Poll: Bad news for gay marriage opponents

[magicmike]

Support for gay marriage is at an all time high. The SCOTUS ruling should be obvious.


http://www.people-press.org/2015/06/08/support-for-same-sex-marriage-at-record-high-but-key-segments-remain-opposed/

Note support is at its lowest among conservative Republicans and the uneducated (yes, that's an oxymoron)

http://i.imgur.com/ECNac3s.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/JiAlcQB.jpg

[Peter1469]

Notice: Moved to Gender, Sexuality and Race

[Private Pickle]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11884&stc=1

[Safety]

Support for gay marriage is at an all time high. The SCOTUS ruling should be obvious.


http://www.people-press.org/2015/06/08/support-for-same-sex-marriage-at-record-high-but-key-segments-remain-opposed/

Note support is at its lowest among conservative Republicans and the uneducated (yes, that's an oxymoron)

http://i.imgur.com/ECNac3s.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/JiAlcQB.jpg

I bet the results of that poll would look almost similar if the question was about removing the confederate flag from gov buildings. The only difference would probably be the black vote number.

[Green Arrow]

Oooh, magicmike, you reported the percentage of gay marriage supporters at 57% instead of 60%. TrueBlue is gonna getcha.

[magicmike]

Oooh, magicmike, you reported the percentage of gay marriage supporters at 57% instead of 60%. TrueBlue is gonna getcha.

You're being rude. Take your foot stomping elsewhere.

[Green Arrow]

You're being rude. Take your foot stomping elsewhere.

What foot stomping? I was mocking TrueBlue because she accused me of being a fake gay and posting false stats because I cited the approval of gay marriage at 56% and she claimed it was 60%. It was a ridiculous thing to attack me as vociferously as she did over, and now I'm making fun of it.

Personally, I'm glad support for gay marriage is so high, particularly among millennials.

[TrueBlue]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11884&stc=1
And isn't it wonderful! It's the type of news that can better educate bigots about their fellow human beings.

[Private Pickle]

And isn't it wonderful! It's the type of news that can better educate bigots about their fellow human beings.

Yeah. I'm sure that's what you're trying to do... Educating bigots...

[TrueBlue]

You're being rude. Take your foot stomping elsewhere.
Exactly! There will be different polls out that show a little variance in the numbers of those accepting Gay marriage. Usually it is just within a few points difference. It is truly great to know that these Americans also do not believe the decision should be left up to the states. I agree with that wholeheartedly because when you do, prejudice, intolerance, discrimination, and bigotry will always play front row center in such important decisions where minority rights are concerned.

Poll: Gay-marriage support at record high

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/poll-gay-marriage-support-at-record-high/2015/04/22/f6548332-e92a-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html

"A record-high 6 in 10 Americans support same-sex marriage and a similar share say individual states should not be allowed to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."

[TrueBlue]

Yeah. I'm sure that's what you're trying to do... Educating bigots...
It's a hard task, not always successful, but hey, somebody's gotta do it! :)

[Private Pickle]

It's a hard task, not always successful, but hey, somebody's gotta do it! :)

I'm sure they'll listen to you. Have at it.

[zelmo1234]

With all this support, makes you wonder why they had to resort to the courts to get there agenda through

To bad by the time everything works it's way out, there won't be marriage anymore in several states.

[Green Arrow]

With all this support, makes you wonder why they had to resort to the courts to get there agenda through

To bad by the time everything works it's way out, there won't be marriage anymore in several states.

How so?

[TrueBlue]

I'm sure they'll listen to you. Have at it.
Sure worth a try at trying to crack into some of those hard-heads for a better understanding of things.

[Private Pickle]

Sure worth a try at trying to crack into some of those hard-heads for a better understanding of things.

I would change my approach if I were you?

[Chris]

Support for gay marriage is at an all time high. The SCOTUS ruling should be obvious.


...Note support is at its lowest among conservative Republicans and the uneducated (yes, that's an oxymoron)

...



I'm among those who accept gays and support marriage for gays.

I do not, however, like the idea that this social issue should be decided by the court or government in any way at all. As a social issue it should be decided by society.

Oh, and your "oxymoron" is not an oxymoron but your statement is unnecessarily inflammatory well poisoning.

[Mister D]

Howey, the term you were searching for is redundant but you fucked that up pretty bad. Mocking people for being uneducated and then...well it was just embarrassing.

[Green Arrow]

Howey, the term you were searching for is redundant but you fucked that up pretty bad. Mocking people for being uneducated and then...well it was just embarrassing.

Right?

"Republicans and the uneducated...but that's an oxymoron!"

Oh, so Republicans ARE educated?

[Mister D]

Right?

"Republicans and the uneducated...but that's an oxymoron!"

Oh, so Republicans ARE educated?

Just embarrassing.

[Bob]

I bet the results of that poll would look almost similar if the question was about removing the confederate flag from gov buildings. The only difference would probably be the black vote number.

If the Supreme court listened to the public opinion polls, they would have killed the ACA when they had that chance.

[Bob]

What foot stomping? I was mocking TrueBlue because she accused me of being a fake gay and posting false stats because I cited the approval of gay marriage at 56% and she claimed it was 60%. It was a ridiculous thing to attack me as vociferously as she did over, and now I'm making fun of it.

Personally, I'm glad support for gay marriage is so high, particularly among millennials.

Be nice to him and he will invite you over for a hot dog roast.

[TrueBlue]

I would change my approach if I were you?
But you're not me. To withdraw from something that so obviously needs to get done has never been my style.

[TrueBlue]

Be nice to him and he will invite you over for a hot dog roast.
Hey! You forgot the buns! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/big_standart/biggrin.gif

[Private Pickle]

I'm among those who accept gays and support marriage for gays.

I do not, however, like the idea that this social issue should be decided by the court or government in any way at all. As a social issue it should be decided by society.

Oh, and your "oxymoron" is not an oxymoron but your statement is unnecessarily inflammatory well poisoning.

So here is the deal for me.

I don't accept gay anything because I myself am not gay.

Do I care if people gay? No.

Do I think gay marriage will ruin society? No.

Do I support gay marriage? After being married so long I am wondering if they know what they are getting into... Do I support? No. Do I advocate against it? No. Should it be legal? Yes.

Do I care? No.

[Private Pickle]

But you're not me. To withdraw from something that so obviously needs to get done has never been my style.

I didn't tell you to withdraw. I told you to change your approach.

You should research the Battle of Thermopylae. It will help.

[Mister D]

I didn't tell you to withdraw. I told you to change your approach.

You should research the Battle of Thermopylae. It will help.

True may get the wrong message from the homoeroticism of the recent film.

[Chris]

So here is the deal for me.

I don't accept gay anything because I myself am not gay.

Do I care if people gay? No.

Do I think gay marriage will ruin society? No.

Do I support gay marriage? After being married so long I am wondering if they know what they are getting into... Do I support? No. Do I advocate against it? No. Should it be legal? Yes.

Do I care? No.


You shouldn't have to accept gays. That's the problem with government deciding such issues, you may by law be forced to accept it in various ways.

[TrueBlue]

I didn't tell you to withdraw. I told you to change your approach.

You should research the Battle of Thermopylae. It will help.
Yet I know that is your clever way to try to get me to not speak up on the very issues that matter the most to those in the LGBT community who have been effectively disenfranchised through bigotry and hate and intolerance. That will not happen no matter if you try to throw a red herring into the picture. Won't work.

[Cthulhu]

It's a hard task, not always successful, but hey, somebody's gotta do it! :)
And often self defeating the way some do it.

:rolleyes:

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Private Pickle]

True may get the wrong message from the homoeroticism of the recent film.

Kinda my point. The Greeks loved them some man ass AND understood the concept of waging warfare on the "ignorant".

[TrueBlue]

And often self defeating the way some do it.

:rolleyes:

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.
With the Great Strides the LGBT movement has made and continues to make, I rather doubt it! :)

[Bob]

Hey! You forgot the buns! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/big_standart/biggrin.gif

Oh sure, the buns. How could I forget. :grampa:

[Private Pickle]

Yet I know that is your clever way to try to get me to not speak up on the very issues that matter the most to those in the LGBT community who have been effectively disenfranchised through bigotry and hate and intolerance. That will not happen no matter if you try to throw a red herring into the picture. Won't work.

Being gay isn't a franchise...

[Chris]

Yet I know that is your clever way to try to get me to not speak up on the very issues that matter the most to those in the LGBT community who have been effectively disenfranchised through bigotry and hate and intolerance. That will not happen no matter if you try to throw a red herring into the picture. Won't work.


I doin't see where anyone is telling not to advocate for others, like gays, just that the way you do it is too negative, belligerent, attacking those who disagree, it's not persuasive, is in fact, dissuasive.

[nathanbforrest45]

Disgusting buggery

Homosexuals are mentally unstable.

[Common Sense]

Disgusting buggery

Homosexuals are mentally unstable.

There's the old curmudgeon.

What's up Nathan?

[TrueBlue]

I doin't see where anyone is telling not to advocate for others, like gays, just that the way you do it is too negative, belligerent, attacking those who disagree, it's not persuasive, is in fact, dissuasive.
Think what you will. Fact of the matter is that LGBT people have really opened the eyes of bigotry in this nation. Wish I could take some credit for that but I'm afraid they've done it all by themselves with lots of hard work and a Job Well Done! KUDOS to them!! :)

[nathanbforrest45]

There's the old curmudgeon.

What's up Nathan?


Trying not to act very Canadian.

[Ravens Fan]

Disgusting buggery

Homosexuals are mentally unstable.

Link?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[magicmike]

Be nice to him and he will invite you over for a hot dog roast.

I like @Greenarrow even if we disagree and got off on the wrong foot. After reading that thread yesterday I now see maybe I should have kept my noob opinion to myself.

You, however, I'm glad to say I despise.

[magicmike]

Why can't I fix the @ in that post? Green Arrow

[Green Arrow]

You only have a certain amount of time to edit a post before it won't let you anymore.

[Green Arrow]

Disgusting buggery

Homosexuals are mentally unstable.

Says the mentally unstable old fart.

[magicmike]

Says the mentally unstable old fart.

Lol who is he and what sewer did he crawl out of?

[Green Arrow]

Lol who is he and what sewer did he crawl out of?

My home state of TN, unfortunately.

[magicmike]

My home state of TN, unfortunately.

Please accept my deepest condolences.

[Dr. Who]

Be nice to him and he will invite you over for a hot dog roast.
Bob - are you making personal remarks about MM?

[Bob]

Bob - are you making personal remarks about MM?

Who is that. Wait you may mean Magic. Nope. I eat them myself. I had 4 yesterday in fact.

[Cigar]

I bet the results of that poll would look almost similar if the question was about removing the confederate flag from gov buildings. The only difference would probably be the black vote number.

Quick, Hide this Thread :laugh:

[iustitia]

Howey, the term you were searching for is redundant but you fucked that up pretty bad. Mocking people for being uneducated and then...well it was just embarrassing.Right?

"Republicans and the uneducated...but that's an oxymoron!"

Oh, so Republicans ARE educated?

Hahaha what a jackass.

[PolWatch]

Who is that. Wait you may mean Magic. Nope. I eat them myself. I had 4 yesterday in fact.

right after picking cotton & eating some watermelon? ha ha

[Bob]

right after picking cotton & eating some watermelon? ha ha

Watermelon is on sale here. Good old CA watermelon. Plan to pick up one today.

[Green Arrow]

Hahaha what a jackass.

The hell have you been, iustitia?

[iustitia]

Gardening, reading, relaxing. Working on some projects and writing. Also I'd be lying by omission if I didn't admit to needing time away from trolls like TrueBlue and Mac-7.

[Ravens Fan]

Gardening, reading, relaxing. Working on some projects and writing. Also I'd be lying by omission if I didn't admit to needing time away from trolls like TrueBlue and Mac-7.

Good to see you back.

[Cthulhu]

With the Great Strides the LGBT movement has made and continues to make, I rather doubt it! :)
Whatever floats your boat man. Just don't be terribly surprised when ugly blowback happens.

The pendulum swings both ways.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[domer76]

You shouldn't have to accept gays. That's the problem with government deciding such issues, you may by law be forced to accept it in various ways.

Nobody is asking anyone to accept gays. What the government will decide is to punish the shit out of those who discriminate against them.

[iustitia]

Nobody is asking anyone to accept gays.


What the government will decide is to punish the shit out of those who discriminate against them.

[/statistlogic]

[domer76]

[/statistlogic]

^ Nothing to offer (again)

[Cthulhu]

^ Nothing to offer (again)
By all means, prove he is incorrect then.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[domer76]

By all means, prove he is incorrect then.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

You two seem to be unfamiliar with anti discrimination laws such as the CRA.

[Cthulhu]

You two seem to be unfamiliar with anti discrimination laws such as the CRA.
Discrimination in private affairs is part of life. It is wise to get used to it and learn to overcome it.

Discrimination with respect to public services however is another matter entirely. This is not cool in any degree.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Venus]

What foot stomping? I was mocking TrueBlue because she accused me of being a fake gay and posting false stats because I cited the approval of gay marriage at 56% and she claimed it was 60%. It was a ridiculous thing to attack me as vociferously as she did over, and now I'm making fun of it.

Personally, I'm glad support for gay marriage is so high, particularly among millennials.

But you're the rude one...

[domer76]

Discrimination in private affairs is part of life. It is wise to get used to it and learn to overcome it.

Discrimination with respect to public services however is another matter entirely. This is not cool in any degree.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

It's not only uncool, it's illegal. But, it's "statist" according to another who has nothing to add but that.

[Mister D]

It's not only uncool, it's illegal. But, it's "statist" according to another who has nothing to add but that.

I don't think anyone here supports state discrimination.

[Chris]

I don't think anyone here supports state discrimination.

I think the problem in modern politics is people pursue social justice into the private arena so much they forget the government should be regulating itself.

[Mister D]

I think the problem in modern politics is people pursue social justice into the private arena so much they forget the government should be regulating itself.

Title II of the CRA is problematic for anyone concerned about individual liberty. Both the left and right have issues in which they will not accept state intrusion as a matter of principle. For example, abortion for the left and private property for the right. I say this as a non-liberal. It' just an observation.

[Common]

I would really like to understand what motivates Trueblue and Domer to abuse straight people on forums and demand and rant and try to shove everything gay down their throats. I would truly like for them to explain to me what they expect to gain by it on forums.

All trueblue and domer accomplish by their abusive attacks on straight people is create more disdain for those they say they are trying to promote. Theres a way to get results and theres a way to create more animosity for exactly what you say you are trying to help.

Being utterly unreasonable and threatening people with statements like domer that the govt is going to punish people who discriminate. Screw that have laws stopped racial discrimination

Laws make people "HATE" even more if they are so inclined. This utopia that you nag and aggravate people with on this forum gets much harder to achieve every time you open your mouths and make demands and threaten people. THATS exactly what you do whether you realize it or not.

You make matters worse for gays not better. Its ironic that even the "REAL" gay people on this forum find you obnoxious and overbearing and fully realize you MAKE THINGS WORSE FOR THEM not better.

So carry on with your offensive bullshit and keep making matters worse

[Common Sense]

I would really like to understand what motivates Trueblue and Domer to abuse straight people on forums and demand and rant and try to shove everything gay down their throats. I would truly like for them to explain to me what they expect to gain by it on forums.

All trueblue and domer accomplish by their abusive attacks on straight people is create more disdain for those they say they are trying to promote. Theres a way to get results and theres a way to create more animosity for exactly what you say you are trying to help.

Being utterly unreasonable and threatening people with statements like domer that the govt is going to punish people who discriminate. Screw that have laws stopped racial discrimination

Laws make people "HATE" even more if they are so inclined. This utopia that you nag and aggravate people with on this forum gets much harder to achieve every time you open your mouths and make demands and threaten people. THATS exactly what you do whether you realize it or not.

You make matters worse for gays not better. Its ironic that even the "REAL" gay people on this forum find you obnoxious and overbearing and fully realize you MAKE THINGS WORSE FOR THEM not better.

So carry on with your offensive bullshit and keep making matters worse

I don't see them attacking straight people or trying to shove anything down anyone's throats. I see them countering those who don't want gays to have some of the same rights straight people have.

This is similar to the argument that Obama creates racists. TB and Domer aren't turning people against this cause.

Sure sometimes tactics can be a bit much, but we all have the choice to read these threads or to not read them. People choose to engage then complain that's it's being shoved down their throats. It seems to me that the shoving is a choice.

[PolWatch]

I would really like to understand what motivates Trueblue and Domer to abuse straight people on forums and demand and rant and try to shove everything gay down their throats. I would truly like for them to explain to me what they expect to gain by it on forums.

All trueblue and domer accomplish by their abusive attacks on straight people is create more disdain for those they say they are trying to promote. Theres a way to get results and theres a way to create more animosity for exactly what you say you are trying to help.

Being utterly unreasonable and threatening people with statements like domer that the govt is going to punish people who discriminate. Screw that have laws stopped racial discrimination

Laws make people "HATE" even more if they are so inclined. This utopia that you nag and aggravate people with on this forum gets much harder to achieve every time you open your mouths and make demands and threaten people. THATS exactly what you do whether you realize it or not.

You make matters worse for gays not better. Its ironic that even the "REAL" gay people on this forum find you obnoxious and overbearing and fully realize you MAKE THINGS WORSE FOR THEM not better.

So carry on with your offensive bullshit and keep making matters worse

Isn't that the usual behavior for partisans....no matter what issue?

[TrueBlue]

I don't see them attacking straight people or trying to shove anything down anyone's throats. I see them countering those who don't want gays to have some of the same rights straight people have.

This is similar to the argument that Obama creates racists. TB and Domer aren't turning people against this cause.

Sure sometimes tactics can be a bit much, but we all have the choice to read these threads or to not read them. People choose to engage then complain that's it's being shoved down their throats. It seems to me that the shoving is a choice.
That is exactly it, Common Sense. Thank you for your clear understanding. There is no "attacking people" whatsoever. If a person feels they are being attacked then they have to go introspectively and examine why they sense such fear. Could it be a guilt complex perhaps?

We all come to this forum to discuss items. I have often called for an atmosphere of civility and no discordance. Some have felt it completely acceptable to belittle the LGBT community and when someone stands up to counter that they then try to turn it around to be an attack on them when it is they whose words have hurt said community. They are free to believe as they wish. Just as domer and I are. Another common tactic being used is the "they're shoving it down our throats" syndrome and the "you're losing the fight and causing straights to hate you" syndrome. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Again, that is their only defense because they know that where there is discrimination and intolerance that cannot be a good thing and when one stands up for that which is right and just, as I often do, they take offense to that.

In sum, that is what is happening here and why they appear to be so displeased with my responses. They know I am correct in what I say and the truth is something they simply cannot align to or feel congruent with.

[Chris]

Nobody is asking anyone to accept gays. What the government will decide is to punish the shit out of those who discriminate against them.

I understand that since you approach government as something that should change society even through punishment that you see things that way. I understand that's likely where trueblue is coming from, and many other liberal progressives.

[Chris]

I don't see them attacking straight people or trying to shove anything down anyone's throats. I see them countering those who don't want gays to have some of the same rights straight people have.

This is similar to the argument that Obama creates racists. TB and Domer aren't turning people against this cause.

Sure sometimes tactics can be a bit much, but we all have the choice to read these threads or to not read them. People choose to engage then complain that's it's being shoved down their throats. It seems to me that the shoving is a choice.


I see that in some sometimes. All too often though the reaction to disagreement is personal attack, the "Sure sometimes tactics can be a bit much". And that, while it may receive applause from those who think the same, can hardly be effective in persuading anyone to change.

I agree though that nothing is being shoved down anyone's throats with mere words on a forum.

[PolWatch]

I see that in some sometimes. All too often though the reaction to disagreement is personal attack, the "Sure sometimes tactics can be a bit much". And that, while it may receive applause from those who think the same, can hardly be effective in persuading anyone to change.

I agree though that nothing is being shoved down anyone's throats with mere words on a forum.

oh no! do you mean that we are not deciding the fate of the world here?

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.LTJhIbPHkk5%2fDIbPFpEMpQ&w=205&h=164&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&o=4&pid=1.1

[Common Sense]

I see that in some sometimes. All too often though the reaction to disagreement is personal attack, the "Sure sometimes tactics can be a bit much". And that, while it may receive applause from those who think the same, can hardly be effective in persuading anyone to change.

I agree though that nothing is being shoved down anyone's throats with mere words on a forum.

I think we've all come to accept that we aren't going to change anyone's mind here. Particularly on the very divisive issues.

I think we all just want to illustrate how our opponents are wrong.

We're all guilty of personal attacks.

[Chris]

oh no! do you mean that we are not deciding the fate of the world here?

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.LTJhIbPHkk5%2fDIbPFpEMpQ&w=205&h=164&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&o=4&pid=1.1

http://i.snag.gy/bKKN0.jpg

[Chris]

I think we've all come to accept that we aren't going to change anyone's mind here. Particularly on the very divisive issues.

I think we all just want to illustrate how our opponents are wrong.

We're all guilty of personal attacks.


I've changed my mind dramatically over the years. It won't likely happen in a thread, but over time, it happens. There are people here I've known for many many years and some of them have changed. Others are automatons, web bots.

[domer76]

I would really like to understand what motivates Trueblue and Domer to abuse straight people on forums and demand and rant and try to shove everything gay down their throats. I would truly like for them to explain to me what they expect to gain by it on forums.

All trueblue and domer accomplish by their abusive attacks on straight people is create more disdain for those they say they are trying to promote. Theres a way to get results and theres a way to create more animosity for exactly what you say you are trying to help.

Being utterly unreasonable and threatening people with statements like domer that the govt is going to punish people who discriminate. Screw that have laws stopped racial discrimination

Laws make people "HATE" even more if they are so inclined. This utopia that you nag and aggravate people with on this forum gets much harder to achieve every time you open your mouths and make demands and threaten people. THATS exactly what you do whether you realize it or not.

You make matters worse for gays not better. Its ironic that even the "REAL" gay people on this forum find you obnoxious and overbearing and fully realize you MAKE THINGS WORSE FOR THEM not better.

So carry on with your offensive bullshit and keep making matters worse

What in the name of Sweet Baby Jesus H. Christ are you talking about?

My point is and always has been simple. There are laws on the books that prohibit discrimination. Either follow them or face the consequences. In the past, gays have not been included, but the law is finally beginning to come around. Don't like it? Tough fucking shit.

I AM a straight person, dolt. But I feel strongly against discriminatory practices and those who invoke a myriad of bogus reasons why discriminatory practices are OK. They're not and that's no bullshit, "statist" or otherwise.

Are we clear on that?

[Ravens Fan]

That is exactly it, Common Sense. Thank you for your clear understanding. There is no "attacking people" whatsoever. If a person feels they are being attacked then they have to go introspectively and examine why they sense such fear. Could it be a guilt complex perhaps?

We all come to this forum to discuss items. I have often called for an atmosphere of civility and no discordance. Some have felt it completely acceptable to belittle the LGBT community and when someone stands up to counter that they then try to turn it around to be an attack on them when it is they whose words have hurt said community. They are free to believe as they wish. Just as domer and I are. Another common tactic being used is the "they're shoving it down our throats" syndrome and the "you're losing the fight and causing straights to hate you" syndrome. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Again, that is their only defense because they know that where there is discrimination and intolerance that cannot be a good thing and when one stands up for that which is right and just, as I often do, they take offense to that.

In sum, that is what is happening here and why they appear to be so displeased with my responses. They know I am correct in what I say and the truth is something they simply cannot align to or feel congruent with.

Lol

[Common Sense]

I've changed my mind dramatically over the years. It won't likely happen in a thread, but over time, it happens. There are people here I've known for many many years and some of them have changed. Others are automatons, web bots.

Me too. I've gone from being very conservative as a young man to being fairly liberal now in my 40's. Some ideas here have changed my mind on some issues or rather have added depth and complexity to my opinions. But no specific post or poster has changed my mind on anything specifically.

[domer76]

I understand that since you approach government as something that should change society even through punishment that you see things that way. I understand that's likely where trueblue is coming from, and many other liberal progressives.

It appears that unregulated discriminatory practices are just fine with you. Not me.

[Common]

I don't see them attacking straight people or trying to shove anything down anyone's throats. I see them countering those who don't want gays to have some of the same rights straight people have.

This is similar to the argument that Obama creates racists. TB and Domer aren't turning people against this cause.

Sure sometimes tactics can be a bit much, but we all have the choice to read these threads or to not read them. People choose to engage then complain that's it's being shoved down their throats. It seems to me that the shoving is a choice.

Well common sense I like you and I dont want to sound sarcastic here but you only notice what you want too.

They most certainly badger and harrangue straights on this forum just by the myriad of provoking threads and posts. Its completely counter productive. Ill say what others might not say, it promotes greater disdain for gays and them. People do not accept kindly to being provoked prodded and commandeered at the will of someone else. They revolt to that in very negative ways, whether they state it or not.

[Chris]

I think we've all come to accept that we aren't going to change anyone's mind here. Particularly on the very divisive issues.

I think we all just want to illustrate how our opponents are wrong.

We're all guilty of personal attacks.


Yes, we are. Some of it's snark. It's only when it distracts from or becomes the discussion that it matters.

[Safety]

Well common sense I like you and I dont want to sound sarcastic here but you only notice what you want too.

They most certainly badger and harrangue straights on this forum just by the myriad of provoking threads and posts. Its completely counter productive. Ill say what others might not say, it promotes greater disdain for gays and them. People do not accept kindly to being provoked prodded and commandeered at the will of someone else. They revolt to that in very negative ways, whether they state it or not.

That's true, sometimes to the point of snapping and shooting up a church, but that speaks more to the state of mind of the individual responsible, right?

[Chris]

Well common sense I like you and I dont want to sound sarcastic here but you only notice what you want too.

They most certainly badger and harrangue straights on this forum just by the myriad of provoking threads and posts. Its completely counter productive. Ill say what others might not say, it promotes greater disdain for gays and them. People do not accept kindly to being provoked prodded and commandeered at the will of someone else. They revolt to that in very negative ways, whether they state it or not.



Some do, some don't, sometimes.

What I see is people angry the issue is raised. Sometimes too often.

[Mister D]

It appears that unregulated discriminatory practices are just fine with you. Not me.

This is a good example of what Common is talking about.

[Chris]

It appears that unregulated discriminatory practices are just fine with you. Not me.

Not by government, no, government needs to get back to regulating itself as it was founded to do. Privately, no one else's beeswax.

[Common Sense]

Well common sense I like you and I dont want to sound sarcastic here but you only notice what you want too.

They most certainly badger and harrangue straights on this forum just by the myriad of provoking threads and posts. Its completely counter productive. Ill say what others might not say, it promotes greater disdain for gays and them. People do not accept kindly to being provoked prodded and commandeered at the will of someone else. They revolt to that in very negative ways, whether they state it or not.

I think it's possible we both see what we want to.

I certainly don't think posting a thread is provoking anyone. Care to show an example?

Like I said, we are all able to decide what threads we post in.

Some people choose to react to things they disagree with. But it's a choice.

[magicmike]

Well common sense I like you and I dont want to sound sarcastic here but you only notice what you want too.

They most certainly badger and harrangue straights on this forum just by the myriad of provoking threads and posts. Its completely counter productive. Ill say what others might not say, it promotes greater disdain for gays and them. People do not accept kindly to being provoked prodded and commandeered at the will of someone else. They revolt to that in very negative ways, whether they state it or not.

Sounds like evangelical Christians and Mormons. Always shoving their abnormal lifestyle down your throat.

[Chris]

What in the name of Sweet Baby Jesus H. Christ are you talking about?

My point is and always has been simple. There are laws on the books that prohibit discrimination. Either follow them or face the consequences. In the past, gays have not been included, but the law is finally beginning to come around. Don't like it? Tough fucking shit.

I AM a straight person, dolt. But I feel strongly against discriminatory practices and those who invoke a myriad of bogus reasons why discriminatory practices are OK. They're not and that's no bullshit, "statist" or otherwise.

Are we clear on that?


This is the problem, the name calling, the vulgarity, the threatening tone.

Do I dare now disagree with you? You seem to think because it's law it's right and moral. This sort of legal positivism is faulty though, after all, slavery was once legal, but not right or moral.

[Ravens Fan]

Sounds like evangelical Christians and Mormons. Always shoving their abnormal lifestyle down your throat.

Actually, it would be more like non Christians always shoving what they think the evangelical Christians and Mormons should be focused on, down everybody's throats.

[Common Sense]

This is the problem, the name calling, the vulgarity, the threatening tone.

Do I dare now disagree with you? You seem to think because it's law it's right and moral. This sort of legal positivism is faulty though, after all, slavery was once legal, but not right or moral.

That slavery comparison is silly every time I see it.

Laws protecting gays and anyone else from discrimination are not comparable to slavery laws...plus they are moral and right.

[Chris]

Sounds like evangelical Christians and Mormons. Always shoving their abnormal lifestyle down your throat.

I don't see that either, frankly.

Perhaps back in the 90s, which is what many a social justice champion adopted--but that's so 90s.


And this metaphor of shoving down one's through is turning into a worn out cliche. How does one do that with words?

[Common]

That's true, sometimes to the point of snapping and shooting up a church, but that speaks more to the state of mind of the individual responsible, right?

Doesnt matter what it speaks too the results are the same. It also makes people much more steadfast in their opposition. Not only does it strengthen their beliefs about gays but it makes it personal. When people feel they are under seige they react very negatively.

By their harrassing people about EVERYTHING gay, they make people that are not only against gay marriage but make them against THEM and that makes it that much harder for gays not better.

The govt can force gay marriage but they cant force people to change their mind. Neither can true blue or domer they only make people more adamant and convinced they are right.

[Chris]

That slavery comparison is silly every time I see it.

Laws protecting gays and anyone else from discrimination are not comparable to slavery laws...plus they are moral and right.

The point wasn't comparing to slavery, but a simple example of how posited law is simply not necessarily right and moral.

[Common]

That slavery comparison is silly every time I see it.

Laws protecting gays and anyone else from discrimination are not comparable to slavery laws...plus they are moral and right.

I didnt refer to SLAVERY laws, I referred to civil rights laws in the 60s till now. It changed nothing with discrimination.

[Common]

What eludes all the non gay, gay cheerleaders on this forum is that your relentlessly abusing people over a issue THAT YOU HAVE WON and still you wont leave people alone.

You make discrimination worse not better. You cant even have a conversation about it with out rubbing in someones face and abusing them with it.

[magicmike]

This is the problem, the name calling, the vulgarity, the threatening tone.

Do I dare now disagree with you? You seem to think because it's law it's right and moral. This sort of legal positivism is faulty though, after all, slavery was once legal, but not right or moral.

For some reason I see name calling, etc, as distasteful as snark and elitist pseudo-intellectualism. Perhaps we should put an end to both?

[Chris]

For some reason I see name calling, etc, as distasteful as snark and elitist pseudo-intellectualism. Perhaps we should put an end to both?

Afraid if we put that to a democratic vote there'd be no agreement where to draw the line.


What is "elitist pseudo-intellectualism"? Wouldn't one have to be a elitist pseudo-intellectual to detect it? LOL

[magicmike]

What eludes all the non gay, gay cheerleaders on this forum is that your relentlessly abusing people over a issue THAT YOU HAVE WON and still you wont leave people alone.

You make discrimination worse not better. You cant even have a conversation about it with out rubbing in someones face and abusing them with it.

Not yet. And not even when the SCOTUS grants marriage equality. The "fight" won't be over until bigotry and homophobia end.

[magicmike]

Actually, it would be more like non Christians always shoving what they think the evangelical Christians and Mormons should be focused on, down everybody's throats.

FYI - I'm a Christian.

[Chris]

Not yet. And not even when the SCOTUS grants marriage equality. The "fight" won't be over until bigotry and homophobia end.

So you're another who sees the role of government to be to change society. Used to be the role of society to regulate government. Bring out the band to play "The World Turned Upside Down" again, Cornwallis!

[magicmike]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pseudo-intellectual snark.

[Chris]

...


what is "elitist pseudo-intellectualism"? Wouldn't one have to be a elitist pseudo-intellectual to detect it? Lol


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
pseudo-intellectual snark.


lol

[Common Sense]

What eludes all the non gay, gay cheerleaders on this forum is that your relentlessly abusing people over a issue THAT YOU HAVE WON and still you wont leave people alone.

You make discrimination worse not better. You cant even have a conversation about it with out rubbing in someones face and abusing them with it.

Cheering for winning will not and has not made discrimination worse. The only people who are truly offended by it were already offended by it and will continue to be offended by it.

It's not as if some people were pro gay marriage but then the gays were just so damn happy about it that they were like "Oh fuck, now I hate those gays".

As far as just having a conversation about it, look at how just a conversation is received around here. Typically people will just make disparaging remarks and the thread will be moved to a "gay section".

[magicmike]

So you're another who sees the role of government to be to change society. Used to be the role of society to regulate government. Bring out the band to play "The World Turned Upside Down" again, Cornwallis!

Perhaps you should look up the purpose of the SCOTUS.

[Ravens Fan]

FYI - I'm a Christian.

That has no bearing on the point I was making. Re-read what I wrote.

[Chris]

Perhaps you should look up the purpose of the SCOTUS.

To determine if legislation is Constitutional. To regulate government. Not to make decision on social issues.

[domer76]

Well common sense I like you and I dont want to sound sarcastic here but you only notice what you want too.

They most certainly badger and harrangue straights on this forum just by the myriad of provoking threads and posts. Its completely counter productive. Ill say what others might not say, it promotes greater disdain for gays and them. People do not accept kindly to being provoked prodded and commandeered at the will of someone else. They revolt to that in very negative ways, whether they state it or not.

If I provoke someone into disobeying anti-discrimination laws it says that I either have power I didn't realize or that someone is incredibly weak-willed and childlike.

I point out the law and the reason behind it. It's your choice to follow it or not. I can't help you if you feel things are being "shoved down your throat". Call or write your congressman or the SCOTUS if you feel the need.

[domer76]

This is a good example of what Common is talking about.

Another non-responsive response.

[Peter1469]

Gardening, reading, relaxing. Working on some projects and writing. Also I'd be lying by omission if I didn't admit to needing time away from trolls like TrueBlue and Mac-7.


Warning: Don't call members out. See Rule #2.

[domer76]

Not by government, no, government needs to get back to regulating itself as it was founded to do. Privately, no one else's beeswax.

Privately, in housing, in employment, in marriage, in just about every aspect of life, it's everybody's business.

[domer76]

This is the problem, the name calling, the vulgarity, the threatening tone.

Do I dare now disagree with you? You seem to think because it's law it's right and moral. This sort of legal positivism is faulty though, after all, slavery was once legal, but not right or moral.

You can't possibly be comparing equal treatment under the law to slavery can you?

And you really haven't experienced vulgarity, either.

[Chris]

Privately, in housing, in employment, in marriage, in just about every aspect of life, it's everybody's business.

No, privately, it is not. Only for government for government is supposed to represent rule of law. To do otherwise leads to dictatorship.

[Chris]

You can't possibly be comparing equal treatment under the law to slavery can you?

And you really haven't experienced vulgarity, either.


No, domer, I am, in contradistinction to what you argued, pointing out, with obvious example, that just because something is law, it is not necessarily right or moral.

[domer76]

Doesnt matter what it speaks too the results are the same. It also makes people much more steadfast in their opposition. Not only does it strengthen their beliefs about gays but it makes it personal. When people feel they are under seige they react very negatively.

By their harrassing people about EVERYTHING gay, they make people that are not only against gay marriage but make them against THEM and that makes it that much harder for gays not better.

The govt can force gay marriage but they cant force people to change their mind. Neither can true blue or domer they only make people more adamant and convinced they are right.

Be steadfast in your beliefs then. I really don't give a shit. Just be ready to accept the consequences.

That's all I've been advocating all along anyway. Laws aren't going to change you from being a bigot to a person of tolerance. They will merely punish your discriminatory behavior. As it should be punished.

[Chris]

Be steadfast in your beliefs then. I really don't give a shit. Just be ready to accept the consequences.

That's all I've been advocating all along anyway. Laws aren't going to change you from being a bigot to a person of tolerance. They will merely punish your discriminatory behavior. As it should be punished.


Why should anyone be punished, simply because it's legislated law? Especially when, as you admit, it won't change anyone. What, does it make some people feel better?

[domer76]

To determine if legislation is Constitutional. To regulate government. Not to make decision on social issues.

Social issues and Constitutional ones can be intertwined.

[domer76]

No, privately, it is not. Only for government for government is supposed to represent rule of law. To do otherwise leads to dictatorship.

Private, meaning your household, fine. Private, meaning your business, nope.

[domer76]

No, domer, I am, in contradistinction to what you argued, pointing out, with obvious example, that just because something is law, it is not necessarily right or moral.

I don't disagree with that. In the case of anti-gay discrimination laws, it is both legal and moral.

[Mister D]

:facepalm:

[Chris]

I don't disagree with that. In the case of anti-gay discrimination laws, it is both legal and moral.

OK, so now we've established the law itself doesn't justify it as right or moral. That leaves justification to you.

[domer76]

Why should anyone be punished, simply because it's legislated law? Especially when, as you admit, it won't change anyone. What, does it make some people feel better?

Chris, do you really believe it's right and moral to deny a person housing, employment, marital rights and any other number of rights and privileges based solely on the color of their skin? Of their gender? Of their religion? Of their national origin? Because if you do, you're not only in a tiny minority, you're against federal laws that have been on the books for 50 years. Now, this country is about to add gays to that list. As they should.

[domer76]

OK, so now we've established the law itself doesn't justify it as right or moral. That leaves justification to you.

Hardly. The laws are on the books, Chris. If you don't like them, you're pissing in the wrong direction with me. Anti-discrimination laws are right and moral. Exercise your right to civil disobedience if you'd like. That justification is up to you.

[Chris]

No, domer, I am, in contradistinction to what you argued, pointing out, with obvious example, that just because something is law, it is not necessarily right or moral.


I don't disagree with that. In the case of anti-gay discrimination laws, it is both legal and moral.


OK, so now we've established the law itself doesn't justify it as right or moral. That leaves justification to you.


Hardly. The laws are on the books, Chris. If you don't like them, you're pissing in the wrong direction with me. Anti-discrimination laws are right and moral. Exercise your right to civil disobedience if you'd like. That justification is up to you.



So now you reverse yourself yet again. Laws themselves are not justification of what's right and moral. You agreed. Now you repeat they are. I think you cannot justify the law.

[Chris]

Chris, do you really believe it's right and moral to deny a person housing, employment, marital rights and any other number of rights and privileges based solely on the color of their skin? Of their gender? Of their religion? Of their national origin? Because if you do, you're not only in a tiny minority, you're against federal laws that have been on the books for 50 years. Now, this country is about to add gays to that list. As they should.


I think it is morally wrong but also think it morally wrong to legally force that moral choice on others.

[magicmike]

That has no bearing on the point I was making. Re-read what I wrote.

No need to. You were snarkily implying that I was "non-christian".

[magicmike]

To determine if legislation is Constitutional. To regulate government. Not to make decision on social issues.

Close.

When the SCOTUS determines next week that legislation denying equal rights isnt constitutional will you continue to stomp your feet and realize that it's never been a social issue (as you republitarians claim) but rather an issue of equality?

[domer76]

So now you reverse yourself yet again. Laws themselves are not justification of what's right and moral. You agreed. Now you repeat they are. I think you cannot justify the law.

Jesus, Chris, you're being as dense as possible on this topic. Are you hitting the sauce early?

Laws in and of themselves aren't necessarily right or just. THESE LAWS, the anti-discrimination laws, are BOTH right and just. I just don't know how to make that clearer.

[domer76]

I think it is morally wrong but also think it morally wrong to legally force that moral choice on others.

What? The choice to refuse service to a black person simply because they're black? Perhaps you should move to a different country.

[Chris]

What? The choice to refuse service to a black person simply because they're black? Perhaps you should move to a different country.

And your justification for government deciding that?

[Common Sense]

And your justification for government deciding that?

Probably for the same reason the government has decided that rape and murder are wrong....because they are wrong.

[Chris]

Probably for the same reason the government has decided that rape and murder are wrong....because they are wrong.

They do harm, physical harm. That's immoral.

But my refusing to serve you lunch because of skin color, sexual orientation, hair length, bare back, etc, does you no harm. You just don't like it. I don't like it. So we choose not to act that way. But I see no justification for government imposing that on anyone.

[Common Sense]

They do harm, physical harm. That's immoral.

But my refusing to serve you lunch because of skin color, sexual orientation, hair length, bare back, etc, does you no harm. You just don't like it. I don't like it. So we choose not to act that way. But I see no justification for government imposing that on anyone.

You may not see protecting people from that sort of discrimination based solely on something they have no power over as something that is unjustified. However most of us do see it as justified.

Most of the modern civilized world does. What is immoral are the actions of those discriminating.

[magicmike]

They do harm, physical harm. That's immoral.

But my refusing to serve you lunch because of skin color, sexual orientation, hair length, bare back, etc, does you no harm. You just don't like it. I don't like it. So we choose not to act that way. But I see no justification for government imposing that on anyone.

So now you're comparing equality issues with hair length, etc?

Chris, c. 1864:

"The government shouldn't free the slaves, its a social issue!"

Chris, c. 1920:

"The government shouldn't give women the right to vote, its a social issue!"

Chris, c. 1947:

"The government shouldn't segregate the military, its a social issue!"

Chris, c. 1960:

"The government shouldn't give blacks civil rights, its a social issue!"

Chris, c. 2011:

"The government shouldn't let gays in the military, its a social issues!"

Chris, c. 2015:

"The government shouldn't grant equality to gays, its a social issue!"

Chris, today:

"Only states can deal with social issues!"


Aren't states governments too? Isn't the SCOTUS tasked by the Constitution to interpret the laws of the government, including states?

Read:

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-does-the-u-s-supreme-court-decide-whether-to-hear-a-case.html

[domer76]

And your justification for government deciding that?

Are you kidding me, Chris? Get off whatever is muddling your brain!

The same reason, perhaps, that the government decided it was a bad thing to own other people. Probably to enforce equal treatment that people like you would probably not adhere to given your own devices.

The country was founded on principles of equality, Chris. You seem to have a disdain for the country to enact laws to ensure that equality.

[domer76]

They do harm, physical harm. That's immoral.

But my refusing to serve you lunch because of skin color, sexual orientation, hair length, bare back, etc, does you no harm. You just don't like it. I don't like it. So we choose not to act that way. But I see no justification for government imposing that on anyone.

Your credibility is shot on this topic, Chris. Pack up, go home. Tomorrow is another day and another topic

[Chris]

You may not see protecting people from that sort of discrimination based solely on something they have no power over as something that is unjustified. However most of us do see it as justified.

Most of the modern civilized world does. What is immoral are the actions of those discriminating.



Protecting from what? You don't say. Rape, murder, there's obvious harm, so obvious need for protection. But what harm is done not serving someone, they are free to go elsewhere. And who protects my right of free association?


Let's be clear here. I find such discrimination immoral. That's not the question or point I'm at odds with domer over. That issue is over whether government ought to have the power to make such choices for us in social issues.

[Chris]

So now you're comparing equality issues with hair length, etc?

Chris, c. 1864:

"The government shouldn't free the slaves, its a social issue!"

Chris, c. 1920:

"The government shouldn't give women the right to vote, its a social issue!"

Chris, c. 1947:

"The government shouldn't segregate the military, its a social issue!"

Chris, c. 1960:

"The government shouldn't give blacks civil rights, its a social issue!"

Chris, c. 2011:

"The government shouldn't let gays in the military, its a social issues!"

Chris, c. 2015:

"The government shouldn't grant equality to gays, its a social issue!"

Chris, today:

"Only states can deal with social issues!"


Aren't states governments too? Isn't the SCOTUS tasked by the Constitution to interpret the laws of the government, including states?

Read:

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-does-the-u-s-supreme-court-decide-whether-to-hear-a-case.html



I won't even respond to that malarkey. I said none of that. For example, I did not say states should decide, in fact said states, the state, should not decide. Society should.

I really wonder why you have to make things up to put in my mouth to argue with. It's intellectually dishonest.

[Chris]

Are you kidding me, Chris? Get off whatever is muddling your brain!

The same reason, perhaps, that the government decided it was a bad thing to own other people. Probably to enforce equal treatment that people like you would probably not adhere to given your own devices.

The country was founded on principles of equality, Chris. You seem to have a disdain for the country to enact laws to ensure that equality.



OK, ignoring your ad hom, the country was not founded on people treating people equally but on government being required to treat people equally. It's called rule of law. All men are created equal before the law, a princple going back through Chritianity and back into Judaism.

[Common Sense]

Protecting from what? You don't say. Rape, murder, there's obvious harm, so obvious need for protection. But what harm is done not serving someone, they are free to go elsewhere. And who protects my right of free association?


Let's be clear here. I find such discrimination immoral. That's not the question or point I'm at odds with domer over. That issue is over whether government ought to have the power to make such choices for us in social issues.

If you can't see the harm in people being discriminated against due to the color of their skin and what sort of social impact that can have...well then I don't know what to tell you.

The government can and often does make laws that reflect morality. Laws like these are often supported by the majority as anti discrimination laws are today.

If people don't want to serve blacks I say fuck em...they're free to not open businesses.

[Chris]

Your credibility is shot on this topic, Chris. Pack up, go home. Tomorrow is another day and another topic

Ignoring more ad hom...hmm, you have nothing else. I'll wait for you to justify the government (from federal down to state, magicmike) forcing moral decisions on anyone.

[Ravens Fan]

Well common sense I like you and I dont want to sound sarcastic here but you only notice what you want too.

They most certainly badger and harrangue straights on this forum just by the myriad of provoking threads and posts. Its completely counter productive. Ill say what others might not say, it promotes greater disdain for gays and them. People do not accept kindly to being provoked prodded and commandeered at the will of someone else. They revolt to that in very negative ways, whether they state it or not.


Sounds like evangelical Christians and Mormons. Always shoving their abnormal lifestyle down your throat.


Actually, it would be more like non Christians always shoving what they think the evangelical Christians and Mormons should be focused on, down everybody's throats.


No need to. You were snarkily implying that I was "non-christian".

Here, I will help you comprehend what that conversation was:

Common made a point, you made a broad comparison. I corrected your comparison in order to put it into better perspective. No snark, no implications about your religion or lack thereof.

You're welcome.

[Chris]

If you can't see the harm in people being discriminated against due to the color of their skin and what sort of social impact that can have...well then I don't know what to tell you.

The government can and often does make laws that reflect morality. Laws like these are often supported by the majority as anti discrimination laws are today.

If people don't want to serve blacks I say fuck em...they're free to not open businesses.




If you can't see the harm in people being discriminated against due to the color of their skin and what sort of social impact that can have...well then I don't know what to tell you.

IOW, you can't explain it.


The government can and often does make laws that reflect morality. Laws like these are often supported by the majority as anti discrimination laws are today.

The question here is not whether the government does such things, the question is ought it.


If people don't want to serve blacks I say fuck em...they're free to not open businesses.

I can understand not patronizing such a business but that's not the question here, the question is what right have you to try to use the government to impose your opinion on others?

[magicmike]

I won't even respond to that malarkey. I said none of that. For example, I did not say states should decide, in fact said states, the state, should not decide. Society should.

I really wonder why you have to make things up to put in my mouth to argue with. It's intellectually dishonest.

Code word!

Quit foot stomping.

[magicmike]

OK, ignoring your ad hom, the country was not founded on people treating people equally but on government being required to treat people equally. It's called rule of law. All men are created equal before the law, a princple going back through Chritianity and back into Judaism.

Tell that to the pilgrims, Irish, Dutch, and a few million other folks who came here to escape discrimination.

[Common Sense]

IOW, you can't explain it.



The question here is not whether the government does such things, the question is ought it.



I can understand not patronizing such a business but that's not the question here, the question is what right have you to try to use the government to impose your opinion on others?

It's true, the impact of further alienating the races that comprise America by allowing people to put signs in their windows that say things like "No coloreds" is not something I can summarize in a few short sentences for you. But I do know that it would be detrimental.

The government has the right to enact such laws and it has in the Civil Rights act.

Look, I know you are drawn to libertarian ideals...but they frankly are unrealistic. Sometimes laws have to be put into place to protect people.

[Chris]

It's true, the impact of further alienating the races that comprise America by allowing people to put signs in their windows that say things like "No coloreds" is not something I can summarize in a few short sentences for you. But I do know that it would be detrimental.

The government has the right to enact such laws and it has in the Civil Rights act.

Look, I know you are drawn to libertarian ideals...but they frankly are unrealistic. Sometimes laws have to be put into place to protect people.


What has been and continues to be detrimental is institutionalization of discrimination, and reverse discrimination, in government (federal and state) regulation.

The government has no such power.

Oh, wow, the ideals vs realism argument. Got to love it when romanticism about what the government can accomplish is referred to as realism.

No one argued that laws or rules are unnecessary.

[Chris]

Code word!

Quit foot stomping.

Huh? Speak with meaning, please.

[Chris]

Tell that to the pilgrims, Irish, Dutch, and a few million other folks who came here to escape discrimination.

Only to discriminate themselves. Read you some history. Discriminate is what people do, naturally.

[Boris The Animal]

What foot stomping? I was mocking TrueBlue because she accused me of being a fake gay and posting false stats because I cited the approval of gay marriage at 56% and she claimed it was 60%. It was a ridiculous thing to attack me as vociferously as she did over, and now I'm making fun of it.

Personally, I'm glad support for gay marriage is so high, particularly among millennials.
Only because the millennials don't know better. They've been indoctrinated in the I Hate America socialist public schools.

[Cthulhu]

Sounds like evangelical Christians and Mormons. Always shoving their abnormal lifestyle down your throat.
Whut?

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

Not yet. And not even when the SCOTUS grants marriage equality. The "fight" won't be over until bigotry and homophobia end.
This makes about as much sense as a "war on poverty/terror". Or a war on sandwiches.

Even if you guy do find this boogyman, you'll invent another because of collective psychosis

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Tahuyaman]

Some people say the country is coming to be more and more accepting of same sex marriage. If that's true, why has that issue been voted on by the people of various states more than 35 times, but passed only twice?

Activist courts which do not respect the will of the people are the ones approving of gay marriage.

[Cthulhu]

Tell that to the pilgrims, Irish, Dutch, and a few million other folks who came here to escape discrimination.
Due to government discrimination.

Not private.

This isn't neuroscience guys.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

Hardly. The laws are on the books, Chris. If you don't like them, you're pissing in the wrong direction with me. Anti-discrimination laws are right and moral. Exercise your right to civil disobedience if you'd like. That justification is up to you.
Is it right or moral to dislike a KKK member? Refuse him service at a store?

Yes or no.

Thanks in advance.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Cthulhu]

Private, meaning your household, fine. Private, meaning your business, nope.
Are businesses private or public property?

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Green Arrow]

Only because the millennials don't know better. They've been indoctrinated in the I Hate America socialist public schools.

No, they haven't.

Seriously? Support for gay marriage is hating America now?

[TrueBlue]

You may not see protecting people from that sort of discrimination based solely on something they have no power over as something that is unjustified. However most of us do see it as justified.

Most of the modern civilized world does. What is immoral are the actions of those discriminating.
You're Spot On, CS! And people often forget that is why we have the court system. That is why it was established so that when there are disputes and disagreements it is brought to the courts to decide what is right in each situation. Will all parties like their decision(s) no. After decisions are made will people rebel and blame a certain political party? More than likely. But that is the way the courts are set up to intervene otherwise there would be utter chaos with majorities discriminating left and right against minorities and we simply cannot allow that to happen. The courts MUST intervene and make decisions whether we like their decisions or not. If that is not what people like, then just try doing away with the court system altogether and see how far you'll get! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/madhouse/prankster2.gif

[Chris]

Are businesses private or public property?

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.


You will like get the standard play on ambiguity that businesses are open to the public and therefore the same a public offices and parks. The ambiguity of course resting on two distinct meanings of public.

[Chris]

You're Spot On, CS! And people often forget that is why we have the court system. That is why it was established so that when there are disputes and disagreements it is brought to the courts to decide what is right in each situation. Will all parties like their decision(s) no. After decisions are made will people rebel and blame a certain political party? More than likely. But that is the way the courts are set up to intervene otherwise there would be utter chaos with majorities discriminating left and right against minorities and we simply cannot allow that to happen. The courts MUST intervene and make decisions whether we like their decisions or not. If that is not what people like, then just try doing away with the court system altogether and see how far you'll get! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/madhouse/prankster2.gif


So the government exists to settle disputes between political factions? Law pre-exists left and right though, so while that is what it has become, that is not what it was originally.

I'm curious though. A man with green hair comes to my restaurant and I refuse to serve him for something as superficial as my prejudice against green hair. He goes to another restaurant, eats, then calls a lawyer to sue me. Let's see if you can answer what common sense could not, what damages is he suing for? What harm has been done to him?

[Boris The Animal]

No, they haven't.

Seriously? Support for gay marriage is hating America now?It is because ultimately, it will boil down to outright persecution of Christians like myself who don't accept the pop culture definition of marriage.

[domer76]

It is because ultimately, it will boil down to outright persecution of Christians like myself who don't accept the pop culture definition of marriage.

You have more to fear if they start persecuting assholes.

[Boris The Animal]

You have more to fear if they start persecuting $#@!s. How? It is you on the Left that want to eliminate people who hold fast to the only true and proper definition of marriage.

[domer76]

How? It is you on the Left that want to eliminate people who hold fast to the only true and proper definition of marriage.

I've been married for 39 years to the opposite sex. My parents 50 before one died. My spouse's parents 75 years and still going. The last thing I need in this world is a fucking lecture from you about the definition of marriage.

[Captain Obvious]

It is because ultimately, it will boil down to outright persecution of Christians like myself who don't accept the pop culture definition of marriage.

Get married in a Christian church that only recognizes traditional marriage.

Then change your diaper.

[Chris]

I've been married for 39 years to the opposite sex. My parents 50 before one died. My spouse's parents 75 years and still going. The last thing I need in this world is a fucking lecture from you about the definition of marriage.

And yet you seem accepting of changing that definition.

[Boris The Animal]

I've been married for 39 years to the opposite sex. My parents 50 before one died. My spouse's parents 75 years and still going. The last thing I need in this world is a $#@!ing lecture from you about the definition of marriage.Not MY definition, but the only one created and ordained by God. Queer marriage is a phony counterfeit.

[Boris The Animal]

Get married in a Christian church that only recognizes traditional marriage.

Then change your diaper.Society as a whole has accepted immorality.

[Peter1469]

Meanwhile we spend ourselves into economic collapse..., and people are distracted by this.... :cry:

That is likely the entire point.

[Boris The Animal]

Meanwhile we spend ourselves into economic collapse..., and people are distracted by this.... :cry:

That is likely the entire point.
As I said, I could care less if the economy crashes tomorrow. Without a strong MORAL foundation, a nation will fail.

[Peter1469]

As I said, I could care less if the economy crashes tomorrow. Without a strong MORAL foundation, a nation will fail.

Sorry. That is idiotic.

Another reason to eliminate the religious right from federal politics. Keep your crap local.

[Boris The Animal]

Sorry. That is idiotic.

Another reason to eliminate the religious right from federal politics. Keep your crap local. We need another Moral Majority in this country. Without a solid MORAL foundation, this country will die. And no, you cannot, nor will not eliminate the Evangelical MAJORITY in this country!

[Peter1469]

We need another Moral Majority in this country. Without a solid MORAL foundation, this country will die. And no, you cannot, nor will not eliminate the Evangelical MAJORITY in this country!

LOL

It is the spending, stupid.

Police your own morals.

[Boris The Animal]

LOL

It is the spending, stupid.

Police your own morals.No, we won't just sit down and shut up. The outrageous spending and gross immorality are inextricably linked! Without a solid moral base, you cannot be fiscally prudent.

[Boris The Animal]

And whilst we are on the subject. If the Left want to do away with all morality, then we must do away with all criminal and civil laws as well. After all, it's about forcing morality on us.

[Peter1469]

No, we won't just sit down and shut up. The outrageous spending and gross immorality are inextricably linked! Without a solid moral base, you cannot be fiscally prudent.

Ah..., the pro-government response:

sieg heil der fuhrer

America is dead. And you helped cover it with dirt.

[Peter1469]

And whilst we are on the subject. If the Left want to do away with all morality, then we must do away with all criminal and civil laws as well. After all, it's about forcing morality on us.

And your ilk worries about this and does nothing about our debt spending and coming economic collapse.

[Boris The Animal]

And your ilk worries about this and does nothing about our debt spending and coming economic collapse.Then perhaps it's what we deserve for kicking God out of the marketplace of ideas.

[Boris The Animal]

Ah..., the pro-government response:

sieg heil der fuhrer

America is dead. And you helped cover it with dirt.Like I said, perhaps it is what America deserves.

[Peter1469]

Then perhaps it's what we deserve for kicking God out of the marketplace of ideas.

America deserves an economic collapse because of bad economic choices.

[Boris The Animal]

America deserves an economic collapse because of bad economic choices.Bad MORAL choices.

[Peter1469]

Bad MORAL choices.

lol

[The Xl]

Social cons complain about liberalism, but they're just as culpable as the left. They infringe on personal liberties just as much as they do, and always justify their spending in some way, shape or form.

Different perspectives, but ultimately they accomplish the same thing.

[Peter1469]

Social cons complain about liberalism, but they're just as culpable as the left. They infringe on personal liberties just as much as they do, and always justify their spending in some way, shape or form.

Different perspectives, but ultimately they accomplish the same thing.

They are big government proponents, and thus dangerous.

[PolWatch]

I wonder what the fiscal picture of the nation would be if we had not spent so much $$ on trying to enforce a version of morality on others. What if we had not declared a War on Drugs that only benefits the prison system? How about not trying to build a little America in the ME? What if instead of expensive War on Poverty programs, we had sensible welfare, training & education programs? How much would we have saved if the War on Terror didn't include body searching old ladies and listening to citizens phone conversations? Instead of fighting about illegal immigration and talking of build a wall, why not enforce the immigration laws already on the books....including making sure those that employ the illegals are punished?

People say that common sense is cheap but look what the lack of common sense has cost this nation.

[Peter1469]

I wonder what the fiscal picture of the nation would be if we had not spent so much $$ on trying to enforce a version of morality on others. What if we had not declared a War on Drugs that only benefits the prison system? How about not trying to build a little America in the ME? What if instead of expensive War on Poverty programs, we had sensible welfare, training & education programs? How much would we have saved if the War on Terror didn't include body searching old ladies and listening to citizens phone conversations? Instead of fighting about illegal immigration and talking of build a wall, why not enforce the immigration laws already on the books....including making sure those that employ the illegals are punished?

People say that common sense is cheap but look what the lack of common sense has cost this nation.

When annual deficits are near or over $1T, you can't argue that the government is not out of control.

[zelmo1234]

Sorry. That is idiotic.

Another reason to eliminate the religious right from federal politics. Keep your crap local.

While I don't necessarily agree with what Boris is saying in part he is correct.

One of the things that has preceded the fall of nations or empires if you will is the moral decline for the society.

We have witnessed the eroding of morals in the USA since the late 1950's God was removed from the public sector and morals went with him!

And when you do not have a moral Compass you go to war for the wrong reasons, you stop caring for the elderly, you make decisions based on yourself and power, instead of the good of the people.

We are at that point. and along with financial revival in this country will come moral revival. they are not separate.

[zelmo1234]

LOL

It is the spending, stupid.

Police your own morals.

I don't think they are separate issues I think the Moral compass helps you to make better decisions, even on spending.

[zelmo1234]

Ah..., the pro-government response:

sieg heil der fuhrer

America is dead. And you helped cover it with dirt.

I don't think you are thinking about this correctly.

Does a person have a better chance of making it in this country if they are from a traditional home or a broke home.

What is missing in the inner cities that is causing so much dependency on the government and crime, leading to incarceration.

what leads a person to believe that they should use the government to further there personal life, or have more children to raise their benefits. All are part of a moral decline and a cause of the run away spending.

[Peter1469]

While I don't necessarily agree with what Boris is saying in part he is correct.

One of the things that has preceded the fall of nations or empires if you will is the moral decline for the society.

We have witnessed the eroding of morals in the USA since the late 1950's God was removed from the public sector and morals went with him!

And when you do not have a moral Compass you go to war for the wrong reasons, you stop caring for the elderly, you make decisions based on yourself and power, instead of the good of the people.

We are at that point. and along with financial revival in this country will come moral revival. they are not separate.

Moral decline is not the reason for the decline of empires. Poor management and fiscal policy is.

Anyway, if you put the government in charge of morality you are creating a monster.

[Peter1469]

Why do modern Americans refuse the gift of our Founders: federalism?

[TrueBlue]

While I don't necessarily agree with what Boris is saying in part he is correct.

One of the things that has preceded the fall of nations or empires if you will is the moral decline for the society.

We have witnessed the eroding of morals in the USA since the late 1950's God was removed from the public sector and morals went with him!

And when you do not have a moral Compass you go to war for the wrong reasons, you stop caring for the elderly, you make decisions based on yourself and power, instead of the good of the people.

We are at that point. and along with financial revival in this country will come moral revival. they are not separate.

Please quit the scare-mongering already, Zel.

Do you not realize that the LGBT community is just as moral as the Straight community? They are. They too carry on with things like going to church, being responsible for working and paying their taxes, serving their country in the military, taking care of their children responsibly, etc. So it is quite unfair to categorize them as somehow being the culprit of moral decay because they are not.

Many LGBT people are very caring and loving towards the elderly! That's because they have a much more sensitive heart whereas many of their straight counterparts do not seem to care as much. You need to get around the LGBT crowd more often to see what they're all about as I'm sure it will change your negative views and opinions on them into something much more positive! :)

[PolWatch]

Why do modern Americans refuse the gift of our Founders: federalism?

Maybe too many people are afraid of taking responsibility for their lives and the results of their own actions? Both sides seem to be demanding that someone else make decisions for people. Each side (naturally) thinks they should be The Decider in all areas.

[domer76]

And yet you seem accepting of changing that definition.

Yep. It changes nothing for me.

[domer76]

Not MY definition, but the only one created and ordained by God. Queer marriage is a phony counterfeit.

Your god is both impotent and flaccid.

[domer76]

While I don't necessarily agree with what Boris is saying in part he is correct.

One of the things that has preceded the fall of nations or empires if you will is the moral decline for the society.

We have witnessed the eroding of morals in the USA since the late 1950's God was removed from the public sector and morals went with him!

And when you do not have a moral Compass you go to war for the wrong reasons, you stop caring for the elderly, you make decisions based on yourself and power, instead of the good of the people.

We are at that point. and along with financial revival in this country will come moral revival. they are not separate.

Horse + shit

[Peter1469]

Please quit the scare-mongering already, Zel.

Do you not realize that the LGBT community is just as moral as the Straight community? They are. They too carry on with things like going to church, being responsible for working and paying their taxes, serving their country in the military, taking care of their children responsibly, etc. So it is quite unfair to categorize them as somehow being the culprit of moral decay because they are not.

Many LGBT people are very caring and loving towards the elderly! That's because they have a much more sensitive heart whereas many of their straight counterparts do not seem to care as much. You need to get around the LGBT crowd more often to see what they're all about as I'm sure it will change your negative views and opinions on them into something much more positive! :)

A lot of them are! I went to college and law school in New Orleans. I hung out at gay and lesbian bars a lot and never had an issue other than questions that never continued after I said not interested.

The gay scene is diverse though. I would never take kids to Bourbon Street during Gay Pride.

[Boris The Animal]

Please quit the scare-mongering already, Zel.

Do you not realize that the LGBT community is just as moral as the Straight community? They are. They too carry on with things like going to church, being responsible for working and paying their taxes, serving their country in the military, taking care of their children responsibly, etc. So it is quite unfair to categorize them as somehow being the culprit of moral decay because they are not.

Many LGBT people are very caring and loving towards the elderly! That's because they have a much more sensitive heart whereas many of their straight counterparts do not seem to care as much. You need to get around the LGBT crowd more often to see what they're all about as I'm sure it will change your negative views and opinions on them into something much more positive! :)
Umm nope. That is utter fallacy. Gays are more often than not more promiscuous and very hostile towards Christians. And incidentally, the so-called "pastors" of these "churches" are not adhering to the whole counsel of God. But that is only part of the moral decay. The disintegration of the black inner city family, casual attitudes towards sex, violence, and an overall general disrespect towards people in authority are also symptoms of the moral decay in America.

[nathanbforrest45]

Umm nope. That is utter fallacy. Gays are more often than not more promiscuous and very hostile towards Christians. And incidentally, the so-called "pastors" of these "churches" are not adhering to the whole counsel of God. But that is only part of the moral decay. The disintegration of the black inner city family, casual attitudes towards sex, violence, and an overall general disrespect towards people in authority are also symptoms of the moral decay in America.

According to Gay Christian Theology on the Four Gospels have merit. The Epistles were not written by God according to them so there is no need to pay attention to them.