North Carolina: No Gays allowed

[Symmetry]

The only thing strange is what some people continually ignore in their blind greed. Nobody's rights are being denied. This is not about rights of the individual (as much as you need them to seem). The individual can love and be with and marry whoever they want. The issue you guys are fighting for is universal recognition of a new definition of marriage, and it's overreaching and dishonest to frame this as an individual rights issue.

The only 2 people the definition should matter to are the ones that are married in their hearts, and that is a highly private issue, not public, and should not be subject to public opinion or policy changes. Marriage is not an issue that should be redefined and dictated from a central authority 3,000 miles away.

If the people want it, they will have it. If the people do not want it, they will not have it forced on them either. This is 100% fair. Leave it for the people to decide. Leave it to be free. It's the only way that all of our rights can be protected.

You are definitely a social conservative, and this post is a perfect example. Simply put, everyone gets equal protection under the law. There are laws with respect to marriage. Gays don't get to marry, so they are denied equal protection. It's really that simple. Gays are looking for government recognition, not universal recognition. The reason you (and others) bring up universal recognition is to make the issue one about religion rather than one about government recognition. A true libertarian; hell, a true constitutionalist; would have no problem with the government recognizing gay marriage. It doesn't run afoul of the Constitution, which addresses equal protection but does not address marriage.

I'm not denigrating your stance per se. Rather, think of my confusion as denigrating your supposed stance. You can have a social conservative stance on particular issues and still be considered, generally, a Libertarian. I do think your stance on gay marriage necessarily dictates that you are not a strict constitutionalist.

Well said, TGD. There are perfectly rational arguments from a conservative or libertarian standpoint to support gay marriage, and it's worthy of you that you recognise those arguments.

It's nice to see a conservative poster take a stand for conservative principles on this.

[thegreekdog]

The only thing strange is what some people continually ignore in their blind greed. Nobody's rights are being denied. This is not about rights of the individual (as much as you need them to seem). The individual can love and be with and marry whoever they want. The issue you guys are fighting for is universal recognition of a new definition of marriage, and it's overreaching and dishonest to frame this as an individual rights issue.

The only 2 people the definition should matter to are the ones that are married in their hearts, and that is a highly private issue, not public, and should not be subject to public opinion or policy changes. Marriage is not an issue that should be redefined and dictated from a central authority 3,000 miles away.

If the people want it, they will have it. If the people do not want it, they will not have it forced on them either. This is 100% fair. Leave it for the people to decide. Leave it to be free. It's the only way that all of our rights can be protected.

You are definitely a social conservative, and this post is a perfect example. Simply put, everyone gets equal protection under the law. There are laws with respect to marriage. Gays don't get to marry, so they are denied equal protection. It's really that simple. Gays are looking for government recognition, not universal recognition. The reason you (and others) bring up universal recognition is to make the issue one about religion rather than one about government recognition. A true libertarian; hell, a true constitutionalist; would have no problem with the government recognizing gay marriage. It doesn't run afoul of the Constitution, which addresses equal protection but does not address marriage.

I'm not denigrating your stance per se. Rather, think of my confusion as denigrating your supposed stance. You can have a social conservative stance on particular issues and still be considered, generally, a Libertarian. I do think your stance on gay marriage necessarily dictates that you are not a strict constitutionalist.

Well said, TGD. There are perfectly rational arguments from a conservative or libertarian standpoint to support gay marriage, and it's worthy of you that you recognise those arguments.

It's nice to see a conservative poster take a stand for conservative principles on this.

And there are not rational arguments for a social conservative to support gay marriage (which I think was my point). If someone is against government recognition of gay marriage, that person is a social conservative and, simply put, wants the government to regulate marriage such that only certain peoples' marriages are recognized (hey big government!).

[Symmetry]

The only thing strange is what some people continually ignore in their blind greed. Nobody's rights are being denied. This is not about rights of the individual (as much as you need them to seem). The individual can love and be with and marry whoever they want. The issue you guys are fighting for is universal recognition of a new definition of marriage, and it's overreaching and dishonest to frame this as an individual rights issue.

The only 2 people the definition should matter to are the ones that are married in their hearts, and that is a highly private issue, not public, and should not be subject to public opinion or policy changes. Marriage is not an issue that should be redefined and dictated from a central authority 3,000 miles away.

If the people want it, they will have it. If the people do not want it, they will not have it forced on them either. This is 100% fair. Leave it for the people to decide. Leave it to be free. It's the only way that all of our rights can be protected.

You are definitely a social conservative, and this post is a perfect example. Simply put, everyone gets equal protection under the law. There are laws with respect to marriage. Gays don't get to marry, so they are denied equal protection. It's really that simple. Gays are looking for government recognition, not universal recognition. The reason you (and others) bring up universal recognition is to make the issue one about religion rather than one about government recognition. A true libertarian; hell, a true constitutionalist; would have no problem with the government recognizing gay marriage. It doesn't run afoul of the Constitution, which addresses equal protection but does not address marriage.

I'm not denigrating your stance per se. Rather, think of my confusion as denigrating your supposed stance. You can have a social conservative stance on particular issues and still be considered, generally, a Libertarian. I do think your stance on gay marriage necessarily dictates that you are not a strict constitutionalist.

Well said, TGD. There are perfectly rational arguments from a conservative or libertarian standpoint to support gay marriage, and it's worthy of you that you recognise those arguments.

It's nice to see a conservative poster take a stand for conservative principles on this.

And there are not rational arguments for a social conservative to support gay marriage (which I think was my point). If someone is against government recognition of gay marriage, that person is a social conservative and, simply put, wants the government to regulate marriage such that only certain peoples' marriages are recognized (hey big government!).

Aye, and any rational conservative should be outraged at the NC result.

[patrickaa317]

If someone is against government recognition of gay marriage, that person is a social conservative and, simply put, wants the government to regulate marriage such that only certain peoples' marriages are recognized (hey big government!).

With that logic, would it be fair to state that during the majority of the the first term of his presidency, you saw Obama as a social conservative as he was against government recognition of gay marriage until just a few weeks ago?

[thegreekdog]

If someone is against government recognition of gay marriage, that person is a social conservative and, simply put, wants the government to regulate marriage such that only certain peoples' marriages are recognized (hey big government!).

With that logic, would it be fair to state that during the majority of the the first term of his presidency, you saw Obama as a social conservative as he was against government recognition of gay marriage until just a few weeks ago?

Yes. I've made the argument before and I will again - There is little difference between Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Mitt Romney.

[patrickaa317]

If someone is against government recognition of gay marriage, that person is a social conservative and, simply put, wants the government to regulate marriage such that only certain peoples' marriages are recognized (hey big government!).

With that logic, would it be fair to state that during the majority of the the first term of his presidency, you saw Obama as a social conservative as he was against government recognition of gay marriage until just a few weeks ago?

Yes. I've made the argument before and I will again - There is little difference between Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Mitt Romney.

On many issues I wouldn't disagree though on many issues I also see a huge difference.

Such as partial birth abortion, while Romney & Bush may have once showed some pro-choice signs, I don't think they would have ever got in the way of a a bill that banned partial birth abortion or opposed a bill that protected babies that survived late term abortions. Nor would I consider that a social conservative stance.

[thegreekdog]

If someone is against government recognition of gay marriage, that person is a social conservative and, simply put, wants the government to regulate marriage such that only certain peoples' marriages are recognized (hey big government!).

With that logic, would it be fair to state that during the majority of the the first term of his presidency, you saw Obama as a social conservative as he was against government recognition of gay marriage until just a few weeks ago?

Yes. I've made the argument before and I will again - There is little difference between Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Mitt Romney.

On many issues I wouldn't disagree though on many issues I also see a huge difference.

Such as partial birth abortion, while Romney & Bush may have once showed some pro-choice signs, I don't think they would have ever got in the way of a a bill that banned partial birth abortion or opposed a bill that protected babies that survived late term abortions. Nor would I consider that a social conservative stance.

Abortion should be a non-issue at this point. I'm firmly convinced there will never be a bill banning abortions. There may be a risk that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, but if they didn't do it in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, they aren't going to do it now. As far as I'm concerned, abortion is an issue for Republicans to get social conservatives out to vote and for Democrats to get social liberals out to vote.

[patrickaa317]

If someone is against government recognition of gay marriage, that person is a social conservative and, simply put, wants the government to regulate marriage such that only certain peoples' marriages are recognized (hey big government!).

With that logic, would it be fair to state that during the majority of the the first term of his presidency, you saw Obama as a social conservative as he was against government recognition of gay marriage until just a few weeks ago?

Yes. I've made the argument before and I will again - There is little difference between Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Mitt Romney.

On many issues I wouldn't disagree though on many issues I also see a huge difference.

Such as partial birth abortion, while Romney & Bush may have once showed some pro-choice signs, I don't think they would have ever got in the way of a a bill that banned partial birth abortion or opposed a bill that protected babies that survived late term abortions. Nor would I consider that a social conservative stance.

Abortion should be a non-issue at this point. I'm firmly convinced there will never be a bill banning abortions. There may be a risk that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, but if they didn't do it in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, they aren't going to do it now. As far as I'm concerned, abortion is an issue for Republicans to get social conservatives out to vote and for Democrats to get social liberals out to vote.

I wouldn't say it should be a non-issue but the president does have very little control over this outside of appointing supreme court justices. Either way, it does still play a part in defining a social view that an individual may have.

[thegreekdog]

I wouldn't say it should be a non-issue but the president does have very little control over this outside of appointing supreme court justices. Either way, it does still play a part in defining a social view that an individual may have.

I don't disagree that it is a part of defining the social views of people. My point is that for people to think that the politician they vote for will be instrumental in prohibiting abortion is not realistic.

[PLAYER57832]

If someone is against government recognition of gay marriage, that person is a social conservative and, simply put, wants the government to regulate marriage such that only certain peoples' marriages are recognized (hey big government!).

With that logic, would it be fair to state that during the majority of the the first term of his presidency, you saw Obama as a social conservative as he was against government recognition of gay marriage until just a few weeks ago?

Yes. I've made the argument before and I will again - There is little difference between Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Mitt Romney.

On many issues I wouldn't disagree though on many issues I also see a huge difference.

Such as partial birth abortion, while Romney & Bush may have once showed some pro-choice signs, I don't think they would have ever got in the way of a a bill that banned partial birth abortion or opposed a bill that protected babies that survived late term abortions. Nor would I consider that a social conservative stance.

Abortion should be a non-issue at this point. I'm firmly convinced there will never be a bill banning abortions. There may be a risk that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, but if they didn't do it in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, they aren't going to do it now. As far as I'm concerned, abortion is an issue for Republicans to get social conservatives out to vote and for Democrats to get social liberals out to vote.

Not to steer this into another debate on the "a" topic, but you are misinformed in your assumption. The change is already happening. Prhoibitive laws are already in place in many states, fewer doctors are even being trained in the procedures, malpractice --high for all doctors-- is getting pushed even more high for doctors doing that procedure, plus many lawsuits have established that nurses and such are often free to refuse to provide care, in some cases even when there is no other practitioner available.

Most of the discussion is not happening in Republican circiles, it is happening in churches and smaller community groups. The Repubs are just riding the tide.

[thegreekdog]

fewer doctors are even being trained in the procedures, malpractice --high for all doctors-- is getting pushed even more high for doctors doing that procedure, plus many lawsuits have established that nurses and such are often free to refuse to provide care, in some cases even when there is no other practitioner available.

This appears (at least to me) to be a case of self-regulation by doctors and other medical professionals. I don't see why that's a problem - do you wish for doctors to be required, by law, to perform abortions?

In my defense, I only really pay attention to federal laws, Pennsylvania laws, and New Jersey laws... and I haven't seen any prohibitive laws in those jurisdictions.

[PLAYER57832]

fewer doctors are even being trained in the procedures, malpractice --high for all doctors-- is getting pushed even more high for doctors doing that procedure, plus many lawsuits have established that nurses and such are often free to refuse to provide care, in some cases even when there is no other practitioner available.

This appears (at least to me) to be a case of self-regulation by doctors and other medical professionals. I don't see why that's a problem - do you wish for doctors to be required, by law, to perform abortions?

No, its not self-regulation in the normal sense. This is a movement driven from without, largely by people citing "morals", its not based on medical need or knowledge at all and the debate is heavily swayed by people who are very misinformed, who really don't care to even educate themselves, but that is an old debate between us. I don't want to revisit the debate itself today. I just point out that things are very much changing. The legislative aspect is the last, but things are very much changing.

In my defense, I only really pay attention to federal laws, Pennsylvania laws, and New Jersey laws... and I haven't seen any prohibitive laws in those jurisdictions.

Actually, the movement to regulate abortion clinics here in PA had tinges of the debate. Certainly it was driven by something horrific, but several took that as an excuse to try and implement laws that were less about safety and more about just control.

And.. remember that the incident I relayed, most of what I have said happened in PA.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, let's not get into it here.

[PLAYER57832]

Just one thing to think about. Let me get this clear: Homosexuality should not be something people discriminate against, however; It is okay for places (my school, for instance) to have "gay pride" day. HOWEVER the second I post a poster up saying "Straight Pride", I will be hated by my schoolmates. Just some food for thought...

Yep

That's because the lefties redefine the word tolerance to mean approval or endorsement.

As opposed to the Right claiming that anything short of universality of their values means erosion of morality and oppression?

But, as Symmetry noted, this really is not a liberal/consrevative issue any more. Its no more one than race issues.

I don't like "x pride days" in general just because there is too find a line between having pride in one attribute and looking down on others. They can be helpful in cases where there has been significant misinformation/oppression. I can see a "gay pride" day after a gay teen suicide, for example. However, I think more basic education efforts are actually better in that case, too.

[Woodruff]

The issue you guys are fighting for is universal recognition of a new definition of marriage

http://imgur.com/TDqSa

(Sorry...I apparently couldn't use the freaking img tag.)

[rdsrds2120]

The issue you guys are fighting for is universal recognition of a new definition of marriage

http://imgur.com/TDqSa


(Sorry...I apparently couldn't use the freaking img tag.)

-rd

[Phatscotty]

The people have decided.

gg

[Phatscotty]

The only thing strange is what some people continually ignore in their blind greed. Nobody's rights are being denied. This is not about rights of the individual (as much as you need them to seem). The individual can love and be with and marry whoever they want. The issue you guys are fighting for is universal recognition of a new definition of marriage, and it's overreaching and dishonest to frame this as an individual rights issue.

The only 2 people the definition should matter to are the ones that are married in their hearts, and that is a highly private issue, not public, and should not be subject to public opinion or policy changes. Marriage is not an issue that should be redefined and dictated from a central authority 3,000 miles away.

If the people want it, they will have it. If the people do not want it, they will not have it forced on them either. This is 100% fair. Leave it for the people to decide. Leave it to be free. It's the only way that all of our rights can be protected.

You are definitely a social conservative, and this post is a perfect example. Simply put, everyone gets equal protection under the law. There are laws with respect to marriage. Gays don't get to marry, so they are denied equal protection. It's really that simple. Gays are looking for government recognition, not universal recognition. The reason you (and others) bring up universal recognition is to make the issue one about religion rather than one about government recognition. A true libertarian; hell, a true constitutionalist; would have no problem with the government recognizing gay marriage. It doesn't run afoul of the Constitution, which addresses equal protection but does not address marriage.

I'm not denigrating your stance per se. Rather, think of my confusion as denigrating your supposed stance. You can have a social conservative stance on particular issues and still be considered, generally, a Libertarian. I do think your stance on gay marriage necessarily dictates that you are not a strict constitutionalist.

I don't care what you want to call me. I've been called everything already. I have never claimed to be nor ever even used the word Constitutitonalist. Libertarian, yeah I think so.

There is no need to go past anything besides fiscal conservative. Outside of that, I am all over the map.

On this, I think the states deciding is the best way to go, and having a vote on it is a fair shake. Letting the states decide on issues has been a major platform for Ron Paul, who is definitely a Libertarian, and is all I have really suggested as the best answer. I have not made a religious argument on the issue of gay marriage, so I will just disagree I am trying to make this about religion. I don't even know where in the bible it addresses homosexuality, I would guess Letivicus. Yet that does not mean I don't acknowledge marriage has religious roots, because obviously it does.

[BigBallinStalin]

A rare moment of clarification with Phatscotty.

[PLAYER57832]

The issue you guys are fighting for is universal recognition of a new definition of marriage

http://imgur.com/TDqSa


(Sorry...I apparently couldn't use the freaking img tag.)

-rd

You know an interesting fact?

Women in societies where women are "bought" are actually treated pretty well. They are valued, that is why the get a price.

Not saying I like the system, but when you start looking at things through a western lense, its easy to miss things.

But yeah.. what the US conservatives like to pretend is the "traditional" form of marriage ignores most of human history.

[PLAYER57832]

On this, I think the states deciding is the best way to go, and having a vote on it is a fair shake. Letting the states decide on issues has been a major platform for Ron Paul, who is definitely a Libertarian, and is all I have really suggested as the best answer. I have not made a religious argument on the issue of gay marriage, so I will just disagree I am trying to make this about religion. I don't even know where in the bible it addresses homosexuality, I would guess Letivicus. Yet that does not mean I don't acknowledge marriage has religious roots, because obviously it does.

And yet, if, as you say above, this is a private and personal matter, then why should the state have ANY say in this at all?

[thegreekdog]

A rare moment of clarification with Phatscotty.

It was very refreshing.

[Woodruff]

The issue you guys are fighting for is universal recognition of a new definition of marriage

http://imgur.com/TDqSa


(Sorry...I apparently couldn't use the freaking img tag.)

-rd

Ahhhh...I didn't realize I needed the ".jpg" on the end. Thanks!

[Phatscotty]

The issue you guys are fighting for is universal recognition of a new definition of marriage

http://imgur.com/TDqSa


(Sorry...I apparently couldn't use the freaking img tag.)

-rd

You know an interesting fact?

Women in societies where women are "bought" are actually treated pretty well. They are valued, that is why the get a price.

Not saying I like the system, but when you start looking at things through a western lense, its easy to miss things.

But yeah.. what the US conservatives like to pretend is the "traditional" form of marriage ignores most of human history.

Either the most dishonest or least thought about thing I have seen for some time. What that picture represents is the courtship between a man and a woman, and only in certain cultures at certain points in history at that.

Be as it may, the poster is 100% about how marriages were arranged, and it was between a man and a woman at that. All it shows is the definition of marriage even more traditionally (ie, the only way it has ever been).

What the guy has to do to get in the girls pants before the marriage is irrelevant. Poster = 100% fail, again for overreaching and even trying to redefine the word definition. shocker

[PLAYER57832]

What that picture represents is the courtship between a man and a woman, and only in certain cultures at certain points in history at that.

I believe that was the major point.

Be as it may, the poster is 100% about how marriages were arranged, and it was between a man and a woman at that.

You should ask for a refund for your anthropology classes. Seriously. What you were taught is just not accurate.