_Vols in NC...get out and vote!!! Need your help. MAY 8

People are discriminated against every day, always have been and always will be. People can make their own choices, come to me for a job interview with neck tats, face peircings wild colored hair, I discriminate, sorry. Go somewhere else for a job, it was your choice to get that stuff.

There is a difference between a private individual conducting his private affairs how he sees fit. Companies should be able to hire and fire whomever they like for whatever reasons they want. The government, however, should not be denying benefits to one group while granting benefits to another based solely on religious beliefs.

I'm not debating if homosexuality is a choice or not but they do have a choice to move. It's still a somewhat free country, your gay and want to marry move to MA??? Oh and by the way enough with the Christian bashing, why don't you include the muslims, in Saudi they kill gays.

I am not excluding the religious practices of Muslims regarding homosexuality, either. I am simply throwing Christians in the same camp.
 
the issue is about discrimination against a fellow human being and not just marriage. Comparing it to helmet laws is stupid

Would I not be discriminated against in SC because I want a drink on Sunday? Say I'm Jewish, Sunday isn't my holy day....

The helmet laws are the same premis, if I want to ride without a helmet I can work to repeal the law or move to KY where it's legal.
 
They are caught in a difficult spot on the Muslim thing because they know no bounds when it comes to defending Muslims yet they think its ok to be gay and to get married. Christians don't kill gays they just think it's right to punch gay children and keep gays from receiving the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive.

Oh, and Christians have killed gays before, in vast numbers: see The Netherlands in the 1730s or Uganda today (84% Christian).
 
Would I not be discriminated against in SC because I want a drink on Sunday? Say I'm Jewish, Sunday isn't my holy day....

The helmet laws are the same premis, if I want to ride without a helmet I can work to repeal the law or move to KY where it's legal.

no you are not being discriminated against. Good grief this is like the "they'll want to marry horses soon" argument
 
no you are not being discriminated against. Good grief this is like the "they'll want to marry horses soon" argument

Why not? If that isn't discrimination then baring gays to marry is'nt either.
 
Why not? If that isn't discrimination then baring gays to marry is'nt either.

nothing is taken away since you're making the choice with full knowledge of the restrictions. Unless you want to argue being gay is a choice (which you claimed you didn't) then they are not similar.

I have no problem with you getting hammered on Sunday or splattering your brains on the pavement if you choose to do so. The difference is you are making a choice
 
nothing is taken away since you're making the choice with full knowledge of the restrictions. Unless you want to argue being gay is a choice (which you claimed you didn't) then they are not similar.

But something is being taken away - the symbolic meaning of the term.

That is really at the core of the debate for both sides. I've heard many gay marriage advocates say that civil unions are not sufficient because the "word" is different. They feel the word itself should be applied to their contractual agreement.

The word has deep societal meaning. To add it to some arrangements changes the meanings and thus takes the prior meaning away from others.

I personally don't care but both sides have a stake in the symbolic meaning of the word. If it doesn't change, one side doesn't get it. If it does change, the other side loses the prior symbolism.
 
nothing is taken away since you're making the choice with full knowledge of the restrictions. Unless you want to argue being gay is a choice (which you claimed you didn't) then they are not similar.

I have no problem with you getting hammered on Sunday or splattering your brains on the pavement if you choose to do so. The difference is you are making a choice

What is being taken away from the homosexuals? They couldn't marry to begin with. They have choices if they want to marry.
 
What is being taken away from the homosexuals? They couldn't marry to begin with.

Oral sex is on the books as illegal in the city of Nashville. It's never enforced, obviously, but should it be? After all, you never had the right to have oral sex in Nashville, so it's not like you'll be missing it.
 
What is being taken away from the homosexuals? They couldn't marry to begin with. They have choices if they want to marry.

Adoption privileges; visitation privileges; next of kin rights; government mandated employee spouse benefits...
 
Adoption privileges; visitation privileges; next of kin rights; government mandated employee spouse benefits...

If you didn't have it to begin with it wasn't taken away.

Most all of your examples can be taken care of with a POA. Singles can adopt in most places now.

Ever see Chuck and Larry, good movie about gov't spouse benefits?
 
Adoption privileges; visitation privileges; next of kin rights; government mandated employee spouse benefits...

All of these can be accomplished without marriage being involved. A civil union or some type of contract that is accepted by the government is all that is needed.
 
I do not want to be a person who bashes another for their beliefs, but I also feel that sometimes its good to step back and look at things from different points of view. A couple of friends posted thoughts after last night's results. I don't expect that many will necessarily agree, or feel this is relatable, but wanted to share.

- For anyone who thinks that marriage is a static thing (i.e. who would argue that it's just between a man and a woman, and that's the way it's always been, and the way it always should be), remember that it wasn't that long ago that you couldn't marry someone because they were white and you were black, or because you were Jewish and they were Christian. Religious beliefs are fine, and everyone is free to believe them. If your religion tells you that black people are inferior, fine. If your religion tells you that homosexuality is wrong, so be it. But be careful....before long you'll be the minority for whom the bigoted majority wants to restrict rights.

- The NC electorate who claim to be "protecting society" have to seriously ask themselves if they would have been the people who vehemently opposed immigration at the turn of the century, argued against votes for women in the teens, argued for "restricted areas" to protect against the Jews, feared a Catholic president, would have shouted down the Little Rock Nine, would have railed against inter-racial marriage, demanded that Ryan White be thrown out of town...I'd suggest they google some of those iconic images and ask themselves if they would have been the shouting, contorted faces in the crowd...after all those people thought they were "protecting society" too.
 
Last edited:
If you didn't have it to begin with it wasn't taken away.

These privileges are being denied by the state; insofar as they are being denied, they are being taken away. Hence, liberty was taken away from slaves born into slavery insofar as even though they never possessed liberty, it was denied them.

Most all of your examples can be taken care of with a POA. Singles can adopt in most places now.

In most places, yes. In all places, no. And, in some states, gay partners are not explicitly allowed second-parent status.

Legal and Policy Overview of Lesbian and Gay Parenting

Many states have moved to safeguard the interests of children with gay or lesbian parents. For example, at least twenty-one states have granted second-parent adoptions to lesbian and gay couples, ensuring that their children can enjoy the benefits of having two legal parents, especially if one of the parents dies or becomes incapacitated. Earlier this year, the New Hampshire legislature repealed its fifteen-year old ban on lesbian and gay adoption, after hearing extensive testimony from children’s advocates that the policy was misguided.

Recognizing that lesbians and gay men can be good parents, the vast majority of states no longer deny custody or visitation to a person based on sexual orientation. State agencies and courts now apply a "best interest of the child" standard to decide these cases. Under this approach, a person’s sexual orientation cannot be the basis for ending or limiting parent-child relationships unless it is demonstrated that it causes harm to a child -- a claim that credible social science research simply does not support.

Nonetheless, a few states -- relying on myths and stereotypes -- have used a parent’s sexual orientation to deny custody, adoption, visitation and foster care. Florida remains the only state with a law that expressly bars lesbians and gay men from ever adopting children. The ACLU is challenging that law in a suit filed in May of this year. Arkansas, like Utah, passed an administrative policy last year prohibiting lesbians, gay men, and those who live with them from serving as foster parents. The ACLU is also challenging the Arkansas policy. Thus Utah joins a distinct minority of states that are out of step with national standards and practices in this field, as defined by groups such as the Child Welfare League of America (click here to find out what the experts have to say about gay and lesbian adoption).
 
It comes down to one thing, what would Jesus do?

1.) Jesus would not limit individual freedom

2.) Jesus would minister to homosexuals with love and compassion.

This. Jesus was a teacher, not a condemner. While I don't believe he would approve of gay marriage, he also wouldn't approve of people trying to make them feel unequal because of their beliefs.

Not a coincidence the liberals and Paulys on the same page.
Ah yes. The old "You don't agree with me so you're a liberal" argument.

TN - Have to wear a motorcycle helmet. I'm an adult why can't I ride without a helmet?

This is one of the dumbest fights I've ever seen. Not sure why people are so anxious to risk splattering their heads all over the road. It doesn't take much effort to put on some head protection. I honestly don't want to be sitting bumper to bumper on I-40 because someone thought they were special then ended up scattering their grey matter all over the left lane.
 

Advertisement



Back
Top