SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Gay marriage ban passes in NC

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Gay marriage ban passes in NC (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=195041)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1882160)

So you admit your poll was partisan - thus negating any claim to its validity. At least your honest....

:haha::haha: nice try :haha::haha:

Quote:

Again - your showing your total ignorance of fact. College kids - even in the WNC liberal area of Asheville - UNCA students - broke even on this. Same goes for other areas of the state. Every breakdown politically showed that this was NOT "very strongly" supported by college kids. Keep repeating your mantra if it helps you believe it - but the facts don't bear it out. Do some research before you start making claims - and then back them up with the research from something other than a "partisan poll".

The poll is solid as is my interpretation. If you have any actual hard data that refutes it, please present it, otherwise your opinion is just that.

and if you do not want to be insulted, do not be insulting yourself. I won't be as nice next time.

Quote:

Thanks mookie - you just called me (and many others) a bigot. And whats worse - your doing it on merely the basis of your own viewpoint. This is why there can't be a decent discussion - when the left doesn't get its way, when it can't win a factual arguement - it resorts to namecalling. Thats sad - on so many levels.

ok, I'll bite, what possible justification could you have to care if two complete strangers want to get married or not?

Quote:

Then again - what do rules matter if they don't go along with what you lefties want?

This is not a left-right issue. I am very conservative on many topics. This is an issue of treating other law abiding citizens with the same respect as you or I would wish to be treated.

It's my thought that a person who truly possesses zero intolerance to any opinions differing from their own or absolutely not intolerant of anyone with different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender is EXTREMELY RARE.

Hence i'm going to say everyone who has an opinion about something is a bigot to some degree. If you've ever argued about something on a messageboard, its because you possessed some degree of intolerance to what someone said.

edit
Yeah thats right, im painting all of you arguing pansies with a wide freaking brush, the whole bigoted lot of ya!

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1882182)

What's sad on so many levels is that people are still trying to justify denying people equal rights, and then getting offended when someone calls them out on it. Denying someone rights makes you a bigot. Discrimination makes you a bigot. If you don't want to be called one, don't discriminate against other people.

Exactly.

What I find interesting is that if the issue was, say, whether marriages between african-americans should be valid or not (something which was actually discussed pre civil war), everyone would be up in arms, but somehow some people still think it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1882182)

What religion someone subscribes to doesn't bother me in the least, so long as they keep it out of government. Being bigoted against a religion would require me to have an opinion on it, which I don't.

Being opposed to a political ideology makes you a bigot now? I guess you could lump everyone in GT into that one then.

I have no respect for anyone who would deny human rights to another and I don't care to hear their justification for it. I don't need to validate my arguments because our innate nature as human beings and our inalienable rights already have done that.

What's sad on so many levels is that people are still trying to justify denying people equal rights, and then getting offended when someone calls them out on it. Denying someone rights makes you a bigot. Discrimination makes you a bigot. If you don't want to be called one, don't discriminate against other people.

You're acting like I'm baselessly namecalling and telling people they're poopyheads or something. A bigot is a specific label for people who engage in specific behavior.

I accept that if two consenting adults want to enter into a marriage contract with each other, their genders shouldn't matter. Who am I to tell someone that their love isn't as valid as someone else's?

You did not answer the question. You answered the gay marriage question. Do you accept everything?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1882204)

You did not answer the question. You answered the gay marriage question. Do you accept everything?

Ok let's play the game. I say no, I don't accept everything, and then you reply back with "A-HA! Then you're BIGOTED against something, you biggoty biggot!" And then I run away, tail between my legs and cry and say "Curse you AVGWarhawk, and your awesome powers of rhetoric you scurrilous scalawag!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus (Post 1882192)

Yeah thats right, im painting all of you arguing pansies with a wide freaking brush, the whole bigoted lot of ya!

We love you too man. Long time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1882205)

I'm 46 Mookie. Little time left for games. :O: There will be bigotry long after we are pushing up daisies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1882217)

There will be bigotry long after we are pushing up daisies.

This is true, but I think it's worth fighting anyways. :salute:

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1882215)

We love you too man. Long time.

Hey I aim to please! :O:

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1882146)

The polls that I look at are the only ones that count. Election results. Nearly every time the question has been put to the voters in an election referendum it's been defeated. I'd say that's pretty substantial, wouldn't you?

I only have one quarrel with that, and it's embodied by this quote from Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn:

Quote:

Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.

to further Steve's comments, prior to 1967, all the states of the Deep South (including North Carolina) had laws which prohibited inter-racial marriages.

This was the text of the Virginia Act which was still in place at that time:

Quote:

Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (1924)

5. It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term "white person" shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this act.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Racial...ty_Act_of_1924

All these laws had been democratically adopted by the states individual legislatures, all of which had been democratically elected by eligible voters, again all in accordance with the constitution of the individual states.

All these laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Richard Loving, a white man and Mildred Jeter, a black woman were sentenced to 1 year in jail for marrying in contravention of the Racial Integrety Act.

This is what the Supreme Court said, in part:

Quote:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I can't believe that less than 50 years later we are still having the same argument. :damn:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1882259)

I only have one quarrel with that, and it's embodied by this quote from Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn:

I understand what you're saying Steve but obviously the flip side of that is any government that goes against the wishes of a majority of its own citizens too often is a government that looses it's right to govern. We elect representatives, not rulers.

Besides, my reply was in response to a poster who claimed an unofficial and partisan poll indicates how this issue should be decided. If I have to choose between that and election results, i'll go with the ballot every time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blood_splat (Post 1882111)

Marriage is between man and dog. It's in the holy book of canines.

I'll dive headfirst down this slippery slope and say that I have no problem with this.

Of course, you do have proof that the dog consented to the marriage, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1882146)

What about people (like me) who don't care if gays form a permanent union but just feel it should be called something other than "marriage"?

"Separate but equal" is by its very nature unequal.

Then again, if I were gay in a state south of the Mason Dixon Line, my priorities would lie in getting the hell out of Dodge (preferably to Massachusetts, Greenwich Village, or Castro Street in San Francisco) over getting hitched.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agiel7 (Post 1882353)

:rotfl2: Very good point.