Gay marriage ban passes in NC

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Oh well, not the first time I get chastized or banned for such pics.

Are you looking to be?

But seriously, you'll never get in trouble in this forum for posting anti-religious stuff, especially if it's anti-christian. Anti-gay or anti-Muslim on the other hand...

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

Are you looking to be?

But seriously, you'll never get in trouble in this forum for posting anti-religious stuff, especially if it's anti-christian. Anti-gay or anti-Muslim on the other hand...

I am not anti Christian (Jesus is a cool dude). I just am inquisitive, and wish a mature discussion on why gays should not be married, based on any other facts besides the equivalent of Aesops fables. (bible)

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I am not anti Christian (Jesus is a cool dude). I just am inquisitive, and wish a mature discussion on why gays should not be married, based on any other facts besides the equivalent of Aesops fables. (bible)

But there can be never be mature discussion when one side does not respect the other. The thread isn't about religion but to use your example do you really think that any Christian is going to want listen to you once you call their central religious text a fable?

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

But there can be never be mature discussion when one side does not respect the other. The thread isn't about religion but to use your example do you really think that any Christian is going to want listen to you once you call their central religious text a fable?

I see you think I am still mocking Chritianity.

I am mocking what man has put on it to confuse believers.

I believe in Jesus, but I do not subscribe to any "group"

Jesus would be disgusted by the intolerance displayed by modern Christians, and treat alot of them like he treated the merchants in the temple.

The prevelent feeling in America, is that Jesus hates gays, when it is a proven fact he preferred the company of sinners. (paradox eh?, do they sin or not?)
(OTOH)
So give me a point, non religious, that makes it not ok for gays to marry. Since some folks have a right to be atheist.

Jesus rules, yes. But we do not "crusade" anymore

[August]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I see you think I am still mocking Chritianity. I am mocking what man has put on it to confuse believers.

Whether you are or not or who in particular that you're aiming at is immaterial. It's going to be taken that way by anyone who doesn't share your disdain. Mocking and insults are poison to the exchange of ideas.

So give me a point, non religious, that makes it not ok for gays to marry. Since some folks have a right to be atheist.

CaptainHaplo pretty much lays it out in the preceding pages. I've already got the forum nanny's on my ass for objecting to being called a bigot so I think i'll pass.

Jesus rules, yes. But we do not "crusade" anymore

Dude this is not a pro-christian board. According to many here Jesus not only does not rule, any mention of him should be kept hidden from public view.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

So give me a point, non religious, that makes it not ok for gays to marry. Since some folks have a right to be atheist.

I have done so repeatedly. Not everyone has morals that come from the Bible. Or even religion for that matter. But lets skip the entire moral arguement.

There are financial considerations. As stated way earlier - marriage does not require monogamy - and homosexuality has massively increased risks to health compared to heterosexuality. People vote with their pocketbooks as well as their morals - the city of Asheville incurred a significant jump in its insurance costs when it started offering same sex partner benefits. That cost was passed on to the other city employees in part - but the majority of it got loaded onto the backs of the taxpayers. Considering the debt the city already has - not everyone agrees that their taxes should go up yet again to fund a higher costs of care for everyone because a few want to engage in extremely risky behavior and make others pay for it.

You asked for one - I gave you one. If you want more - go look at the entire thread.

[Takeda Shingen]

I do not know to whom the forum 'nanny' remark refers, but no moderator has contacted any member in regards to the content of this thread. We, like many of you, continue to watch the proceedings in rapt fascination.

The Management

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I do not know to whom the forum 'nanny' remark refers, but no moderator has contacted any member in regards to the content of this thread. We, like many of you, continue to watch the proceedings in rapt fascination.

The Management

That is my understanding also....and having just checked the moderators section I can also confirm there is no reference to this thread to be found there.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I do not know to whom the forum 'nanny' remark refers, but no moderator has contacted any member in regards to the content of this thread. We, like many of you, continue to watch the proceedings in rapt fascination.

The Management

While that may be the case - there I would say that there should have been action some time ago.

Originally Posted by steve_the_slim

[REDACTED] you [REDACTED] stupid bigoted [DATA EXPUNGED]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Opponents of gay marriage should grow up and mind their own business...maybe if they stopped marrying their cousins, they would be able to think...

Originally Posted by AngusJS

I can only hope that in 100 years, when today's bigots are long since dead, we'll be able to look back on these laws and shake our heads in disbelief.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

That's my thinking on it too. The inexorable march of progress will leave the bigots behind when they die off.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

If someone doesn't like being called a bigot, then they shouldn't engage in bigotry.

Anyone who has disagreed with gay marraige has been called a bigot innumerable times - accused of marrying their cousin and told to "grow up". Not to mention, stupid and [redacted].... which in and of itself violates the rules here. Statements looking forward to the death of people probably are not within the guidelines either....

I mean come on - this thing STARTED with name calling.....
But it seems that its ok as long as your bashing people who are anti-gay marriage.

I haven't brought it up until now - but the above quotes were only in the first 4 pages - and there are more. Discussions are hard enough as it is in this medium - allowing blanket statements that say anyone who is anti-gay marraige is somehow a stupid bigot who marries their cousin..... well lets just say that those kinds of allowed comments don't make discourse any easier.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I have done so repeatedly. Not everyone has morals that come from the Bible. Or even religion for that matter. But lets skip the entire moral arguement.

There are financial considerations. As stated way earlier - marriage does not require monogamy - and homosexuality has massively increased risks to health compared to heterosexuality. People vote with their pocketbooks as well as their morals - the city of Asheville incurred a significant jump in its insurance costs when it started offering same sex partner benefits. That cost was passed on to the other city employees in part - but the majority of it got loaded onto the backs of the taxpayers. Considering the debt the city already has - not everyone agrees that their taxes should go up yet again to fund a higher costs of care for everyone because a few want to engage in extremely risky behavior and make others pay for it.

You asked for one - I gave you one. If you want more - go look at the entire thread.

So we should cut wives off insurance and pension plans, just like they cut off gay life partners.As long as it is the same for everyone.

Health risks, you mean Gay Related Immune deficiency (GRIDS), as they used to call it? What is this 1982? Don't tell me you still blame the gays for AIDS?

Pardon my liberal-ness. I know that is considered a scourge here.

EDIT: (No don't pardon it, I am proud of my open mindedness. I am ashamed of other Americans lack of it)

[P_Funk]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Health risks, you mean Gay Related Immune deficiency (GRIDS), as they used to call it? What is this 1982? Don't tell me you still blame the gays for AIDS?

Its impossible to deny the higher rate of AIDS in the homosexual community. With that said shouldn't affirming their right to marry reduce this seeing as how the quickest road to abstinence is marriage?

However, in reply to Haplo's absurd statements about financial consideration relating to extending human rights, is that how we're going to quantify freedom now? Can we afford it? Sounds an awful lot like the arguments of those who seek to limit freedom for the sake of security "We can't afford it".

The whole idea of freedom is that its inalienable. Cost-benefit analyses applied to such a concept demeans it as a matter of course. Only moments of pure survival can justify that mode of thinking and our view of freedom presupposes it as a function of our values.

Cost-benefit analyses have been used in vulgar circumstances before. The classi Pinto case comes to mind. The one where a car manufacturer did some math and determined that it would be cheaper to pay out settlements for lawsuits relating to wrongful death than to make the $11 minor repair. Basically it was cheaper to let a bunch of people die. Thats what cost benefit analyses do to our so called rational progressive value system.

So what do we learn from this? That religious value systems might lead to bigotry, but freedom from a religious value system can make people apathetic and detached from humanity. So what do we prefer? Bigotry or Callousness?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

So we should cut wives off insurance and pension plans, just like they cut off gay life partners.As long as it is the same for everyone.

Health risks, you mean Gay Related Immune deficiency (GRIDS), as they used to call it? What is this 1982? Don't tell me you still blame the gays for AIDS?

Pardon my liberal-ness. I know that is considered a scourge here.

EDIT: (No don't pardon it, I am proud of my open mindedness. I am ashamed of other Americans lack of it)

The closeminded the scourge of America! GRIDS? Never heard of it. I was in my teens in the 80's. I remember it as AIDS. Is GRIDS something that was created in your neck of the woods? Just who is 'they'? I also recall a preponderance of AIDS in the gay community as reported and growing more so in the heterosexual community. In the 80's there was very little known concerning AIDS.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Are you looking to be?

But seriously, you'll never get in trouble in this forum for posting anti-religious stuff, especially if it's anti-christian. Anti-gay or anti-Muslim on the other hand...

"Get in trouble"? Who has "gotten in trouble" for posting anything within the forum rules? Examples, please.

In your very first post in this thread you said

I see this push for same sex marriages as nothing more than yet another attempt to stick it to religion.

Did you "get in trouble" for that? Did you get anything more than disagreement? Can you cite examples of how that works? You've accused several people of attacking you directly, including me. Can you give an example of a direct attack? I agree that calling everyone who is against same-sex marriage a "bigot" is painting with a very broad brush, but it strikes me as more an opinion than an attack, pretty much the same as calling everyone who supports it "anti-religious".