agree if one has rights or not. Gay people on the other hand are most definitely alive and most definitely have rights. So the two cannot be compared unless we all come to the conclusion that a fetus is definitely alive.

there is ZERO doubt that gay people are persons with legal rights.

the status of ZEFs is up for debate.

therefore, the two are not comparible.

 

[UtahBill]

...you do realize that not only do you not have any idea what you are talking about, but that you couldn't have any actual knowledge of what you are claiming to know?



yeah? which Chamber of Congress has passed a budget that actually addresses our fiscal crises, along with what - 17 now? - other job enabling bills that lie dormant and forgotten in the other?

neither party has made a good faith effort toward long term emplyment for Americans...both have made some claims for their side and threw some blame to the other side.

Term limits are in order, one term only......6 years......for all politicans. That way, they have time to do their jobs instead of running for re-election.

 

[katiegrrl0]

...you do realize that not only do you not have any idea what you are talking about, but that you couldn't have any actual knowledge of what you are claiming to know?



yeah? which Chamber of Congress has passed a budget that actually addresses our fiscal crises, along with what - 17 now? - other job enabling bills that lie dormant and forgotten in the other?



well SB, you only say that because you are a ****ing idiot squint eyed coolie who could never understand my superior worldview.



now - how much did that make you want to think seriously about my arguments and maybe concede some of the credibility of the points I would raise? I'm betting, since it's rather horribly abusive, needlessly rude, and degrading.... probably not so much.

Victory for the SSM movement will come when and if they are able to convince a majority of their fellow Americans that they are in the right, that they are actually being wrongfully denied something that they should be allowed to engage in. To do that, they are going to have to win people over who currently disagree with them. The worst way to attempt to do that is currently being expressed in this thread.

And you post like a conservative who supports bigotry and expects people to gain rights by mob rule. What can I say?

 

[Omgitsme]

there is ZERO doubt that gay people are persons with legal rights.

the status of ZEFs is up for debate.

therefore, the two are not comparible.

Ummm yeah thats pretty much the paraphrased version of what I said...

 

[StillBallin75]

interesting. so your theory is that nobody who comes here to post or read A) disagrees with SSM and / or B) votes ?

The arguments have already explained clearly to all those who are willing to listen on this forum, multiple times. Those who still stand on the other side are either are unable or unwilling to listen to reason in any case.

 

[cpwill]

neither party has made a good faith effort toward long term emplyment for Americans.

25 House-Passed Jobs Bills Stuck in the Democrat Controlled Senate

 

[Arbo]

what utter baloney. you don't know my heart any more than I know yours.

You don't have to know someones heart to know they are a bigot. For all the years this debate has raged on, I have never seen a single argument against same sex marriage that is not based in some sort of bigotry, hatred, or 'but they are icky' bull****. Not one good, logical, legal, argument against SSM.