If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   North Carolina to gays: Equal rights - not yours   (2012.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 1189
    More: Asinine, North Carolina, same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, cohabitations, LGBT rights, civil unions  
•       •       •

11101 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2012 at 10:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1189 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-09 07:55:03 AM

KiplingKat872: How is visiting your mate in the hospital paid for the by the taxpayer? How are health insurance paid for by the taxpayer?

About the only thing that do get is a break on their taxes.


Hey, lookie here! You already knew one of the ways! Here's a list of some others: Link

There's a lot on that list that impacts you; it's not just the tax breaks.

Also, I never referred to any of the things you mentioned - you decided that I must have been talking about visiting people in the hospital or private insurance. I would note, however, that for public employees, you are paying the spouse's insurance, and there are a LOT of government employees.
 
2012-05-09 07:55:43 AM
Heh... digging the rage here.
 
2012-05-09 07:57:11 AM

The_Sponge: rynthetyn: Pro tip: Barack Obama was officially opposed to Amendment One. And Prop 8 in California, and every other bigoted law banning marriage equality.


And yet he still claims that he personally believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. So either:

1) You guys think he's a bigot.

2) He's bullshiatting the public regarding his stance as a means of protecting his poll numbers.

So which is it?


Or perhaps the third option: He personally believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but knows that some churches/groups/people believe otherwise and it is not the government's job to decide for them? That other people being allowed to get married is in no way going to invalidate his marriage?
 
2012-05-09 07:57:12 AM

residentgeek: Woke up angry still. This is going to be a fine day in NC.

Tell me again why we should tolerate the religious extremists in our midst?

Oh, right, because they're the ones pulling the strings.

/you want persecution? I'll show you persecution
//so angry :(


They probably outnumber us, in NC, too.

I look forward to the first supreme court test of this new amendment. It will be a fun little game of the Fed saying to the states "Right to remove rights from a class of citizens: not yours"
 
2012-05-09 07:57:34 AM

Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.


As a "right moderate social libertarian" shouldn't you also be enraged?
 
2012-05-09 07:58:15 AM

eldritch2k4: The_Sponge: rynthetyn: Pro tip: Barack Obama was officially opposed to Amendment One. And Prop 8 in California, and every other bigoted law banning marriage equality.


And yet he still claims that he personally believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. So either:

1) You guys think he's a bigot.

2) He's bullshiatting the public regarding his stance as a means of protecting his poll numbers.

So which is it?

Or perhaps the third option: He personally believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but knows that some churches/groups/people believe otherwise and it is not the government's job to decide for them? That other people being allowed to get married is in no way going to invalidate his marriage?



Also: Why just the two options? Maybe sometimes:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-05-09 07:58:47 AM

KiplingKat872: This I agree with to a great extent, except it causes problems with child custody.


Minor quibble: It doesn't cause those problems. The people involved cause the problems. It merely offers a variable and limited platform for addressing some child custody problems, although whether it does so satisfactorily is a matter of debate. However, marriage as an institution has no effect whatsoever upon the custody cases of children who are not produced within a state-recognized marriage.
 
2012-05-09 08:04:31 AM

stonent: It's called states rights... Look it up.


Ooh, can I play?

It's called tyranny of the majority. Look THAT up.
 
2012-05-09 08:05:16 AM

untaken_name: KiplingKat872: How is visiting your mate in the hospital paid for the by the taxpayer? How are health insurance paid for by the taxpayer?

About the only thing that do get is a break on their taxes.

Hey, lookie here! You already knew one of the ways! Here's a list of some others: Link

There's a lot on that list that impacts you; it's not just the tax breaks.

Also, I never referred to any of the things you mentioned - you decided that I must have been talking about visiting people in the hospital or private insurance. I would note, however, that for public employees, you are paying the spouse's insurance, and there are a LOT of government employees.


Not as many as there used to be, and there are about to be much less still as all university employees are moved out from under the State Personnel Act in the next two years. They will be considered private employees of the Universities.Tens of thousands of people. They will be put on yearly contracts, so that the universities can lay them off without paying severance packages or unemployment.

Somehow, that affects me much more than the pittance I pay for my neighbor's married benefits.

Most of the things on that list were actually private issues, not ones paid for by Me. And a married couple getting a tax break does not effect me as much a corporation or wealthy person paying a smaller percentage of taxes than I do. I'm sure my tax rates was not helped by bailing out criminally liable businesses that will never face prosecution either.

Of everything that effects my tax rate, married couples are small potatoes.
 
2012-05-09 08:05:54 AM

Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.


So, you're lying in your profile when you pretend to be libertarian.
 
2012-05-09 08:06:06 AM

untaken_name: Minor quibble: It doesn't cause those problems. The people involved cause the problems. It merely offers a variable and limited platform for addressing some child custody problems, although whether it does so satisfactorily is a matter of debate. However, marriage as an institution has no effect whatsoever upon the custody cases of children who are not produced within a state-recognized marriage.


That's very circular of you.
 
2012-05-09 08:06:58 AM
Wow really? In this day and age people are still this backwards? Next they're going to vote the KKK into office.
 
2012-05-09 08:07:12 AM

untaken_name:

Hey, lookie here! You already knew one of the ways! Here's a list of some others: Link


And if you had actually read that list, much of it was not tax-based benefits.
 
2012-05-09 08:07:41 AM

CPennypacker: Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.

As a "right moderate social libertarian" shouldn't you also be enraged?


Nope, I just don't give a fark about this issue.
 
2012-05-09 08:10:23 AM

Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.


Of course, misanthropes like you thrive on hate, don't you?
 
2012-05-09 08:12:01 AM

Ball Sack Obama: CPennypacker: Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.

As a "right moderate social libertarian" shouldn't you also be enraged?

Nope, I just don't give a fark about this issue.


Then you're a shiatty libertarian


When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
after all I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
after all I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
 
2012-05-09 08:12:05 AM

PunGent: Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.

So, you're lying in your profile when you pretend to be libertarian.


Where did I lie? I took a quiz. I don't remember any questions at all about gay marriage. I AM for legalizing pot though, if that makes you feel any better.
 
2012-05-09 08:15:47 AM

CPennypacker: Ball Sack Obama: CPennypacker: Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.

As a "right moderate social libertarian" shouldn't you also be enraged?

Nope, I just don't give a fark about this issue.

Then you're a shiatty libertarian



Sorry, dude... I am just not as passionate about gay marriage as a lot of others here tend to be. Judging by the polls I've seen on the subject, a majority of Americans feel the same way. If that somehow makes me a Nazi sympathizer, or a deaf mute, oh well.
 
2012-05-09 08:15:54 AM

Ball Sack Obama: CPennypacker: Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.

As a "right moderate social libertarian" shouldn't you also be enraged?

Nope, I just don't give a fark about this issue.


Yeah, this thread is fulla folk like you expressing their lack of concern.

Maybe if you post that a few more times people will take you more seriously.

/Which should be relatively easy considering you currently stand at "not at all" there.

We're trying to hit 1000 posts here. Snap to.
 
2012-05-09 08:18:21 AM

Ball Sack Obama: CPennypacker: Ball Sack Obama: CPennypacker: Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.

As a "right moderate social libertarian" shouldn't you also be enraged?

Nope, I just don't give a fark about this issue.

Then you're a shiatty libertarian



Sorry, dude... I am just not as passionate about gay marriage as a lot of others here tend to be. Judging by the polls I've seen on the subject, a majority of Americans feel the same way. If that somehow makes me a Nazi sympathizer, or a deaf mute, oh well.


Are you passionate about states passing laws in an attempt to trump the 14th amendment? Are you passionate about the government restricting freedom instead of expanding it?

You suck.
 
2012-05-09 08:18:55 AM

Ball Sack Obama: PunGent: Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.

So, you're lying in your profile when you pretend to be libertarian.

Where did I lie? I took a quiz. I don't remember any questions at all about gay marriage. I AM for legalizing pot though, if that makes you feel any better.


If you are not outraged by the government trying to legislate what happens in people's bedrooms, what they do with their private property, how their households are arranged, who they can share insurance with, you are a shiatty libertarian.
 
2012-05-09 08:22:18 AM

KiplingKat872: If you are not outraged by the government trying to legislate what happens in people's bedrooms, what they do with their private property, how their households are arranged, who they can share insurance with, you are a shiatty libertarian.


...and beyond that, probably a shiatty human being.
 
2012-05-09 08:22:33 AM

quatchi: Ball Sack Obama: CPennypacker: Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.

As a "right moderate social libertarian" shouldn't you also be enraged?

Nope, I just don't give a fark about this issue.

Yeah, this thread is fulla folk like you expressing their lack of concern.

Maybe if you post that a few more times people will take you more seriously.

/Which should be relatively easy considering you currently stand at "not at all" there.

We're trying to hit 1000 posts here. Snap to.


Hey, to be fair, it's probably not his fault he's here. Some liberal probably forced him to click on the thread and then gloat about his team's "win".

/just doin' my part
 
2012-05-09 08:23:05 AM
It's a sad day here in ol' Nawth Cackalack.
 
2012-05-09 08:24:34 AM
A dick-on-dick move North Carolina.
 
2012-05-09 08:24:46 AM
"Gay" is still not a race, sorry.

But please do keep up with the civil rights comparisons. it doesn't make your movement look histrionic and hyperbolic at all.
 
2012-05-09 08:25:52 AM

Little.Alex: Keizer_Ghidorah: Little.Alex: Keizer_Ghidorah: Little.Alex: AverageAmericanGuy: WhyteRaven74: Little.Alex: What it does mean is that we have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved,
...

I don't give a rat's ass whose "side" you're on, if you applaud treating others as less than human because of your narrow-minded idiocy and spiteful little black heart, you're filth. And it's ironic and amusing how you're accusing me of being ignorant, intolerant, immature and insulting when you went on about how much you hate gays and minorities and how you'd happily do whatever you could to oppress them. At least you're honest about your hateful pettiness, refreshing if sickening.

[talentmechanic.files.wordpress.com image 291x300]

Jebus: what a melodramatic, silly, little boy you are. I bet you practice those kind of speeches in front of the mirror.

Nobody I know "hates gays." Nobody I can name, except you, is "spiteful" about such a trivial issue. The truth is; to normal people this matters very little. It doesn't even make the top 20 in most polls of issues people care about.

In fact; it polls as the 29th most important issue.
Link

But the generally hateful tone one hears from the Left brings out the voters on the Right, doesnt' it? All that vitriol is better than a campaign contribution!

I mean; the vote wasn't even close, 60/40. And that was with only 11% of people bothering to vote. I'm sure 100% of the gheys voted, but scarcely anybody else bothered - and you gheys still got smashed. If people were as exited by this issue as you suggest; you would have lost 20 to 1.

So please; when you settle down, go out and collect a bunch of your fellows and vandalise a StarBucks like the OWS guys do. Or just contribute $500 to Romney. It works out the same.


Are you mentally handicapped?
 
2012-05-09 08:27:08 AM

Utter Genius: "Gay" is still not a race, sorry.

But please do keep up with the civil rights comparisons. it doesn't make your movement look histrionic and hyperbolic at all.


Neither is "woman" or "disabled" but it doesn't disqualify them from civil rights.
 
2012-05-09 08:31:18 AM

Utter Genius: "Gay" is still not a race, sorry.


"Race" is a social construct, not a biological one. Ergo, "gay" is as valid a social grouping as "race"/ethnicity.

American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"
 
2012-05-09 08:33:45 AM

Utter Genius: "Gay" is still not a race, sorry.

But please do keep up with the civil rights comparisons. it doesn't make your movement look histrionic and hyperbolic at all.


This is a retarded statement. Pailin caliber retarded, and I don't use that category loosely.

/"Female" isnt' a race either.
 
2012-05-09 08:33:46 AM

CPennypacker: Utter Genius: "Gay" is still not a race, sorry.

But please do keep up with the civil rights comparisons. it doesn't make your movement look histrionic and hyperbolic at all.

Neither is "woman" or "disabled" but it doesn't disqualify them from civil rights.


I don't think you can take someone seriously if they don't think this is a civil rights issue. It's as basic as it gets, and if they don't see that they don't want to.

I keep coming back to this: There is absolutely no good reason to deny gays the right to marry. I have yet to hear one from anyone. This is bigotry, pure and simple.
 
2012-05-09 08:34:21 AM
I don't understand why we haven't seen an Equal Protection clause Supreme Court challenge to these laws yet.
 
2012-05-09 08:35:35 AM

Utter Genius: "Gay" is still not a race, sorry.

But please do keep up with the civil rights comparisons. it doesn't make your movement look histrionic and hyperbolic at all.


So what? Religion is a matter of choice yet that is protected.
 
2012-05-09 08:37:23 AM

jcooli09: I don't think you can take someone seriously if they don't think this is a civil rights issue. It's as basic as it gets, and if they don't see that they don't want to.

I keep coming back to this: There is absolutely no good reason to deny gays the right to marry. I have yet to hear one from anyone. This is bigotry, pure and simple.



Honestly I don't think it's a civil rights issue either. It's a basic human dignity issue and one that should have been put to rest a long ago with universal acceptance of homosexual marriage. I won't get into why I don't see it as a civil rights issue I've been flamed too many times over it y people who don't realize that I'm on the same side of the issue as they just for different reasons.
 
2012-05-09 08:37:53 AM

Little.Alex: What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman

Well, what I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it's not simply the two persons who are meeting.... What it does mean is that we have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved,


Slavery used to be a tradition, too. In fact, it was once commanded by this supposed god of your mythology and was once protected by the United States Constitution. Sometimes things should not be kept simply because it is a tradition.

Also, how in all of Hades does same-sex marriage affect you in any way, shape, or form?
 
2012-05-09 08:38:52 AM

jcooli09: CPennypacker: Utter Genius: "Gay" is still not a race, sorry.

But please do keep up with the civil rights comparisons. it doesn't make your movement look histrionic and hyperbolic at all.

Neither is "woman" or "disabled" but it doesn't disqualify them from civil rights.

I don't think you can take someone seriously if they don't think this is a civil rights issue. It's as basic as it gets, and if they don't see that they don't want to.

I keep coming back to this: There is absolutely no good reason to deny gays the right to marry. I have yet to hear one from anyone. This is bigotry, pure and simple.


Because then I'm gonna have to get married to my cousin and a horse. I don't want to have waterhead horse babies. Who's looking out for MY rights??
 
2012-05-09 08:39:43 AM

Egoy3k: jcooli09: I don't think you can take someone seriously if they don't think this is a civil rights issue. It's as basic as it gets, and if they don't see that they don't want to.

I keep coming back to this: There is absolutely no good reason to deny gays the right to marry. I have yet to hear one from anyone. This is bigotry, pure and simple.


Honestly I don't think it's a civil rights issue either. It's a basic human dignity issue and one that should have been put to rest a long ago with universal acceptance of homosexual marriage. I won't get into why I don't see it as a civil rights issue I've been flamed too many times over it y people who don't realize that I'm on the same side of the issue as they just for different reasons.


It's bigotry and it is a polarizing issue that keeps the pubic distracted from the real problems. It the exact same thing that happens in corrupt and tyrannical regimes in the Middle East establishing theocratic rule and blaming the west for all their problems. It's keeps the populace distracted and their rage focused away from their leaders.

If the gay couple next door are "roommates" or married, it does not make one lick of difference in my life or anyone else's life, but the people in power, the corporations, the wealthy, have a vested interest in keeping the populace from uniting against their influence. Recently the populace in the U.S. woke up to how much power they lost over the last 20 years, almost all of it, and now the puppet masters have to keep us divided along social lines in order to keep us from focusing on ousting them.
 
2012-05-09 08:39:53 AM

Ball Sack Obama: CPennypacker: Ball Sack Obama: CPennypacker: Ball Sack Obama: Heh... digging the rage here.

As a "right moderate social libertarian" shouldn't you also be enraged?

Nope, I just don't give a fark about this issue.

Then you're a shiatty libertarian



Sorry, dude... I am just not as passionate about gay marriage as a lot of others here tend to be. Judging by the polls I've seen on the subject, a majority of Americans feel the same way. If that somehow makes me a Nazi sympathizer, or a deaf mute, oh well.


I think the "polls" you look at are based in the South, where last night's vote also took place. The South practices rampant and widespread bestiality and inbreeding. I don't think they're the best barometer for normative sexual morays.
 
2012-05-09 08:40:06 AM
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Is this too hard for North Carolinians to understand?
 
2012-05-09 08:40:19 AM

al's hat: Happy Hours: al's hat: WaffleStomper: Cousin marriages are against the law in Texas and married cousins in Texas can get a felony conviction for having sex. Should we allow marriage between brother and sisters if they are consenting adults? Do we just do away with all laws on incest as long as they are consenting adults? To say that states can't regulate marriage is bullshiat.

One more thing, if it made it to the supreme court, do you think it will actually be upheld or struck down? Our supreme court is very conservative right now and will probably get moreso as time goes on if the past is any indication.

While I've never actually had any sexual feelings towards any of my relatives (well, other than that one cousin) I'm not sure that the incest laws (assuming consensual adults) have any constitutional validity. There are of course genetic reproductive issues but other than that what's the problem?

and if genetic/reproductive issues are a constitutionally valid reason for outlawing marriage where do you draw the line? Forced sterilization for anyone with a genetic condition they're at risk of handing down to their children anyone?

I was actually siding more towards fewer government involvement. If there were genetic issues it would of course be up to the potential parents to take responsibility for preventing pregnancy. See my comment prior to this one.


So was I. I'm in favor of all forms of marriage providing all parties involved are consenting adults. Either that or just leave marriage to churches and allow civil contracts regarding community property and all the other aspects that marriage entails for consenting adults. I could go either way.

Seems somewhat wrong to me that someone who wants to be single can't enter into a non-sexual non-romantic partnership and share in whatever tax benefits or other niceties that married couples can.
 
2012-05-09 08:40:50 AM

wedding vegetables: Because then I'm gonna have to get married to my cousin and a horse. I don't want to have waterhead horse babies. Who's looking out for MY rights??


Why is letting you marry a horse and/or your cousin a problem?
 
2012-05-09 08:41:07 AM

zarberg: Gay marriage was already not legal here, so I guess they spent millions and thousands of man hours to put it on double secret probation.


Actually, I suspect it's all about the young people- who don't have the anti-gay baggage as so many older people. Most of them know gays and know first-hand that the "boogie-man" stories about them are pure crap. They overwhelmingly see no problem with gays doing what is perfectly natural for them, and have no problem with treating them as equal citizens and friends. If those same young people had the numbers, every law punishing gays would be off the books tomorrow.

But the young people don't have the numbers...yet. That is why this Amendment was needed- to put a serious roadblock in the way of social reform when, not 'if', it inevitably happens.

The "social conservatives" have no more respect for liberty and freedom, than the most fabian-socialist life-controlling leftist.

/voted against
 
2012-05-09 08:41:50 AM

ph0rk: Why is letting you marry a horse and/or your cousin a problem?


Well, the horse can't legally consent.
 
2012-05-09 08:42:17 AM

InmanRoshi: I think the "polls" you look at are based in the South, where last night's vote also took place. The South practices rampant and widespread bestiality and inbreeding. I don't think they're the best barometer for normative sexual morays.


A: It's "Mores", not "morays".

B: "widespread" beasiality and inbreeding? [citation needed].


The South does practice widespread Christian fundamentalism, though.
 
2012-05-09 08:42:45 AM

eldritch2k4: The_Sponge: rynthetyn: Pro tip: Barack Obama was officially opposed to Amendment One. And Prop 8 in California, and every other bigoted law banning marriage equality.


And yet he still claims that he personally believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. So either:

1) You guys think he's a bigot.

2) He's bullshiatting the public regarding his stance as a means of protecting his poll numbers.

So which is it?

Or perhaps the third option: He personally believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but knows that some churches/groups/people believe otherwise and it is not the government's job to decide for them? That other people being allowed to get married is in no way going to invalidate his marriage?


Yeah, I tried using that logic with my gay friends and got branded a bigot for doing so.

I've come to find you're either FOR or AGAINST them in this stupid farking argument. Which only makes me not give a damn even more.

/I'm anti-marriage anyways
 
2012-05-09 08:43:20 AM

KiplingKat872: ph0rk: Why is letting you marry a horse and/or your cousin a problem?

Well, the horse can't legally consent.


Fair enough there, I suppose.

Of course, when they're married, it can't legally say no (oh!).
 
2012-05-09 08:43:38 AM
Now I understand.
static.guim.co.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/09/north-carolina-passes-ame n dment-1
 
2012-05-09 08:43:56 AM
I know I'm a bit late in this thread to really get my point across, but it took me a while to remember my password (longtime lurker: enjoy reading the debates, never really felt like joining in until recently).
At any rate, since the opposition to gay marriage keeps saying they only want to protect the sanctity of marriage rather than confirm other equally stupid but more vile motivations, why not just take the marriage out of the equation? My proposal is this, the government substitutes the word "marriage" with the term "civil union" or "recognized union" or whatever else they could come up with. Any ceremonial marriage then means nothing to the government without having a justice of the peace or what have you officialize it. Any previous marriages would be grandfathered in of course. To top it off, "civil unions" can be between any two legal adults as defined by being 18 years of age or older. If a church doesn't want to wed two men or two women, fine. It wouldn't be an official union without the justice of the peace anyways. By taking it out of the church's hands and no longer recognizing marriages as valid legal bindings, the sanctity of their ceremony is intact.
It seems like such an easy fix to such a stupid issue.
/Hi by the way
 
2012-05-09 08:44:01 AM

The_Sponge: rynthetyn: Pro tip: Barack Obama was officially opposed to Amendment One. And Prop 8 in California, and every other bigoted law banning marriage equality.


And yet he still claims that he personally believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. So either:

1) You guys think he's a bigot.

2) He's bullshiatting the public regarding his stance as a means of protecting his poll numbers.

So which is it?


Or maybe he just thinks that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, that maybe marriage should be a religious ceremony and that the government should only regulate civil unions.
 
2012-05-09 08:44:19 AM

TheEdibleSnuggie: Yeah, I tried using that logic with my gay friends and got branded a bigot for doing so.

I've come to find you're either FOR or AGAINST them in this stupid farking argument. Which only makes me not give a damn even more.

/I'm anti-marriage anyways


The problem with the amendment isn't removing same-sex marriage, that is already illegal in NC. It likely removes all civil unions and domestic partnerships, too.
 
Displayed 50 of 1189 comments

First | « | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report