Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=mlmpetert;928431][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I think you are completely misreading Skinsguy's post. I dont think he said anything at all about churches. Hes saying remove the federal govt. from marriage all together. That a marriage, gay, straight, poly or anything else shouldnt be recognized by our government. Because why should it?[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]And i almost completely agree with him and i think skinsguy put it very well. But not the tax thing.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Everyone thinks theres some big benefit to getting married tax wise. There really isnt. There used to be back in the day (pre-70's) when the tax scale for 1 person was twice as steep as it was for 2 married people. But they changed that and made the tax scale much steeper for married people.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/quote]

Thanks Mlmpetert. I honestly don't know exactly how great the tax thing is with marriage - I'll be finding out in the next few months..lol! You pretty much got what I was saying. Allow everyone the right to whatever insurance, estate, and tax (whatever that may be or may not be) rights that married people currently enjoy.

Only extending these "rights" to gay people is still discrimination. So, it's best to do away with state recognized marriages and allow anybody the opportunity to put whoever they want on their health insurance, their estate, their taxes, etc...whatever it is that married people have the benefit for. But, don't force a large amount of Americans, who are both religious and non-religious, to endorse, agree to, or accept in anyway ideology that goes against their core beliefs. Forcing people into accepting gay marriage is wrong. Plain and simple. One can use every word, every sense of hate he/she can think of to get them to change, and it will still be wrong to force a person to agree with a lifestyle that they just do not believe is right.

As far as the divorce courts, you're probably right about that. My thought process was since the state doesn't recognize the marriage, then there is no state issued marriage license, so there would be no need for state recognized divorces. I suppose the couple could still draw up their own contract, just like a business agreement, which could be disputed in a court of law.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=NC_Skins;928887]I suggest you read JR's post on the prior page about marriage, religion, and government.[/quote]

I did. And as JR pointed out, with priests and ministers being appointed as officers of the state, then that connects government to religion, which is wrong. You, of all people, should be fighting to reverse this, not coax on even more government involvement.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=skinsguy;928893]Thanks Mlmpetert. I honestly don't know exactly how great the tax thing is with marriage - I'll be finding out in the next few months..lol! You pretty much got what I was saying. Allow everyone the right to whatever insurance, estate, and tax (whatever that may be or may not be) rights that married people currently enjoy.

Only extending these "rights" to gay people is still discrimination. So, it's best to do away with state recognized marriages and allow anybody the opportunity to put whoever they want on their health insurance, their estate, their taxes, etc...whatever it is that married people have the benefit for. But, don't force a large amount of Americans, who are both religious and non-religious, to endorse, agree to, or accept in anyway ideology that goes against their core beliefs. Forcing people into accepting gay marriage is wrong. Plain and simple. One can use every word, every sense of hate he/she can think of to get them to change, and it will still be wrong to force a person to agree with a lifestyle that they just do not believe is right.

As far as the divorce courts, you're probably right about that. My thought process was since the state doesn't recognize the marriage, then there is no state issued marriage license, so there would be no need for state recognized divorces. I suppose the couple could still draw up their own contract, just like a business agreement, which could be disputed in a court of law.[/quote]

I think you're taking it way too far. If I am understanding you, you wish to destroy/obliterate the right of two people to enter into a government sanctioned contract that permits the pooling of resources, promise of mutual lifetime support and the resultant sanctioning of that contract by the State. As with corporations and the laws relating their creation, existence and dissolution, the laws relating to the creation, operation and dissolution of the marriage "contract" are an essential part of our civil society and have evolved over the course of time [I]distinct from[/I] the sacramental rite of marriage. To say that this [I]form[/I] of contract can no longer exist is far too simplistic. To remove this form of contract creates a legal void contrary to the evolution of our legal system and, further, represents a radical change to our fundamental legal philosophy [In a far, far too simplistic nutshell, Marxism espoused the concept that such contracts were bourgeous creations to be disposed of so that any artificial "familial bonds" would go the way of capitalism].

There is great societal value in allowing two individuals the ability to provide mutual support such that they turn to each other, rather than the govt., for their primary support [I]and[/I] for civil society to say what legal rights, liabilities and benefits should govern such contracts. Rules governing the formation, operation and dissolution of such contracts exist b/c, generally and from a societal point of view, the underlying nature of the contract creates a benefit for all members of the society not just the parties entering into the contract.

My point has always been simply that the traditional contract of marriage has, within our civil justice system, diverged from the sacramental rite of marriage and different concepts and principles now govern each. As such, the form of the contract should remain but it should be clearly delinated from the religious sacrament which developed along with it. Such contracts would still require a State sanction (just like the fomation of a corporation) and be appropriately witnessed - just not by a priest/minister.

Also, you say "Only extending these 'rights' to gay people is still discrimination." Sorry, we must mean different things when we say "discrimination". Extending the right to enter into the civil marriage contract and providing benefits based on the contract is only "discriminatory" when some are allowed to do so and others are not. Further, it is only [I]illegal[/I] discrimination when the denial is based on race, religion, gender or some other immutable characteristic recognized at law as a "protected class". Thus, it is perfectly constitutional for the law to prohibit polygamous marriage contracts [I]as long as [B]no one [/B]is allowed to enter into them[/I]. The fact that people who enter into a particular type of contract receive particular benefits, however, is not a form of discrimination against those don't enter into the particualr contract and don't receive the benefits.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=skinsguy;928897]I did. And as JR pointed out, [B]with priests and ministers being appointed as officers of the state, then that connects government to religion, which is wrong.[/B] You, of all people, should be fighting to reverse this, not coax on even more government involvement.[/quote]

That was a single, significant point but not the thrust of my argument. My point, as I so cleverly summed up, is that it is time to separate the "right" to marry from the "rite" to marry. Neither need be destroyed - they just each need to be true to their own underlying structures: contracts = govt./laws; sacraments = churches/rites.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=Mattyk;928426]I feel like in 10-15 years we'll look back and say wow, I can't believe gay marriage was actually a big deal.[/quote]

On a related point, I recently watched the movie Philadelphia for the first time (I generally don't watch "legal" movies often simply b/c I am constantly yelling "You can't do that" and "no, No, NOOO!!! That's so blatantly wrong!" at the screen).

While the movie may exagerate it to make a point, it is amazing to see the transformation, in just the last 20 years, of how gays are perceived .

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;929189]On a related point, I recently watched the movie Philadelphia for the first time (I generally don't watch "legal" movies often simply b/c I am constantly yelling "You can't do that" and "no, No, NOOO!!! That's so blatantly wrong!" at the screen).

While the movie may exagerate it to make a point, it is amazing to see the transformation, in just the last 20 years, of how gays are perceived .[/quote]

Good point. Seeing that movie now it's hard to believe people were so ignorant just a short time ago.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=Mattyk;929196]Good point. Seeing that movie now it's hard to believe people were so ignorant just a short time ago.[/quote]

Well if you think about it, the movie was made in 1993 - so ~20 years ago.

~ 20 years before 1993, I would suggest that you would be hard pressed to find a oscar nominated movie with a black man in one of the lead roles.

The times they are a changin'.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;929200]Well if you think about it, the movie was made in 1993 - so ~20 years ago.

~ 20 years before 1993, I would suggest that you would be hard pressed to find a oscar nominated movie with a black man in one of the lead roles.

The times they are a changin'.[/quote]

In the heat of the Night, 1967,Sidney Poitier


[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Heat_of_the_Night_(film[/URL])

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;929188]That was a single, significant point but not the thrust of my argument. My point, as I so cleverly summed up, is that it is time to separate the "right" to marry from the "rite" to marry. Neither need be destroyed - they just each need to be true to their own underlying structures: contracts = govt./laws; sacraments = churches/rites.[/quote]

Agreed and understood. As far as the governmental aspects, anyone should be free to enter a contract with whoever they choose. But, the contract does not have to be a marriage contract. It can simply be a contract, like you said, depending upon its underlying structure: i.e., [I]I want to put my friend on my health insurance plan, who is down on his luck and can't afford his own. So, we enter into a contract of health insurance.[/I] No prerequisites required, it's completely up to me to decide.

In this example, it solves, or at least greatly helps, a lot of issues for everyone. First of all, gays could put their partners on their health insurance, straight singles could put their friends on their health insurance policy (which would help a lot of young college kids who a lot of times do not have health insurance policies of their own,) and the need for the government to step in and either subsidize health insurance or create a national health insurance policy would be greatly reduced. Also, those who are against gay marriage would not have to feel that they have to honor something that is against their beliefs, so everybody wins. I'm sure it's not that easy, but then again, maybe it is?

The big problem is, this argument has snow balled into something completely different from where it started out as. In the beginning, it was about gays being able to have the same marriage benefits as straight people. Then, it snow balled into gay marriage should be legally recognized by all - the heck with your personal values and beliefs. So, it turns into you're either going against your Christian or Muslim beliefs, or either just your beliefs in general, if you support gay marriage, and your called a bigot and a hater if you stand up for your beliefs. And all the while, no matter which way the government sides, there would still be discrimination of the singles out there who want access to the same rights.

That is why, the "rites" should be completely separated from the government completely. The "rights" should be rights held by [U]all[/U] people, regardless of prerequisite. If I vote for the ban on same-sex marriage, I'm a bigot according to NC_Skins. However, if I go against my beliefs and I vote against it, then I'm forced into legally recognizing something as valid, and no matter what anybody says, your vote is an endorsement. Either way I vote, it's still discriminating against a group of people (singles for instance). In my eyes, as long as I feel God is endorsing my marriage, I could care less what the government thinks. Keep in mind, if we truly live in a free world, then[U] we own the government, not the other way around[/U]. Get marriage out of the hands of the government, and put it back into the hands of the people!

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[url=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2012/08/14/abc-cbs-nbc-ignore-chick-fil-vandalism-incidents]ABC, CBS, NBC Ignore Chick-fil-A Vandalism Incidents | NewsBusters.org[/url]

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

Hey you religious people quit feeding those poor kids or we will fine you up to $600 per day.

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/14/philadelphia-woman-faces-600-day-fine-for-feeding-needy-neighborhood-kids/?test=latestnews#ixzz23c2S9YaN]Philadelphia woman faces $600-a-day fine for feeding needy neighborhood kids | Fox News[/url]

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=mlmpetert;930905][url=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2012/08/14/abc-cbs-nbc-ignore-chick-fil-vandalism-incidents]ABC, CBS, NBC Ignore Chick-fil-A Vandalism Incidents | NewsBusters.org[/url][/quote]

[B][SIZE="4"]
Maryland[/SIZE][/B]

ABC
[url=http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/state/frederick-chick-fil-a-restaurant-vandalized]Frederick Chick-fil-A restaurant vandalized[/url]

CBS
[url=http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/08/12/frederick-chick-fil-a-restaurant-vandalized/]Frederick Chick-Fil-A Restaurant Vandalized « CBS Baltimore[/url]

NBC
[url=http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Frederick-Chick-fil-A-Reopens-After-Vandalism-165980476.html]Frederick Chick-fil-A Reopens After Vandalism | NBC4 Washington[/url]


[SIZE="4"][B]California[/B][/SIZE]

NBC
[url=http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Chick-fil-A-Protest-Kiss-Demonstration-Torrance-Vandalism-164878736.html]"Tastes Like Hate" Painted on Torrance Chick-fil-A, More Protests Planned | NBC Southern California[/url]


CBS
[url=http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/08/03/tastes-like-hate-torrance-chick-fil-a-vandalized-ahead-of-same-sex-kiss-day/]‘Tastes Like Hate’: Torrance Chick-Fil-A Vandalized Ahead Of ‘Same Sex Kiss Day’ « CBS Los Angeles[/url]


ABC
[url=http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/calif-man-arrested-message-chick-fil-16971971]Calif Man Arrested for Message on Chick-Fil-A - ABC News[/url]

[url=http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8768739]Torrance Chick-fil-A graffiti: man arrested | abc7.com[/url]


[SIZE="4"][B]Missouri[/B][/SIZE]

ABC
Local site was shitty...couldn't find much of anything on anything..lol

NBC
[url=http://www.ksdk.com/money/article/331329/5/Dont-Hate-spraypainted-on-Des-Peres-Chick-fil-A]Des Peres Chick-fil-A vandalized | ksdk.com[/url]

CBS
[url=http://www.kmov.com/home/Vandal-spray-paints-anti-hate-message-on-Des-Peres-Chick-Fil-A-165015736.html]Vandal spray paints anti-hate message on Des Peres Chick-Fil-A | KMOV.com St. Louis[/url]



:laughing2


Nice try Mr. Right Wing Propaganda.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

Can you guys call JR in here? At least he made it challenging. :cheeky-sm

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=NC_Skins;930936]
:laughing2


Nice try Mr. Right Wing Propaganda.[/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Im not right wing propaganda anything. [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Im socially liberal, fiscally conservative, overall libertarian [I]leaning[/I]. All i[/FONT][/COLOR]m tryin to do is point out the h[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]ypocrisy and a lack of balance, fairness and overall objectiveness in much of the traditional media.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I suspect you get most of, if not all of, your news from online sources? I get the vast majority of mine from online aswell. And while ill often gravitate to mediums that offer point of views that i know are in alignment with mine, i usually just like getting a good fix for whats happening in the world.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]But for many people, unlike like you and me, who have a disinterest in worldly or opinion news and just want to get a handle on whats going on in the world today by turning on the Evening, Nightly, or World news or evening flipping to the cable news shows are [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]unfortunately[/FONT][/COLOR] missing out on the objectiveness theyre seeking.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Regardless, instead of spending your time showing off your sweet search skills by linking to all sorts of articles reporting the acts of vandalism from CBS, ABC and NBC news [I]affiliates[/I] you could have spent 2 minutes reading the article. Or at least the first paragraph:[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote][B]The[/B] [B]broadcast networks[/B] complain loudly about real or perceived [URL="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/03/21/abc-s-sawyer-protesters-roaming-dc-increasingly-emotional-yelling-slurs"][COLOR=#0066cc]offenses committed by conservatives[/COLOR][/URL]. But when they are faced with violence committed by those they agree with, [URL="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/10/26/networks-spin-violent-occupy-protesters-pushing-back-minimize-rock-t"][COLOR=#0066cc]they downplay[/COLOR][/URL] or even bury such behavior. [B]The silence of the networks[/B] regarding the [URL="http://www.mrc.org/articles/abc-cbs-nbc-ignore-chick-fil-vandalism#"][COLOR=#0066cc]vandalism[/COLOR][/URL] of multiple Chick-fil-A restaurants is only the latest example of destruction committed by the left and ignored by the media.[/quote]

Read more: [url=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2012/08/14/abc-cbs-nbc-ignore-chick-fil-vandalism-incidents#ixzz23deJ8fAV]ABC, CBS, NBC Ignore Chick-fil-A Vandalism Incidents | NewsBusters.org[/url]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Your ability to scour the net and find opinions that reinforce your own is uncanny. Your ability to find facts that handedly support your own arguments while ignoring the facts that [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]compromise your stance is[/FONT][/COLOR] second to none. Your lack of tact and ability to criticize others that disagree with you rival only those of an 11th grade girl. You are truly unable to hear or see anything besides your own point of view.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]There are many viable ways, and even more opinions, to tackle the problems and issues we're facing today. Including many opposing solutions, both with their own sound reasoning. So while you may be unburdened with the ability to apply consideration to the ideas and opinions that challenge your own, it doesn’t necessarily mean those ideas or opinions are wrong or without judgment. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=mlmpetert;930969][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Your ability to scour the net and find opinions that reinforce your own is uncanny. Your ability to find facts that handedly support your own arguments while ignoring the facts that [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]compromise your stance is[/FONT][/COLOR] second to none. [I][B]Your lack of tact and ability to criticize others that disagree with you rival only those of an 11th grade girl.[/B][/I] You are truly unable to hear or see anything besides your own point of view.[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]There are many viable ways, and even more opinions, to tackle the problems and issues we're facing today. Including many opposing solutions, both with their own sound reasoning. So while you may be unburdened with the ability to apply consideration to the ideas and opinions that challenge your own, it doesn’t necessarily mean those ideas or opinions are wrong or without judgment. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]:food-smil
mlm, I've had the same sig since I signed up on WP and read some pretty funny posts......but this is surely sig worthy. lol.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=mlmpetert;930969]Im not right wing propaganda anything. Im socially liberal, fiscally conservative, overall libertarian leaning. All im tryin to do is point out the hypocrisy and a lack of balance, fairness and overall objectiveness in much of the traditional media.[/quote]

It was a shot at the author and report itself. Unless you are in fact the one who wrote that garbage.


[quote=mlmpetert;930969]Regardless, instead of spending your time showing off your sweet search skills by linking to all sorts of articles reporting the acts of vandalism from CBS, ABC and NBC news affiliates you could have spent 2 minutes reading the article. Or at least the first paragraph:[/quote]

Ok mmpetert, let me break this down to you.

[quote][B][SIZE="4"]ABC, CBS, NBC Ignore Chick-fil-A Vandalism Incidents[/SIZE][/B][/quote]

[quote] The broadcast networks buried the three instances of vandalism altogether; [B]not a single mention of vandalism at any of the three Chick-fil-A locations was reported by ABC, CBS, or NBC[/B].[/quote]

[quote][B]The silence of the networks [/B]regarding the vandalism of multiple Chick-fil-A restaurants is only the latest example of destruction committed by the left and ignored by the media.[/quote]

Blatant lies. Absolutely false. It wasn't ignored, but this asshat has the audacity to claim it was. I did read it unfortunately and it was all hogwash. Nothing from that article had any substance or truth to it. Not a single iota. I mean hell, at least Fox News tells half truths mostly, this guy doesn't even have the common courtesy to do that.

[quote]But the networks did not report on Castro’s expression of his opinion
[/quote]

Do what? :laughing- This is about as stupid as it gets. How many TV stations report on a criminals "expression of opinion" right after they've committed a misdemeanor? Sir, I'm with ABC news and I would like to get your expression of opinion on why you decided to drive 45 mph in a 35mph zone? Sir, the world is on standby waiting for your griping response. :laughing-




[quote]This fits in with the networks’ narrative to ignore the misdeeds of those they happen to agree with[/quote]


Again, more babble and bullshit. They reported these deeds even though this author is claiming they didn't.


Not even sure what to tell you man, if you can't see this then I can't help you. I'm not surprised to see articles like the one you posted since it's a long standing practice of ring wing media outlets. (not to say it doesn't happen on the left side of it)

[YT]SGBL3VsFlLU[/YT]

Remember back in 2009 when Fox News printed a add saying how did CNN and other didn't cover the Tea Party Rally? Yeah, they got shit on as well.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;930972]:food-smil
mlm, I've had the same sig since I signed up on WP and read some pretty funny posts......but this is surely sig worthy. lol.[/quote]


Maybe I should bring in Smoot's sig.

You are so vain you think this post is about you.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=NC_Skins;930975]Maybe I should bring in Smoot's sig.

You are so vain you think this post is about you.[/quote]You could, but it wouldn't be as funny.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=mlmpetert;930969]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Your ability to scour the net and find opinions that reinforce your own is uncanny. Your ability to find facts that handedly support your own arguments while ignoring the facts that [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]compromise your stance is[/FONT][/COLOR] second to none. Your lack of tact and ability to criticize others that disagree with you rival only those of an 11th grade girl. You are truly unable to hear or see anything besides your own point of view.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]There are many viable ways, and even more opinions, to tackle the problems and issues we're facing today. Including many opposing solutions, both with their own sound reasoning. So while you may be unburdened with the ability to apply consideration to the ideas and opinions that challenge your own, it doesn’t necessarily mean those ideas or opinions are wrong or without judgment. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]


I haven't said the first thing to you or about you in my reply. I made a flippant remark about right wing propaganda, and you somehow took as it was directed personally to you. Quit being so sensitive. What I did was absolutely positively destroyed that hatchet job on ABC/CBS/NBC and any reasonable person can see that. (and I don't even view those media sites)

If I post a hack job like the one you did, by all means feel free to respond the same way. In fact, I encourage it. Would it have been better if I had posted the "O 'Rly?" owl instead?

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

My guess is mlm's claim is that it wasn't on the nightly news on any of those broadcasts. To which I'd say...do people still watch the nightly news anyway?

But seriously, either way it was reported by several of the network's owned and operated stations as noted in the links

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=SmootSmack;930994] To which I'd say...do people still watch the nightly news anyway?

[/quote]


NO!,We try ,my wife and I last night tried to but we are just sick of the political ads,no joke everytime one came on .....party did not matter,we changed the channel.We already know who we are voting for.:rant:

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

I watch the local news pretty much every night. National, not so much.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

This whole Chick-Fil-A ordeal just got uglier. From an article on yesterday's shooting in DC at the conservative Family Research Council:

"The FBI affifavit said authorities recovered the 9mm Sig Sauer handgun, plus two additional magazines of ammunition. When agents searched Corkins’s backback, they found another 50 rounds of ammunition, and 15 sandwiches from Chick-Fil-A.

[. . . ] The FBI affidavit says that agents interviewed Corkins’s [the shooter] parents, who said their son “has strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner."'

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/mother-of-security-guard-shot-in-dc-happy-to-hear-him-called-hero/2012/08/16/531ed060-e7a1-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story_1.html]Floyd Lee Corkins charged in Family Research Council shooting - The Washington Post[/url]

You think he planned to use the sandwiches for some sort of demonstration? Everyone, on both sides, needs to take a deep breath and find increased civility. Each side keeps ignoring the other side's humanity.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

I find the national news to be less about news and more about opinion/point of view. Their local affiliates are bent on reporting local facts so I find them better "news" outlets. If I want a full picture of the facts about national stories, however, the last place I would look is the network evening news.

On important national stories, getting the relevant facts is hard and really requires work. Every outlet - TV, Internet, print - has an agenda & point of view and emphasizes the facts that support their opinions. True "news" on a national level, fact neutral reporting, just doesn't exist and, in truth, probably never did.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=CooleyAsCanBe;931186]This whole Chick-Fil-A ordeal just got uglier. From an article on yesterday's shooting in DC at the conservative Family Research Council:

"The FBI affifavit said authorities recovered the 9mm Sig Sauer handgun, plus two additional magazines of ammunition. When agents searched Corkins’s backback, they found another 50 rounds of ammunition, and 15 sandwiches from Chick-Fil-A.

[. . . ] The FBI affidavit says that agents interviewed Corkins’s [the shooter] parents, who said their son “has strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner."'

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/mother-of-security-guard-shot-in-dc-happy-to-hear-him-called-hero/2012/08/16/531ed060-e7a1-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story_1.html]Floyd Lee Corkins charged in Family Research Council shooting - The Washington Post[/url]

You think he planned to use the sandwiches for some sort of demonstration? Everyone, on both sides, needs to take a deep breath and find increased civility. Each side keeps ignoring the other side's humanity.[/quote]

This incident brings several issues together...gay rights, crazy people with guns and obsessive media coverage. Its a deadly combo...these crazy people just want to be part of the story.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

Well the local CFA here is donating box lunches for our golf outing writing off the $800 it would have cost if we purchased them. We have had other businesses help with lunches but never donate the entire lunch at no cost.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/lawyer-ordered-pay-4-5m-gay-u-m-222810693.html]Lawyer ordered to pay $4.5M to gay U-M student - Yahoo! News[/url]


Calling somebody out in a anti-gay blog and accusing them of enticing minors with alcohol and recruiting people to be "gay" isn't covered under your freedom of speech. You'd think he know that being a lawyer and all.


[quote]The U.S. District Court jury ruled in favor of Christopher Armstrong, who claimed he suffered distress after a blog created by Andrew Shirvell accused him of enticing minors with alcohol and recruiting people to become homosexual.[/quote]

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

So, how long before we find out that all mass muderers and serial killers are.....gay?:doh:

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

I don't know if anyone heard of this but a band called Pussy Riot recently staged a protest at a cathedral in Moscow. The price of said protest was 2 years in jail for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred".

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/17/pussy-riot-members-found-_n_1797903.html?utm_hp_ref=arts]Pussy Riot Members Found Guilty Of Hooliganism, Rallies In NYC Show Support (PHOTOS)[/url]
[quote]Many of you know by now that three members of the Russian punk band and activist group Pussy Riot were found guilty of hooliganism charges today, with Moscow Judge Marina Syrova announcing a prison sentence of two years for the three women who staged the anti-Putin protest in Russia's Cathedral of Christ the Savior last February.[/quote]

Warning: The song sounds like a cat being slammed against a wall but this is actual footage of their "crime."
[YT]ALS92big4TY[/YT]

Needless to say I will be very interested to see how many people that supported Chick Fil-A on August 1st in the name of "free speech" will cry foul.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

Not sure you can say ignorance. Marriage was created for the sole purpose for creating a family, and for that you need sexual reproduction to happen. Can't have true gay or lesbian couples reproduce so why do they have to marry? That is the oppositions take on it. Even Justin Raimando from the American Conservative(who is openly gay) asked why did the gay community want to take on heterosexual hand me downs(marriage) in an article in one of the past issues. It should be also noted that until 1972 the American Psychiatry Associations Handbook listed homosexuality as a personality disorder, so until very recently, before the era of PC came upon us, even shrinks thought it was whack.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

The whole reason this is even debatable is that we have made the means(sexual activity, lust) and end in itself. Sex is just short for sexual reproduction, thus we have become obsessed with the act in itself more than what the whole thing is used for. It doesn't matter if you believe in God or Darwin, as both seek to explain the natural order of things, and in that natural order of things men and women come together to produce offspring.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;931444]Not sure you can say ignorance. Marriage was created for the sole purpose for creating a family, and for that you need sexual reproduction to happen. Can't have true gay or lesbian couples reproduce so why do they have to marry? That is the oppositions take on it. Even Justin Raimando from the American Conservative(who is openly gay) asked why did the gay community want to take on heterosexual hand me downs(marriage) in an article in one of the past issues. It should be also noted that until 1972 the American Psychiatry Associations Handbook listed homosexuality as a personality disorder, so until very recently, before the era of PC came upon us, even shrinks thought it was whack.[/quote]

Not too long ago blacks and whites had separate bathrooms.

How stupid does that sound now?

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;931424]I don't know if anyone heard of this but a band called Pussy Riot recently staged a protest at a cathedral in Moscow. The price of said protest was 2 years in jail for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred".

...

Needless to say I will be very interested to see how many people that supported Chick Fil-A on August 1st in the name of "free speech" will cry foul.[/quote]

The fact that they were punished criminally for their speech is just wrong. To get a two year prison sentence for "religious hatred" demonstrates just how fragile freedom of speech is. Clearly, the sentence imposed on them was motivated by their anti-religious/anti-Putin message.

At the same time, they probably would have been arrested here too - just on different grounds. You can't burst into private property, whether it's a church, restaraunt of grocery store and disrupt their business in the name of free speech. Not sure they would have gotten two years but they might well have gotten six months and some heavy fines. Freedom of Speech is not an unlimited right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, where ever you want.

[EDIT = How is what they did any different from flash mobs that break into businesses and disrupt/vandalize the business? How would you like it if, as your sitting in your home, 20 kids rush in and start a mini-house party scaring your kids and breaking your stuff?]

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;931444]Not sure you can say ignorance. [B]Marriage was created for the sole purpose for creating a family[/B], and for that you need sexual reproduction to happen. Can't have true gay or lesbian couples reproduce so why do they have to marry? That is the oppositions take on it. Even Justin Raimando from the American Conservative(who is openly gay) asked why did the gay community want to take on heterosexual hand me downs(marriage) in an article in one of the past issues. It should be also noted that until 1972 the American Psychiatry Associations Handbook listed homosexuality as a personality disorder, so until very recently, before the era of PC came upon us, even shrinks thought it was whack.[/quote]

Which marriage? Religious marriage is different than civil marriage although intertwined. Civil marriage (which is what we're really talking about) was created to provide a legally sanctioned union based on the religious notion of marriage. Why this is really even needed theoretically by anyone baffles me. My solution-figure out a way to get rid of civil marriage. We don't need it.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;931444]... It should be also noted that until 1972 the American Psychiatry Associations Handbook listed homosexuality as a personality disorder, so until very recently, before the era of PC came upon us, even shrinks thought it was whack.[/quote]

[quote]Homosexuality had been officially classified as a mental disorder in the APA's first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-1) in 1952. There it was designated as a "sociopathic personality disturbance." Viewing homosexuality as a mental illness was not controversial at the time as it coincided with prevailing societal attitudes. DSM-II, published in 1968, listed homosexuality as a sexual deviation, but sexual deviations were no longer categorized as a sociopathic personality disturbance. [/quote] [url=http://www.aglp.org/gap/1_history/#declassification]LGBT Mental Health Syllabus[/url]

[quote]Sociopaths are usually defined as people displaying anti social behavior which is mainly characterized by lack of empathy towards others that is coupled with display of abnormal moral conduct and inability to conform with the norms of the society. People suffering from antisocial personality disorder are often referred to as sociopaths. Some of the other characteristics that sociopaths may display are stealing, lying, lack of remorse for others and towards living beings, irresponsible behavior, impulsive behavior, drug or alcohol abuse, problems with the law, violating rights of others, aggressive behavior and much more.

Sypmtoms:
◦Displays heightened levels of deceitfulness in dealings with others, which involves lying, conning others without remorse, or even using aliases
◦Inability to abide by the social norms and thus violating law
◦Displays aggressiveness and often tends to get into assaults and physical fights
◦Displays complete lack of empathy for others and their situation for which they are responsible
◦Displays no feelings or shallow feelings
◦Displays impulsive behavior which is indicated by the inability to plan for the future
◦Displays no concern for safety of others around them or self
◦Inability to sustain a consistent behavior that stems mainly from irresponsibility especially at work place or in other dealings
◦Displays promiscuous behavior[/quote]
[url=http://depressiond.org/sociopath-sociopathic-personality-disorder/]Sociopath – Sociopathic Personality Disorder[/url]

The characterization of homosexuality as a "sociopathic disorder" stemmed from the fact that it wasn't considered acceptable to society. Not from some identifiable, treatable medical condition. It was more, "Your different, your - you must be a sociopath." Similarly, the idea that homosexuality was deviant behavior was tied to societal norms not some underlying medical condition.

As for the rest of your quote - please. When you say marriage was created for the purpose of creating a "family" ... that's a pretty loaded term. The "family", as we know it, in the modern creation (romantic love of two partners, freely entered into for the purpose of starting raising children) was not common before the 17th-18th century. Marriages were business arrangement and entered into for any number of reasons - tying two clans together, creating a beneficial land deals, etc. The fact that kids came into the deal was often an afterthought or simply unimportant to the marriage.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=FRPLG;931451]Which marriage? Religious marriage is different than civil marriage although intertwined. Civil marriage (which is what we're really talking about) was created to provide a legally sanctioned union based on the religious notion of marriage. Why this is really even needed theoretically by anyone baffles me. [B]My solution-figure out a way to get rid of civil marriage. We don't need it[/B].[/quote]

I disagree. Their are so many legal ramifications to being married that to get rid of the legal form would be incredibly disruptive to business, contracts, estate and property law.

If someone dies intestate, their property goes first their spouse.
If a couple buy a house together, the a creditor may not take the house based on one spouse's debts.
Married individuals have historically lower individual insurance rates.
etc., etc., etc. ...

Civil marriage creates a host of legal short cuts that help organize property rights. Doing away with it would create a giant legal vacuum and make [I]everyone's[/I] life more difficult.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;931457]I disagree. Their are so many legal ramifications to being married that to get rid of the legal form would be incredibly disruptive to business, contracts, estate and property law.

If someone dies intestate, their property goes first their spouse.
If a couple buy a house together, the a creditor may not take the house based on one spouse's debts.
Married individuals have historically lower individual insurance rates.
etc., etc., etc. ...

Civil marriage creates a host of legal short cuts that help organize property rights. Doing away with it would create a giant legal vacuum and make [I]everyone's[/I] life more difficult.[/quote]

Fully aware of that. I know it's a non-starter but in my imaginary theoretical proof test I always ask myself "Would I set this all up the same way in FRPLGlandia if I magically acquired land and could start a country on my own?"

and in this case the answer is hell no. In my imaginary FRPLGlandia the gov't wouldn't have the first damn thing to do with marriage. But I do realize the impracticality of the notion.

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;931444]Not sure you can say ignorance. Marriage was created for the sole purpose for creating a family, and for that you need sexual reproduction to happen. Can't have true gay or lesbian couples reproduce so why do they have to marry? [B][U]That is the oppositions take on it. .[/U][/B][/quote]




edit: Revising this since I reread his statement. He's claimed this is what the opposition thinks. He worded that horribly...lol

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

[quote=GusFrerotte;931444]Not sure you can say ignorance. Marriage was created for the sole purpose for creating a family, and for that you need sexual reproduction to happen. .[/quote]


Really?Well shit ,I'm glad we cleard that up.:doh::stop:


So people who don't want any ..."offspring".....can't get married and what about people that can't have children,........I guess they need to be checked before getting married ,....according to you.:twocents:

Re: North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban
 

i think you two should read the whole post again.