Anti-Homosexual Bigotry = 1950's Racism 2.0

The idea that marriage is sacred went out the window when divorce rates went above 50%. People can have 4-5 spouses and it can remain sacred yet a gay couple can't validate the same?

Idk in France they perform a civil union through the state and if you want a religious ceremony you may do that as well but separately. I think it's absurd to think we still have ministers and clergy that have the power to perform state duties. There really should be a separation of church and state in which case we wouldn't even have this problem anymore. Under law everything is a civil union and to deny at least those rights to gay couples is ridiculous.

When I played ice hockey, we had a player on the team who was admittedly gay. he was about 6'3 - 220 lbs, he was by far the best at checking on the team... not to mention, he could scrap like nobody else. Guy never lost a fight... he straight wrecked a guy once.

He was also our secret weapon. he used to flirt with guys on the other team while we played and totally got in their heads and shit. It was actually really funny to see the other guys reactions.. He whooped everyone at the mental game.

im not talking Prop 8 here specifically. im talking BIG picture, im not disputing bible thumpers were a huge reason that this was voted down. what i am sick of seeing NS and for that fact the whole US piss and moan about christianity when its FACT that in some countries they round people up and take them out back and put a bullet in their head, (under the guise of religion) i havent seen that in the US lately.

so if you want to make this a "christian" issue, lets paint with a BROAD brush and label it what it is, a RELIGION  issue.....

o believe me, i KNOW how wrong the church is on a number of issues, and have made my adamant disagreement crystal clear on NS. a couple of "shockers" if you will, let gay people marry, and capital punishment. ive butted heads with a number of people on these and other issues.


i was also pointing out for the masses on NS (who simply dont have any grasp) on how relatively "good" we have it with the Christians in the US, afterall women have rights, people arn't being shot for differnce of religion, ect. you know this, i fear NS as a whole has very short sided viewpoint.

i absolutely hate that argument. There is always room for social progress, economic progress, military progress, and political progress. To say oh well look were better than so and so only breeds stagnation and idleness. We should strive to be the best we can be, not simply one step ahead of other parties in question.

thats why we have the committee system in congress...

but anyway this is a local issue within a relatively tight-knit constituency. why must the public voice be filtered through a republic in this instance?

We have republics to combat the geographical misrepresentation on a federal scale as well as to filter out the less informed on decisions such as ways and means, taxation percentages, what the interest rate should be, and national security etc.

This is more or less a public opinion matter with a yes or no answer that requires little education in the field. People don't get BA's homosexual unions and become experts and advisors; a representatives opinion and judgment is just as good as the people's in this matter.

^You've addressed that Loving v. Virginia's precedent concerning the equal protection clause has no relevance to same sex marriage. How do you address the Due Process issue? Namely that Loving says "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential orderly pursuit of happiness of free men." In order to restrict that right, there has to be the some governmental interest, correct? What is the undeniable governmental interest that justifies depriving two loving adults of their pursuit of happiness?

HA.

You can be as eloquent and polite as you want, you can still  be a fucking cretin promoting shitty ideas. Should we make everyone pass an IQ test when they register on this site?

Mods are here to enforce whatever laws they see fit to make NS a good place. If they want to enforce the banning of certain words in order to make this a more respectable and insightful community, let them. If you want otherwise, the internet is the ultimate free market, go get a domain and make a board of your own. 

...and I actually was about to type that myself. We're not great because we're better than everyone else, its just a natural product of our countries citizens and government acting together in the most harmonious way possible.

  That is essentially true.  However, that logic still basically boils down to "Yeah, I know I raped her...but them over there killed her!"

 Wow.  That was a fantastic post, and you didn't even have to quote obscure court cases...

and ive already said i support the rights of gay people to have every legal protection under the book
on a equal level with marriage of straight couples.

to further clarify i was not saying "o look we are good enough" (sorry if it came off that way) i was merely pointing out how the "Christians" can be pretty dam tolerant of Gay people compared to other countries / religions.



using NS as my backboard im gonna bounce an idea off you guys....... what about all the people who would see marriage as being something less if any couple could get married? what if we came up with something different, but at the same time equal to a hetro marriage.

think about it, would it be possible to have both sides agree on something like this? the "pro marriage" crowd gets to keep the word marriage, and the pro gay rights crowd gets something to call their own. then BOTH have a unique word to define what they and their partner are together...

(not saying i support this idea or anything, just a thought that hit me)

Totally missed this until Rowen quoted it. First of all, we ban certain content either because it's offensive, for business reasons (disclosure of contract details before they're announced by one of the parties), for we-don't-want-to-deal-with-it reasons (nudity), or for private policy reasons. Banning the use of slurs, racial or otherwise, falls under categories 1 and 4. This is, after all, a private site, and if we don't want to deal with people hating on gay people, using certain terms negatively, or anything else (we could delete posts for talking about florida orange juice if we felt like it), and to use Doug's exact words, we're over it.

Now, regarding banning idiots: leaving aside the fact that I consider anyone who looks down on gay people an idiot, where would you like to draw this line? Who is stupid enough to be prevented from posting on this website? And who gets to decide that? Because if we ban everybody who isn't in law or med school I'm pretty sure that would just leave you and me. And I don't really like you that much.

pwnd? cause i know he called me an idiot and anyone else who didnt agree with him.

We have it to divide the labour... thats about the only reason for having it.