North Carolina: No Gays allowed

[thegreekdog]

So there are no merits to it? None at all? Good to know. The only reason things are decided at the state level is because some men have decided 200+ years ago that we should.

Is your last sentence serious or sarcastic? If the latter, good. If the former, we should discuss why the statement is incorrect.

[GreecePwns]

Sarcastic, the point being he hasn't brought up any merits of this system relative to a more local approach.

[thegreekdog]

Sarcastic, the point being he hasn't brought up any merits of this system relative to a more local approach.

That's because (as someone else accurately pointed out), he's not really a constitutionalist or a strict constructionist or a libertarian. He's a mainstream social conservative Republican.

[Phatscotty]

So there are no merits to it? None at all? Good to know. The only reason things are decided at the state level is because some men have decided 200+ years ago that we should.

Well, you wouldn't want to ignore ALL the infrastructure that has been built based on that decision, would you? A decision that was voted on unanimously which recognized state independence? Or should we redefine independence as well? That is our founding, and our principles. It's what our people believe in and have for centuries. Every court case, every law, every bit of progress, has been built on the original model. It's not perfect, but I think we have done and are doing a pretty darn good job....Societies base law and other things according to and facilitative to the norm, not the exception.

Unless....you are literally arguing to abolish the USA as we know it.....

Just acknowledge reality dude. States make their own laws in many areas, and I simply argue that citizens having a say in making those laws is a much better system which protects Liberty. I have never heard anyone argue for the need to abolish governors and state legislatures and mayors and city councils though.

You have to realize you are arguing for more power to the central government, and attacking state sovereignty. That is the issue, and in fact it has little to do with gay marriage at all.

You may have READ the constitution, but you surely don't understand it.. nor the context into which it was laid.

We have a nation in order to protect individual liberties. That is not done by some amorphous structure or simply the will and whims of people. It is a framework of laws.

Our first tries were not the great glory to which you claim. Women, minorities, even men without propery had few rights at first. But, the laws were there. The LAWS prevailed and so things were moved to give more and more people the freedom promised.. albiet in a human and thereby imperfect way.

Why on Earth would someone claiming to hold liberty and freedom in the highest esteem ever see justice in denying one group of people the ability to marry as they will solely becuase it offends some people's purely religious ideas?

wtf are you talking about. I'm just talking about states rights. I have never initiated or participated in any religious positions on this subject. The historical things I mentioned were meant to include things like the interstate commerce clauses, all the rulings of the supreme courts on related issues, the bill of rights, and the constitution.

[Phatscotty]

So there are no merits to it? None at all? Good to know. The only reason things are decided at the state level is because some men have decided 200+ years ago that we should.

Do you seek to redefine the word "state" as well?

[AndyDufresne]

So there are no merits to it? None at all? Good to know. The only reason things are decided at the state level is because some men have decided 200+ years ago that we should.

Do you seek to redefine the word "state" as well?

I'd like to redefine state to mean awesome.

Welcome to the United Awesome of America.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Sarcastic, the point being he hasn't brought up any merits of this system relative to a more local approach.

That's because (as someone else accurately pointed out), he's not really a constitutionalist or a strict constructionist or a libertarian. He's a mainstream social conservative Republican.

I resent that! I am a registered Independent! I have only voted for a Republican candidate once, a long time ago....

[patrickaa317]

So there are no merits to it? None at all? Good to know. The only reason things are decided at the state level is because some men have decided 200+ years ago that we should.

Do you seek to redefine the word "state" as well?

I'd like to redefine state to mean awesome.

Welcome to the United Awesome of America.


--Andy

United Awesomes of America to be exact

[GreecePwns]

Sarcastic, the point being he hasn't brought up any merits of this system relative to a more local approach.

That's because (as someone else accurately pointed out), he's not really a constitutionalist or a strict constructionist or a libertarian. He's a mainstream social conservative Republican.

I resent that! I am a registered Independent! I have only voted for a Republican candidate once, a long time ago....

So just a mainstream social conservative, then. Got it.

[Woodruff]

Sarcastic, the point being he hasn't brought up any merits of this system relative to a more local approach.

That's because (as someone else accurately pointed out), he's not really a constitutionalist or a strict constructionist or a libertarian. He's a mainstream social conservative Republican.

I resent that! I am a registered Independent! I have only voted for a Republican candidate once, a long time ago....

You keep saying things like this. But I don't think anyone really believes it. I can't think of anything I've seen from you that I would consider "independent-minded" other than your posts about Ron Paul.

[comic boy]

Sarcastic, the point being he hasn't brought up any merits of this system relative to a more local approach.

That's because (as someone else accurately pointed out), he's not really a constitutionalist or a strict constructionist or a libertarian. He's a mainstream social conservative Republican.

I resent that! I am a registered Independent! I have only voted for a Republican candidate once, a long time ago....

You keep saying things like this. But I don't think anyone really believes it. I can't think of anything I've seen from you that I would consider "independent-minded" other than your posts about Ron Paul.

The Ron Paul stuff is simply cut n paste , little or no independent thought or analysis in the posts.

[Woodruff]

Sarcastic, the point being he hasn't brought up any merits of this system relative to a more local approach.

That's because (as someone else accurately pointed out), he's not really a constitutionalist or a strict constructionist or a libertarian. He's a mainstream social conservative Republican.

I resent that! I am a registered Independent! I have only voted for a Republican candidate once, a long time ago....

You keep saying things like this. But I don't think anyone really believes it. I can't think of anything I've seen from you that I would consider "independent-minded" other than your posts about Ron Paul.

The Ron Paul stuff is simply cut n paste , little or no independent thought or analysis in the posts.

SOCIALIST!!!!

(Yeah, I know and agree...but it is at least independent-minded related).

[Phatscotty]

98% of my voting career has been third party.

[GreecePwns]

That has nothing to do with social conservatism, or independent thought.

I hate labels, I really do. I try not to label myself with anything, because it implies strict and unbending ideology. But if I were to label you, I would call you a social conservative and a constitutionalist, with a splash of libertarian rhetoric thrown in for shits and gigs (or when its convenient; I say rhetoric because your views do not align with true libertarianism) and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Lootifer]

98% of my voting career has been third party.

That makes you 118 years old assuming you vote once every two years (you guys have mid terms or something right?).

[patrickaa317]

98% of my voting career has been third party.

That makes you 118 years old assuming you vote once every two years (you guys have mid terms or something right?).

Or perhaps, his ballots have more than one election on them at a time....

[BigBallinStalin]

98% of my voting career has been third party.

That makes you 118 years old assuming you vote once every two years (you guys have mid terms or something right?).

I think he's counting the votes he makes with his Weekend Community Klub......

[AndyDufresne]

98% of my voting career has been third party.

That makes you 118 years old assuming you vote once every two years (you guys have mid terms or something right?).

I think he's counting the votes he makes with his Weekend Community Klub......

Or maybe when American Idol gets down to 2 popular singers and a third wheel, he routinely texts his vote for the third wheel.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

That has nothing to do with social conservatism, or independent thought.

I hate labels, I really do. I try not to label myself with anything, because it implies strict and unbending ideology. But if I were to label you, I would call you a social conservative and a constitutionalist, with a splash of libertarian rhetoric thrown in for shits and gigs (or when its convenient; I say rhetoric because your views do not align with true libertarianism) and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

He's only a Constitutionalist when it's convenient for him, as well.

[Woodruff]

98% of my voting career has been third party.

That makes you 118 years old assuming you vote once every two years (you guys have mid terms or something right?).

Uh...there are elections other than national ones. Of course, I'm not sure many of those have "third party guys", but who knows?

[Phatscotty]

98% of my voting career has been third party.

That makes you 118 years old assuming you vote once every two years (you guys have mid terms or something right?).

Or perhaps, his ballots have more than one election on them at a time....

I'M BLINDED BY THE BRIGHTNESS OF AN INTELLIGENT THOUGHT!!!!!!!

NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Most ballots I have voted on have at least 15 different categories. I'm guessing the other people probably don't vote much, or perhaps they don't have nearly as much representation as we do in Minnesota.

[Phatscotty]

98% of my voting career has been third party.

That has nothing to do with social conservatism, or independent thought.

Yet....it has everything to do with why I am not a social Republican....which is what we were talking about.

The first thread I ever made here had the title "third party" in it

Why is this thread still about me? Can't you guys handle the issue?

[Phatscotty]

That has nothing to do with social conservatism, or independent thought.

I hate labels, I really do. I try not to label myself with anything, because it implies strict and unbending ideology. But if I were to label you, I would call you a social conservative and a constitutionalist, with a splash of libertarian rhetoric thrown in for shits and gigs (or when its convenient; I say rhetoric because your views do not align with true libertarianism) and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

He's only a Constitutionalist when it's convenient for him, as well.

I realize, if you stopped talking about me, you wouldn't have anything to post.

[Symmetry]

I'm not throwing on it. I'm just saying that there are reasons why the entire world isn't governed by one set of moral codes; because there is no one set of absolute moral codes that must be followed. There is no absolute morality, so let's not govern as if the majority religion's morality is absolute.

I'd agree with that which is why each state should decide issues that are more important to them (or however a country's process is designed, whether states have a voice in things or if it is decided by the top level). If NC decides not to allow gay marriage, that is there prerogative.

And, one would hope, you don't suspend your critical values at that point. After all, it is ok to say that you think the decision was wrong (and in this case, it seems kind of misinformed). Of course they didn't just ban gay marriage- any form of gay partnership seems to have been made illegal.

Putting it gently, you seem to have been conned into thinking this was a vote on gay marriage, as were many NC voters.

I don't think the decision was wrong. If some people do think it is wrong, they are free to leave North Carolina. As Greece pointed out, there is no need to have the whole world governed by one set of moral codes, each area should be able to determine what is best for them and their area.

And I wasn't conned into anything, I really don't care whether it was a vote on gay marriage, gay unions, or what color shirts people can wear on Tuesdays. It is a NC prerogative that doesn't impact me. Marriage & unions are not rights guaranteed to anyone therefore whatever a state decides doesn't deny anyone a right.

If you want to talk about misinformed, it may be relevant to bring up the title of the thread as it is misleading stating that gay people are not allowed in NC.

Ah, you're one of those kind of posters, unable to accept that you were mistaken, and liable to double down on your mistakes when they're pointed out. I'll reserve my only vaguely insulting bit of my argument to this section- you really do seem to have an anti-gay agenda on this. If you were truly neutral on the subject, of course, you'd have taken the correction and re-evaluated your misinformed position. Your re-stated position basically says that you never really believed in your original argument in the first place.

Hopefully, we'll get down to what you actually believe at some point, but I suspect you're as curious as I am.

Of course, I'll accept that the limitations of a thread title result in a little playful hyperbole from time to time, but let's face it, North Carolina enshrined in law that homosexuals be second class citizens. Not a huge leap.

[patrickaa317]

I'm not throwing on it. I'm just saying that there are reasons why the entire world isn't governed by one set of moral codes; because there is no one set of absolute moral codes that must be followed. There is no absolute morality, so let's not govern as if the majority religion's morality is absolute.

I'd agree with that which is why each state should decide issues that are more important to them (or however a country's process is designed, whether states have a voice in things or if it is decided by the top level). If NC decides not to allow gay marriage, that is there prerogative.

And, one would hope, you don't suspend your critical values at that point. After all, it is ok to say that you think the decision was wrong (and in this case, it seems kind of misinformed). Of course they didn't just ban gay marriage- any form of gay partnership seems to have been made illegal.

Putting it gently, you seem to have been conned into thinking this was a vote on gay marriage, as were many NC voters.

I don't think the decision was wrong. If some people do think it is wrong, they are free to leave North Carolina. As Greece pointed out, there is no need to have the whole world governed by one set of moral codes, each area should be able to determine what is best for them and their area.

And I wasn't conned into anything, I really don't care whether it was a vote on gay marriage, gay unions, or what color shirts people can wear on Tuesdays. It is a NC prerogative that doesn't impact me. Marriage & unions are not rights guaranteed to anyone therefore whatever a state decides doesn't deny anyone a right.

If you want to talk about misinformed, it may be relevant to bring up the title of the thread as it is misleading stating that gay people are not allowed in NC.

Ah, you're one of those kind of posters, unable to accept that you were mistaken, and liable to double down on your mistakes when they're pointed out. I'll reserve my only vaguely insulting bit of my argument to this section- you really do seem to have an anti-gay agenda on this. If you were truly neutral on the subject, of course, you'd have taken the correction and re-evaluated your misinformed position. Your re-stated position basically says that you never really believed in your original argument in the first place.

Hopefully, we'll get down to what you actually believe at some point, but I suspect you're as curious as I am.

Of course, I'll accept that the limitations of a thread title result in a little playful hyperbole from time to time, but let's face it, North Carolina enshrined in law that homosexuals be second class citizens. Not a huge leap.

No anti-gay agenda. Not having a pro-gay agenda does not equal having an anti-gay agenda.

Here's my stance on it since you seem so concerned. Feel free to demonize me afterwards, as I know you will.

Personally, I do not support gay marriage. I think marriage is something that should be between one man and one woman. HOWEVER, if a state wants to allow gay marriage by the process that is defined in their state (whether it be a ballot issue or through courts or through legislature), that is completely fine by me, I will accept the results though I cannot say that I would be ecstatic about them.

At the same token, if the state wants to disallow legal contracts between two parties, that is also up to them (as with everything, if the gov't has the power to give it to you, they also have the power to take it away from you), as long as they do it the way that these issues are handled in their state. In my opinion, not allowing civil unions between two parties does not equal making them second class citizens. Go ahead, take a few posts to call me some names now as you have previously. Perhaps throw out a few condescending comments or insults. I'm just wondering if you'll stick to the old reliable names & insults that you have used in the past or if you'll expand your horizons and get some new ones.