I'm pretty sure the "pro-gay" left want the states to blow it out there ass and want the fed to step in and just end the god damn discussion.

[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 10:12 PM. Reason : ]

5/10/2012 10:10:44 PM

Yeah, the states should each decide who they wish to oppress. Makes sense.

5/10/2012 10:38:51 PM

Quote :

"Actually, it's easier than that. They don't want the backlash of voicing their opinions. Liberals, the supposed people of "tolerance," are happy to tolerate any opinion, as long as they agree with it. They could easily find CEOs who supported the amendment. They just weren't gonna find any CEOs dumb enough to say it out loud and on record."

Right because company's don't face boycots from right wing groups over pro-gay policies. Rather than say anything substantive about conservative vs liberal backlash, it seems to merely say that CEOs felt it advantageous for their businesses to oppose the amendment while none found it advantageous to support it. Whether you think they are honest in their explanations of it depends on whether you chose to believe them or not.

Seeing it as compelling evidence of your existing opinion of liberals moreso than as an expression of the actual content of their statements might be satisfying and pleasing to you but it is not the simplest or more logical interpretation as it requires you presume that dishonesty to be the unifying quality of the only CEOs to speak out on the matter. Besides the natural human preference for information which conforms to and reinforces ideas already internally accepted to be true I see no reason not to take their statements as more honest than not.

[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 11:13 PM. Reason : s]

5/10/2012 10:59:33 PM

^^ spooky, I know you are being sarcastic, but this goes back to what I concluded that:

a) recognize 'domestic legal unions' regardless of sex, race, gender, creed, etc.
or
b) not recognize them at all

5/10/2012 11:13:27 PM

Quote :

"Right because company's don't face boycots from right wing groups over pro-gay policies."

oh, they certainly do. but then again, right wing groups also don't get up and bitch and moan about tolerance every five seconds. which is what I was getting at: liberals preach tolerance but refuse to apply what it actually means, as evidenced by their disgusting vitriol for anyone who dares to have a dissenting opinion. Liberals don't want tolerance any more than right-wingers do; they just want obedience.

Quote :

"Seeing it as particularly compelling evidence of your existing opinion of liberals might be satisfying and pleasing to you but it is not the simplest or more logical interpretation as it requires you presume that dishonesty to be the unifying quality of the only CEOs to speak out on the matter."

Bit of a strawman there. I never said the only CEOs to speak out on the matter were lying through their teeth. I said that the ones who don't agree won't speak up for fear of backlash from that well-known liberal tolerance for dissenting opinion.

5/10/2012 11:13:41 PM

burro doesn't understand tolerance itt

5/10/2012 11:17:14 PM

just curious, but is going around and calling anyone who disagrees with you a bigot an example of tolerance? because that's pretty much been liberal's MO for the past 60 years

5/10/2012 11:18:08 PM

Quote :

"Bit of a strawman there. I never said the only CEOs to speak out on the matter were lying through their teeth. I said that the ones who don't agree won't speak up for fear of backlash from that well-known liberal tolerance for dissenting opinion."

And the CEOs to speak out against it felt the business reasons compelling enough to do so despite the well-known conservative tolerance for dissenting opinions. The difference was not that one group had to consider the possibility of backlash for taking a politically controversial stance while the other group did not have to make such a consideration (particularly considering the relative polling.) Taking a politically controversial stance is something that is something businesses are generally reluctant to do regardless of which side the left or right are on; unless one potential outcome poses potential negative impact on their business which outweighs the risk of offending either side of an issue then it is generally not worth CEOs saying anything. The difference was that 75 NC based CEOs found the potential negative impact to their business or their own desire to take a stance they believed right to outweigh the risks of taking a politically controversial position publicly while CEOs whose opinions differed felt no such compelling reason to voice them.

[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 11:28 PM. Reason : d]

5/10/2012 11:21:18 PM

When that person's agenda is to make laws that exclude others then they've crossed a line. I may not agree with someone thinking homosexuality is wrong, but they can think and say whatever the hell they want. It's when they want the law written to tell those people how to live that they become "intolerable."

[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 11:23 PM. Reason : ]

5/10/2012 11:22:31 PM

Quote :

"When that person's agenda is to make laws that exclude others then they've crossed a line."

we do it all the time. Why is this social engineering any worse than any others we do?

Quote :

"It's when they want the law written to tell those people how to live that they become "intolerable.""

They aren't telling anyone how to live with this amendment. No one is being prevented from living how they want.

5/10/2012 11:27:22 PM

Quote :

"we do it all the time. Why is this social engineering any worse than any others we do?"

Depends on the law - You're assuming I agree with everything else.

Quote :

"No one is being prevented from living how they want."

That's just...not true. I'm not even going to argue that point with you because you're arguing it for the sake of arguing.

5/10/2012 11:34:51 PM

i don't even know what he's arguing anymore. i'm not going to continue to argue about the definition of english words, while losing sight of what the actual issue is. some people just can't be reasoned with.

5/10/2012 11:57:29 PM

in before aaronburro declares himself the winner by fiat all the while supporting bigoted garbage in the name of his bigotry thinly veiled by semantics.

V, HA!

[Edited on May 11, 2012 at 9:00 AM. Reason : .]

5/11/2012 8:48:09 AM

Whenever Romney talks about traditional marriage, just remember that his great great grandfather was murdered by his twelfth wife's ex-husband.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parley_P._Pratt

5/11/2012 8:51:39 AM

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I feel like this bill was mainly about cutting health costs; after all, having only married couples as the only legal civil union in NC implies losses for all other unions that include children in unmarried couples, widows, and of course gay couples. I don't think anybody would have voted on such legislation explicitly detailing such cuts and the marriage definition aspect was merely included as a front-man so that it would garner support. I also feel like the marriage aspect was predatory in nature in terms of targeting the religious beliefs of many people to get favorable votes. I know that Wake County in addition to the other more populated counties in the state were against the amendment while the more rural counties voted in favor of it. Personally, I don't believe every person who voted for the amendment did so due to any innate bigotry or homophobia (although I'm sure there was plenty of that in many voters). A lot of these rural communities are very poor and I doubt that there is any widespread internet connectivity or even cable access. I really wonder if many people who voted on the bill were educated on the finer details or if they even had the means to do research in order to look further than the marriage definition aspect. All of this being said, the results of the vote are very telling for me. I now know why we keep seeing these issues pop up in every election; it is because time and time again the public has proven to fall for the smoke screen.

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 5:18 AM. Reason : .]

5/13/2012 5:17:20 AM

Hate your next door neighbor but don't forget to say grace.

5/13/2012 12:50:52 PM

Quote :

"That's just...not true. I'm not even going to argue that point with you because you're arguing it for the sake of arguing."

Is anyone getting arrested? No? Hmmm... are there gangs of gov't marriage enforcers, going around breaking up unsanctioned marriage ceremonies? No? hmmm...

Quote :

"in before aaronburro declares himself the winner by fiat all the while supporting bigoted garbage in the name of his bigotry thinly veiled by semantics."

Unfortunately, not in before disco_stu goes to the patented liberal argument of calling people who disagree with you a bigot while not understanding that the definition of words actually matter, especially in law. That's why there's even things called "legal dictionaries."

[Edited on May 13, 2012 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2012 3:19:05 PM

at work i had to take two different documents, and "marry" the two into one. i don't know what sex they were.

and once again, i don't care what they call it, as long as two people who love and are committed to each other get the same "privleges" as others, regardless of their sex and regardless of the sex of their partner. i couldn't care less is they call it a "marriage".

5/14/2012 9:59:33 AM

Apparently James Buchanan was semi-openly gay
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/14/our_real_first_gay_president/singleton/

5/14/2012 11:54:19 PM

5/16/2012 10:55:44 PM

lol, that is fantastic.

5/17/2012 10:07:26 AM

i'll be honest here: i was adamatly opposed to the amendment... but i'd rather not see that.

5/17/2012 10:25:14 AM

why?

5/17/2012 10:40:58 AM

Views for allowing 2 consenting adults be treated the same no matter their plumbing is because i dont care who you screw. And i mean i DO NOT CARE, i don't want to see it, hear it, etc. That applies to mf, mm, ff (unless they are both hot, but thats a chit-chat thread)

5/17/2012 11:08:42 AM

Haha, i could really start a shit-storm here. I'll just say that while i think they should have every right to make-out on the street like any straight couple, it doesn't mean i want to see it. Same with a straight couple really, but moreso with two dudes. I also wouldn't want to see two butch-dikes making-out, although i think they should be able to if they want to, I'd just rather they didn't. But I would be perfectly fine with two lipstick lesbians making-out. I know it's kinda hypocritical, but I'm just being honest.

[Edited on May 17, 2012 at 11:14 AM. Reason : ]

5/17/2012 11:10:10 AM

thats how it always starts of course-

some petty mouth-breather thousands of years ago was simply "uncomfortable" when he saw two dudes making out, decided he would rather see a couple of hot lesbians do it, but split the difference and wrote Leviticus anyway.

5/17/2012 11:23:46 AM

Quote :

"I know it's kinda hypocritical, but I'm just being honest. "

Then start being honest with yourself and absolve yourself of hypocritical notions. There's a reason why you think it's yucky and it has nothing to do with being rational.

Generally speaking, people don't make out in public to turn you on.

5/17/2012 11:58:54 AM

It's not hypocritical. If you're straight, two men kissing might not very appealing. Depending on the guys and the amount of facial hair involved, it can be downright repulsive.

5/17/2012 12:02:42 PM

im sure the urge just hit them as they walked by that particular sign.

with a photographer in tow even,

5/17/2012 12:02:54 PM

Quote :

"There's a reason why you think it's yucky and it has nothing to do with being rational."

I dunno man, some people enjoy watching women squish tomatos and other food items with their feet, but i think those fetishes are kinda gross. is that irrational? some people are into bondage, it makes me kinda uncomfortable though. i know it's kinda shallow, but if i had to see two people making out, i'd rather them be an attractive straight (or lesbian) couple. it'd gross me out if it was a straight couple, if they were 500 pounds each. what about you?

5/17/2012 12:12:16 PM

I guess what I meant was, "you're welcome to be repulsed by it" but to be compelled to want them not to do it is the irrational part.

5/17/2012 12:14:39 PM

i get you. but i mean, there's lots of things i wish humans wouldn't do, but i think they should have the right to do it. i wish fat girls wouldn't wear spandex... hell, i wish cyclist wouldn't wear biker-shorts. i wish people wouldn't buy hummers, etc. etc.

5/17/2012 12:17:58 PM

by all means, tell every single one of those people exactly how you feel.

but dont expect anything to come of it, and dont be surprised by whatever reaction they might have to you.

5/17/2012 12:37:04 PM

Yeah, personal discomfort at seeing something is completely irrelevant to what should be enshrined in law.

5/17/2012 12:38:27 PM

Quote :

"by all means, tell every single one of those people exactly how you feel."

nah, i'll just let them live there lives how they want, and if it doesn't affect me (except grossing me out), i won't say a thing.

5/17/2012 12:51:44 PM

Quote :

"It's not hypocritical. If you're straight, two men kissing might not very appealing. Depending on the guys and the amount of facial hair involved, it can be downright repulsive."

It's the NIMBY sort of hypocrisy. "Ya'll can be gay but don't do it around me."

5/17/2012 1:11:56 PM

No, i don't mind you being gay in front of me. I just rather not see two dude's swapping spit.

i must admit, i watch porn sometimes. but it's always straight people doing it, or hot lesbians. i have no desire to watch gay dude porn. does that make me a hypocrite?

5/17/2012 1:15:31 PM

i dont think in that example you would be hurting the gay porn actors' feelings no,

5/17/2012 1:16:36 PM

hurt their feelings? i'm pretty sure i'm not hurting the feelings of those guys up there in that pic either by commenting on tww about how i'd rather not see that. but we're not talking about hurting people's feelings, we're talking about the hypocrisy of not wanting to see two dudes suck face.

5/17/2012 1:19:23 PM

Quote :

"It's the NIMBY sort of hypocrisy. "Ya'll can be gay but don't do it around me.""

Like he said, I don't want to see obese people making out either. I'm not going to stop them. I probably won't even say anything. I'll just think it's gross.

5/17/2012 1:25:57 PM

the guy that wrote Leviticus honestly just "thought it was gross."

5/17/2012 1:33:56 PM

Yeah, maybe. Then he wrote commands instructing followers to murder gay men.

5/17/2012 1:35:50 PM

"it was a different time."

5/17/2012 1:43:56 PM

Leviticus is gross

5/17/2012 1:50:50 PM

Quote :

"Like he said, I don't want to see obese people making out either. I'm not going to stop them. I probably won't even say anything. I'll just think it's gross. "

Ehh, ok. But he went out of his way to post that comment itt.

5/17/2012 1:55:34 PM

James O'keefe tried to punk Wake/Orange/Durham aka our progressive neck of the woods in his latest "investigative" video. Once again, his work is deceptively edited and proves nothing except how stupid people are. The non-citizen voting at the beginning of the video has already been debunked as he is actually an american citizen (he lied on a jury form to get out of jury duty).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptSrcNvJzBQ

[Edited on May 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2012 2:03:41 PM

Egads! I guess that means voter fraud is rampant and we should immediately institute ID laws that will disenfranchise minorities post haste!

5/17/2012 2:15:53 PM

that is absolutely pathetic

5/17/2012 2:37:52 PM

Pretty funny that NOM (national organization for marriage, the group that used to bus ppl into NC on multi-state tours to protest states that didn't have marriage discrimination amendments) had one of their memos leaked stating specifically that one of their goals was to divide the LGBT and African American communities over this issue. I saw one amusing response to this story saying "They threw a race war and nobody came."

http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/naacp-passes-resolution-in-support-of-marriage-equality

Quote :

"The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People today released a resolution supporting marriage equality. At a meeting of the 103-year old civil rights group’s board of directors, the organization voted to support marriage equality as a continuation of its historic commitment to equal protection under the law. “The mission of the NAACP has always been to ensure the political, social and economic equality of all people,” said Roslyn M. Brock, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the NAACP. “We have and will oppose efforts to codify discrimination into law.” “Civil marriage is a civil right and a matter of civil law. The NAACP’s support for marriage equality is deeply rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and equal protection of all people.” said Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP. The NAACP has addressed civil rights with regard to marriage since Loving v. Virginia declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967. In recent years the NAACP has taken public positions against state and federal efforts to ban the rights and privileges for LGBT citizens, including strong opposition to Proposition 8 in California, the Defense of Marriage Act, and most recently, North Carolina’s Amendment 1"

5/20/2012 8:46:08 AM

Quote :

"Egads! I guess that means voter fraud is rampant and we should immediately institute ID laws that will disenfranchise minorities post haste!"

As long as I show up before the other person, I can walk into any polling place and claim to be anyone and vote in their place..not sure if that qualifies as "rampant", but it can be easily solved.

5/20/2012 1:26:50 PM