(05-09-2012 08:09 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I don't know why the southern states keep insisting on embarrassing themselves. At least this time the people of the south get to pick their regrets democratically.

I know right! The great southern/conferderate paradise known as California passed an amendment banning gay marriage not to long ago as well. And Michigan! WHOA! Don't get me started on those bumpkins with their gun racks and confederate flags flying all over the place. And I hear the necks in Oregon and Wisconsin want bring back Jim Crow as well. Robert E. Lee loving a$$ holes.

(05-09-2012 08:20 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:09 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I don't know why the southern states keep insisting on embarrassing themselves. At least this time the people of the south get to pick their regrets democratically.

:pwnt:

Quote:I know right! The great southern/conferderate paradise known as California passed an amendment banning gay marriage not to long ago as well. And Michigan! WHOA! Don't get me started on those bumpkins with their gun racks and confederate flags flying all over the place. And I hear the necks in Oregon and Wisconsin want bring back Jim Crow as well. Robert E. Lee loving a$$ holes.

(05-08-2012 10:53 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Absolutely. One of the most important principles of democracy is minority rights. Everyone should be able to marry whoever they love - people shouldn't be banned from marrying just because the majority finds it "wrong". You make good points.

In a democracy, minority rights don't mean a f'n thing. Good thing we're a Republic.

(05-09-2012 08:20 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:09 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I don't know why the southern states keep insisting on embarrassing themselves. At least this time the people of the south get to pick their regrets democratically.

I know right! The great southern/conferderate paradise known as California passed an amendment banning gay marriage not to long ago as well. And Michigan! WHOA! Don't get me started on those bumpkins with their gun racks and confederate flags flying all over the place. And I hear the necks in Oregon and Wisconsin want bring back Jim Crow as well. Robert E. Lee loving a$$ holes.

Is your point that it's not embarrassing or that the problem is more widespread?

(05-09-2012 08:26 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:20 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:09 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I don't know why the southern states keep insisting on embarrassing themselves. At least this time the people of the south get to pick their regrets democratically.

I know right! The great southern/conferderate paradise known as California passed an amendment banning gay marriage not to long ago as well. And Michigan! WHOA! Don't get me started on those bumpkins with their gun racks and confederate flags flying all over the place. And I hear the necks in Oregon and Wisconsin want bring back Jim Crow as well. Robert E. Lee loving a$$ holes.

Is your point that it's not embarrassing or that the problem is more widespread?

Stupid questions with false assumptions built in always amuse me...

(05-09-2012 08:26 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Is your point that it's not embarrassing or that the problem is more widespread?

You're not Robert. You know full well what my point was.

Your attempt to characterize this as a "southern" thing is false its face. Maybe you didn't know those decidedly not southern states had amendments as well, or you just didn't care. Either way, your statement is off base.

If that's the case, California, last I checked, wasn't a southern state. Maybe he just doesn't like the south. Fine, **** him too.

(05-09-2012 08:30 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:26 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Is your point that it's not embarrassing or that the problem is more widespread?

You're not Robert. You know full well what my point was.

Your attempt to characterize this as a "southern" thing is false its face. Maybe you didn't know those decidedly not southern states had amendments as well, or you just didn't care. Either way, your statement is off base.

So the problem is more widespread and the embarrassment isn't just limited to the south.

(05-09-2012 08:34 AM)Rebel Wrote:  If that's the case, California, last I checked, wasn't a southern state. Maybe he just doesn't like the south. Fine, **** him too.

High minded liberals ALWAYS like to insult when they disagree with someone's point. Since most southern states oppose gay marriage Southerns are ignorant bigots.

(05-09-2012 08:36 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:30 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:26 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Is your point that it's not embarrassing or that the problem is more widespread?

You're not Robert. You know full well what my point was.

Your attempt to characterize this as a "southern" thing is false its face. Maybe you didn't know those decidedly not southern states had amendments as well, or you just didn't care. Either way, your statement is off base.

So the problem is more widespread and the embarrassment isn't just limited to the south.

The problem is narrowing, we are down to 29 states that don't see it the right way, it the only embarrassment is that ONE activitist judge in California overturned the will of millions of people who happen to think marriage defined as one man and one woman is the proper definition.

(05-09-2012 08:36 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So the problem is more widespread and the embarrassment isn't just limited to the south.

If you believe it is a problem, and an embarrassment, then yes.

But your point was to malign the south because of this. Your point wasn't that it was a problem or an embarrassment. Your point was to attack the south. Please don't insult us both by trying to act like it wasn't.

(05-09-2012 08:41 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:36 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So the problem is more widespread and the embarrassment isn't just limited to the south.

If you believe it is a problem, and an embarrassment, then yes.

But your point was to malign the south because of this. Your point wasn't that it was a problem or an embarrassment. Your point was to attack the south. Please don't insult us both by trying to act like it wasn't.

Hey, I'm just following the Fox reporting:

Quote:While same-sex marriage already is prohibited by law, North Carolina is the only southern state that doesn't have that ban enshrined in its constitution.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/...-marriage/

(05-09-2012 08:46 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:41 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:36 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So the problem is more widespread and the embarrassment isn't just limited to the south.

If you believe it is a problem, and an embarrassment, then yes.

But your point was to malign the south because of this. Your point wasn't that it was a problem or an embarrassment. Your point was to attack the south. Please don't insult us both by trying to act like it wasn't.

Hey, I'm just following the Fox reporting:

Quote:While same-sex marriage already is prohibited by law, North Carolina is the only southern state that doesn't have that ban enshrined in its constitution.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/...-marriage/

Good rule of thumb. Don't compound the mistake of one dumb comment by doubling down with another.

We both know what you were doing. Have enough respect for yourself not to dig the hole deeper.

(05-09-2012 08:17 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:08 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 10:50 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  A few thoughts:

For once in my life, I agree with UMgrad....simply shocking.

As always, Fo Shizzle is right. This is not a conservative act. Asking the government to intervene in the private lives of consenting adults is not conservative.

While the state used the correct process, i.e. a constitutional amendment, its sad to see the majority take away the rights of a minority through such a vote. Additionally, while it wouldn't be against the state constitution, this amendment could still violate the U.S. Constitution. This is what happened in California and is working its way up. It violates the equal protection clause of the US constitution. You're denying them equality of law, i.e. marriage benefits and legal recognition.

This isn't about religious freedom. It's about imposing religion upon the public. No one was forcing churches to marry gay individuals, yet now religious groups are trying to prevent anyone from marrying gay individuals because of their religious views.

It's a very slippery slope. If the majority can vote away the rights of a minority, why can't the majority vote away the right of blacks to vote? Or the rights of a Hispanics from using self-defense? It's easy to see how some crazy rules could be created through tyranny of the majority.

YET is the key word in your post. NO ONE is forcing churches to marry gays ,YET, but as I posted earlier, THE GAY AGENDA already removed the Catholic Church from assisting in adoption because the Catholic Church would not allow gays to use the Catholic Church adoption services. It won't take a year if GAY marriage is dictated by the gubment as legal before THE GAY AGENDA crowd starts throwing a hissy fit and screaming discrimination because churches won't let them marry in their house of worship, which will lead to the gubment dictating that churches marry gay couples too, or stop performing marriages.

This is the main reason I voted for it. I have no problems allowing civil unions all the benefits of married straight couples but I have a real problem with the radical militant gay agenda attacking the definition of marriage and what I believe will ultimately lead to the Gov. forcing churches to marry homosexuals.

This is where I am with this. I personally could care less what gays do and I understand the legal reasons that they would want to be legally tied, but I'm also certain that many want to force churches to marry them as well & that I don't agree with.

(05-09-2012 09:39 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:17 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:08 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 10:50 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  A few thoughts:

For once in my life, I agree with UMgrad....simply shocking.

As always, Fo Shizzle is right. This is not a conservative act. Asking the government to intervene in the private lives of consenting adults is not conservative.

While the state used the correct process, i.e. a constitutional amendment, its sad to see the majority take away the rights of a minority through such a vote. Additionally, while it wouldn't be against the state constitution, this amendment could still violate the U.S. Constitution. This is what happened in California and is working its way up. It violates the equal protection clause of the US constitution. You're denying them equality of law, i.e. marriage benefits and legal recognition.

This isn't about religious freedom. It's about imposing religion upon the public. No one was forcing churches to marry gay individuals, yet now religious groups are trying to prevent anyone from marrying gay individuals because of their religious views.

It's a very slippery slope. If the majority can vote away the rights of a minority, why can't the majority vote away the right of blacks to vote? Or the rights of a Hispanics from using self-defense? It's easy to see how some crazy rules could be created through tyranny of the majority.

YET is the key word in your post. NO ONE is forcing churches to marry gays ,YET, but as I posted earlier, THE GAY AGENDA already removed the Catholic Church from assisting in adoption because the Catholic Church would not allow gays to use the Catholic Church adoption services. It won't take a year if GAY marriage is dictated by the gubment as legal before THE GAY AGENDA crowd starts throwing a hissy fit and screaming discrimination because churches won't let them marry in their house of worship, which will lead to the gubment dictating that churches marry gay couples too, or stop performing marriages.

This is the main reason I voted for it. I have no problems allowing civil unions all the benefits of married straight couples but I have a real problem with the radical militant gay agenda attacking the definition of marriage and what I believe will ultimately lead to the Gov. forcing churches to marry homosexuals.

This is where I am with this. I personally could care less what gays do and I understand the legal reasons that they would want to be legally tied, but I'm also certain that many want to force churches to marry them as well & that I don't agree with.

So homosexual couples can't file a joint tax return because you're afraid of a hypothetical situation?

Ironically, the same reason Dims think they can do whatever the hell they want to the minority in this nation that actually pays taxes ("We're the 99%! Blah blah blah, whine whine whine!") is the same reason these laws against homosexual marriage are being passed. Stupid libs. If only people knew the definition of a Republic and why we were set up as one. Libs are all about being a Republic and stepping over the majority unless it's something that fits their agenda. Then it's all about majority rule.

For God's sake, Libs, be f'n consistent for once in your miserable lives.

(05-09-2012 09:43 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  So homosexual couples can't file a joint tax return because you're afraid of a hypothetical situation?

...and they'll both receive 100% of their SSI when they retire, unlike a married couple.

Here's an idea, start supporting the Fairtax and do away with all this BS.

(05-09-2012 09:46 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Ironically, the same reason Dims think they can do whatever the hell they want to the minority in this nation that actually pays taxes ("We're the 99%! Blah blah blah, whine whine whine!") is the same reason these laws against homosexual marriage are being passed. Stupid libs. If only people knew the definition of a Republic and why we were set up as one. Libs are all about being a Republic and stepping over the majority unless it's something that fits their agenda. Then it's all about majority rule.

For God's sake, Libs, be f'n consistent for once in your miserable lives.

So states that are net consumers of federal spending should be left out of the debate? Sadly, that would include Maryland.

(05-09-2012 09:43 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 09:39 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:17 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 08:08 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 10:50 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  A few thoughts:

For once in my life, I agree with UMgrad....simply shocking.

As always, Fo Shizzle is right. This is not a conservative act. Asking the government to intervene in the private lives of consenting adults is not conservative.

While the state used the correct process, i.e. a constitutional amendment, its sad to see the majority take away the rights of a minority through such a vote. Additionally, while it wouldn't be against the state constitution, this amendment could still violate the U.S. Constitution. This is what happened in California and is working its way up. It violates the equal protection clause of the US constitution. You're denying them equality of law, i.e. marriage benefits and legal recognition.

This isn't about religious freedom. It's about imposing religion upon the public. No one was forcing churches to marry gay individuals, yet now religious groups are trying to prevent anyone from marrying gay individuals because of their religious views.

It's a very slippery slope. If the majority can vote away the rights of a minority, why can't the majority vote away the right of blacks to vote? Or the rights of a Hispanics from using self-defense? It's easy to see how some crazy rules could be created through tyranny of the majority.

YET is the key word in your post. NO ONE is forcing churches to marry gays ,YET, but as I posted earlier, THE GAY AGENDA already removed the Catholic Church from assisting in adoption because the Catholic Church would not allow gays to use the Catholic Church adoption services. It won't take a year if GAY marriage is dictated by the gubment as legal before THE GAY AGENDA crowd starts throwing a hissy fit and screaming discrimination because churches won't let them marry in their house of worship, which will lead to the gubment dictating that churches marry gay couples too, or stop performing marriages.

This is the main reason I voted for it. I have no problems allowing civil unions all the benefits of married straight couples but I have a real problem with the radical militant gay agenda attacking the definition of marriage and what I believe will ultimately lead to the Gov. forcing churches to marry homosexuals.

This is where I am with this. I personally could care less what gays do and I understand the legal reasons that they would want to be legally tied, but I'm also certain that many want to force churches to marry them as well & that I don't agree with.

So homosexual couples can't file a joint tax return because you're afraid of a hypothetical situation?

The hypothetical loss of benefits don't concern you.

OT: Does anyone else have a specific voice that they read some posts in, depending on the author? I know that I have one for Rebel and Tom.