North Carolina passes same-sex marriage ban

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

If I were to boycott everything that I stood against, chances are I wouldn't spend any of my money ever again.


Banks - part of the biggest swindle in US history. (legally at that)
Corporation- responsible for injecting money into politics to help favor their business models and avoid taxes.
Oil - a good bit of our oil comes from OPEC which is comprised of countries, who support inhumane religious practices and beliefs.


Chances are, I can find something that a company funds that I don't agree with. That said, I don't go to chick-fil-a often as is, but I have no problem staying away from them either.

Also, I find it sad that christians can go out of their way to support anti-gay measures, yet can't do the same for say...homeless people or other individuals in need. Which would you consider a pressing issue?


One more for the lulz:

Thats just one stupid statement from a totally stupid post. You really think that churches do nothing to feed the hiomeless? Who do you think supports and pays for most soup kitchens. It seem you need to get out and voluter some and see how much churches actuall y do to help the community.


Soup kitchen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I see you have problems with Companies donating money to politicians. Do you have the same problem with unions that do the same thing?

Whats the swindle of the banks?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Thats just one stupid statement from a totally stupid post. You really think that churches do nothing to feed the hiomeless? Who do you think supports and pays for most soup kitchens. It seem you need to get out and voluter some and see how much churches actuall y do to help the community.

First off, I've never claimed that churches didn't help people, nor did I say they didn't help feed the needy so not sure how you pulled that out of what I said. I said it's a shame they can't "go out of their way" to help the homeless like this. If I'm wrong about that, can you please show me where any lines were 3 hours long or cars backed up for miles just to help out the homeless and needy? I'll pull up a chair and wait on this...


FYI: I grew up in a christian home, I live in the bible belt, I went to a private christian school.

Soup kitchen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is this posted for? I know what a soup kitchen is. You got any numbers of how many hours and money are put in by the church as opposed to non-church? I'll wait patiently.

Originally Posted by firstdown

I see you have problems with Companies donating money to politicians. Do you have the same problem with unions that do the same thing?

Whats the swindle of the banks?

Well, unions are there to help the workers fight off baron robbers. That said, I think unions can be, at times, destructive and inefficient in the grand scheme of things. I think you missed the whole point. The whole point was for me to list a few basic things that encompass our daily spending(gas, goods, savings) that are used for things we may not endorse. It's not that complicated, but if you would like me to submit a 20 page document, than I'll need you to pay pal me some money over for my time.

You seriously need me to tell you what the banks did?...lol Bailouts? Look at what's going on in the UK with LIBOR. Common man!

[MTK]

I don't have any in my area, but if I did I'd sure as hell boycott them.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I don't have any in my area, but if I did I'd sure as hell boycott them.

Cool...then I'm going to buy stock in Chic-Fil-A...lol!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I don't have any in my area, but if I did I'd sure as hell boycott them.

Well that's your right but we all know your going to sneek a few when no ones looking.

[mlmpetert]

For those who havent had CFA before i got to say im so impressed every time. I hadnt tried their food until about 2 years ago and was blown away by how good it was. I always thought why in the world would i want to go to a new fast food place that doesnt have anything but chicken and not even fried chicken (like the KFC style). Then i tried it and was holy shit this is really good.

If you havent gone before i would suggest their chicken nuggets or chicken strips. I normally only get their chicken strips salad with spicy dressing, ocasionally their nuggets or classic chicken sandwhich. Also NOTHING is better than their Chic Fil A sauce. Nothing. Its delicious and goes with everything.

Also has anyone tried McDonald's Chicken McBites? Totally weak.

[firstdown]

I'm not against gay parenting but for people to say they don't have additional challenges just goes beyond logic.

[firstdown]

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'm not against gay parenting but for people to say they don't have additional challenges just goes beyond logic.

What additional challenges beyond other people's bigotry and hatred do they have? So they shouldn't be parents because bigotry and hatred exist? So we should conform to the bigots instead of the other way around?


I still see you and mlmpetert had nothing to say about that bogus study being exposed. I assume both of your silence means point noted and accepted.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

What additional challenges beyond other people's bigotry and hatred do they have? So they shouldn't be parents because bigotry and hatred exist? So we should conform to the bigots instead of the other way around?


I still see you and mlmpetert had nothing to say about that bogus study being exposed. I assume both of your silence means point noted and accepted.

Dont think for a moment i forgot about you either!!!

Sike, im just kiding. Point noted. You win. But unfortunitly winning in the Debating With The Enemy section of thewarpath is like getting a box of Chicken McBites from McDonalds. Losing means you get 2 boxes of Chicken McBites.....

I wasnt answearing you because you hadnt answeared my question from before, and i happen to be very petty about that kind of stuff.

So:

Let me ask you something personally. In your opinion would a male teen raised by 2 dads in one of the most uneducated, ignorant and bigoted parts of NC, say Greenville*, be subject to more or less adversity than an otherwise similar kid with no gay parents? Same situation but in SoCal?

And you left out parts from the rest of my post, which if anyone would like to see you can click on THIS RIGHT HERE!.


And partly because it sums up the way i feel, but more so just because i like quoting myself (and of course citing FoxNewsTotallyAwesome):

This is very dificult topic/issue:

Study finds host of challenges for kids of gay parents | Fox News


But I think the author summed it up perfectly and basically states exactly how i feel.

I have a step brother and sister that are adopted and i feel like if the state becomes involved at any point (foster care) it has to take ownership in the well being of the child. Allowing a gay person or couple to adopt a kid in NYC is different than letting a gay male couple adopt a kid in NC_Skin's town of Greenville, no matter how unfortunate that may be. So i guess im trying to say discretion should be used.

If its a private adoption or international adoption i think the issue is a lot trickier. It becomes a civil rights issue vs a child welfare issue.

In a perfect world i dont think we should ever conform to bigots or haters, but my vision of a perfect world doesnt have any bigots or haters to conform to. In a imperfect world i think we have to use discretion when the well being of a child is involved (espicially after the state had already become involved). Children shouldnt be used to combat bigotry.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

But unfortunitly winning in the Debating With The Enemy section of thewarpath is like getting a box of Chicken McBites from McDonalds. Losing means you get 2 boxes of Chicken McBites.....

Not really about winning anything, but informing people of things they might not understand or know. Ignorance is a lock, knowledge is the key.

Let me ask you something personally. In your opinion would a male teen raised by 2 dads in one of the most uneducated, ignorant and bigoted parts of NC, say Greenville*, be subject to more or less adversity than an otherwise similar kid with no gay parents? Same situation but in SoCal?

The reason this wasn't answered because the answer really doesn't matter. My guess is that they would be subjected to more adversity, but that means nothing in the grand scheme of it. The fact is, bigotry and hate is wrong, regardless if people's religion says so. Should blacks move out of the south because more racism tends to exist there? When we start conforming to the people who are in the wrong, is when our country will go to hell in a hand basket. Want to see how F'd up religion will destroy your country, look at Iran and many of the Middle Eastern countries with radical Islam.

You have to make a stand at some point against your oppressors. It happened with women's rights. It happened with rights for African Americans...and the fight will continue for equal rights among all human beings regardless of their race, religion, or sexual preference.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

In a perfect world i dont think we should ever conform to bigots or haters, but my vision of a perfect world doesnt have any bigots or haters to conform to. In a imperfect world i think we have to use discretion when the well being of a child is involved (espicially after the state had already become involved). Children shouldnt be used to combat bigotry.

Absolutely not. Your logic of backing down because bigotry exists doesn't make sense and all it does is negatively enforce the bigots actions that his bigotry makes a impact so he will continue on. Should black people not have children since racism exists? That's about the logic you are trying to use (or so it appears). Your assertion that children shouldn't be used to combat bigotry is off base, and assumes/implies that gay couples will run out and adopt just to fight for their rights.

Church that barred black wedding affirms commitment to equal treatment – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Not really about winning anything, but informing people of things they might not understand or know. Ignorance is a lock, knowledge is the key.

Okay fair enough. And dont get me wrong. McDonald's line up of new sauces are awesome, im not knocking those at all. I just think their McBites suck.

The reason this wasn't answered because the answer really doesn't matter. My guess is that they would be subjected to more adversity, but that means nothing in the grand scheme of it. The fact is, bigotry and hate is wrong, regardless if people's religion says so. Should blacks move out of the south because more racism tends to exist there? When we start conforming to the people who are in the wrong, is when our country will go to hell in a hand basket. Want to see how F'd up religion will destroy your country, look at Iran and many of the Middle Eastern countries with radical Islam.

Im not saying anything about people being forced to move from one place to another or not be protected at all costs when attacked. And I HATE Iran. But only because Fox told me too.

You have to make a stand at some point against your oppressors. It happened with women's rights. It happened with rights for African Americans...and the fight will continue for equal rights among all human beings regardless of their race, religion, or sexual preference.

Could not agree more.

Absolutely not. Your logic of backing down because bigotry exists doesn't make sense and all it does is negatively enforce the bigots actions that his bigotry makes a impact so he will continue on. Should black people not have children since racism exists? That's about the logic you are trying to use (or so it appears). Your assertion that children shouldn't be used to combat bigotry is off base, and assumes/implies that gay couples will run out and adopt just to fight for their rights.

Youre not hearing (reading?) what im saying (typing?).

Me:

If the state has taken custody of a kid, via foster care or some other means, it has the responsibility to protect the welfare the child above everything else before remitting control, even if it means compromising the liberty of others. The kids liberty comes first and above all other involved parties.

Examples:

A couple wants to adopt a little kid via public adoption.

Reasons to exercise caution:

1) The person/couple is gay and lives in Greenville NC

2) The person/couple has a pool or train tracks in their back yard

3) The person/couple lives in a particularly dangerous area and refuses to move

4) The person/couple lives with a felon

5) The person/couple practices a religion that excludes certain types of medial treatment

6) The person/couple wants to use the child as a spokes model to fight bigotry

Reasons not to to use additional caution:

1) The immediate and foreseeable living conditions of the person/couple present no obvious "adversity" or harm to the child

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

What additional challenges beyond other people's bigotry and hatred do they have? So they shouldn't be parents because bigotry and hatred exist? So we should conform to the bigots instead of the other way around?


I still see you and mlmpetert had nothing to say about that bogus study being exposed. I assume both of your silence means point noted and accepted.

You made my point. I never said if it was right or wrong I just said they have additional chalanges.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You made my point. I never said if it was right or wrong I just said they have additional chalanges.

Well, a handicap person has additional challenges. Females have additional challenges. Minorities have additional challenges. Not sure what point you are trying to make that kids growing up a homosexual home have additional challenges. That's kind of a obvious statement captain. Are you implying that because they have additional challenges that it is a legit reason for gay couples to not be parents?

[dmek25]

never ate there. not because of any particular reason