bigun20 sounds about as dumb as GeniusX

5/9/2012 7:49:13 PM

^ You're giving bigun20 way too much credit and geniusx not enough.

5/9/2012 7:56:09 PM

Quote :

"Ernie not familiar with what a right is"

Peddling semantics in Chit Chat as well, I see.

5/9/2012 8:22:09 PM

Quote :

"African-Americans voted 2-1 in favor of the North Carolina amendment banning gay marriage"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76133.html#ixzz1uQDZAfhm

Can anyone find info on the % of Democrats that voted for it?

5/9/2012 8:26:49 PM

Quote :

"Peddling semantics in Chit Chat as well, I see."

is it semantics to say that someone who bought a used car is not eligible for Cash4Clunkers? exactly

5/9/2012 8:27:46 PM

^^I was wondering how they find out any of that information.

It's all from exit polls, right? How long will it take to get that info together.

Also how many exit polls did they do?

5/9/2012 9:09:41 PM

Quote :

"I'm not debating, i'm being a dick. you can't change the minds of inbred redneck dickfors. you can only mock them and hope that they don't reproduce."

My favorite comment so far.

5/9/2012 9:24:34 PM

i mean, at least dude is honest

5/9/2012 9:25:05 PM

Quote :

"Considering that only a very small percentage of the state's overall voting population will be the reason that passed, rwoody, I'm pretty sure I meant minority. You go back and check again for me though. Let me know. As with most primary elections, the fringe activist minority turns out to vote and elects more ideologically extreme candidates, or supports more ideologically extreme referendums, hence, tyranny of the minority which the rest of you are subject to in the general, or in this case, statutorily/constitutionally."

sorry but i dont think you know what that means. its hardly a "tryanny" if its held simply laziness of the majority. the majority of people that give a shit won and that is the only population that counts in a democracy.

5/9/2012 9:25:33 PM

Some people just make me sick. This is one of them.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/09/nc-county-commissioner-calls-to-revoke-illegal-same-sex-benefits/

5/9/2012 10:41:54 PM

how do post op trannies factor into this?

5/9/2012 11:37:33 PM

I posted that story already

5/9/2012 11:43:19 PM

No really, i think trannies pose a conundrum for fundamentalists.

5/9/2012 11:44:25 PM

is it legal to marry a Real Doll in NC?

I don't feel it is true love unless we're married

5/9/2012 11:44:46 PM

"It's because NC is generally seen as one of the more progressive southern states"

WTF? This is news to me.

5/9/2012 11:45:29 PM

As long as it's between a man and a woman-doll!!!

[Edited on May 9, 2012 at 11:46 PM. Reason : ]

5/9/2012 11:45:34 PM

^^NC was a blue state in 08 mane...read more news.

[Edited on May 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM. Reason : yup]

5/9/2012 11:46:56 PM

NC has been more "progressive" than the southern states

not just because of 08

Post-op trannies get a new birth certificate afterwards right?

5/9/2012 11:49:13 PM

Your post confuses me

but i'd love to fuck your tits

5/9/2012 11:50:17 PM

"NC was a blue state in 08 mane...read more news."
Shut your dirty whore mouth.

5/9/2012 11:53:26 PM

^^word

they are useful for such activities

5/9/2012 11:56:32 PM

^^eh

whatever man...

don't get mad because you married a heifer due to her love to hunt and your shared interest in BBQ ribs

These issues are serious...its not about how many pancakes she'll leave you for breakfast...or how much bacon...this is about people.

Just because she loves the Vitamin D milk and it will always stick to her thighs doesn't mean you have to take your hate out on gay people because any dude on the street has a better ass than your wife...

let them live man, keep killing animals and keep your angst about your own sexlife to yourself.

[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 12:01 AM. Reason : ^^]

5/10/2012 12:01:13 AM

LOLZ Have we met before? How did you know that I fucking love ribs?

[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 12:06 AM. Reason : d]

5/10/2012 12:04:24 AM

LUCKY1!!! Whats the word man? You're a made man in my book.

5/10/2012 12:08:22 AM

Not much dude. Doing pretty good. I think I pissed this guy off though.

5/10/2012 12:09:34 AM

This about Amendment 1

not fucking Lucky 1

5/10/2012 12:10:31 AM

5/10/2012 12:11:25 AM

omg stop it

5/10/2012 12:12:45 AM

5/10/2012 12:14:45 AM

25&26

So you see, this is about Lucky1.

5/10/2012 12:15:32 AM

Quote :

"All of the benefits that you then associate with that union that are granted by the gov't, those are not rights."

Now wait, are they not rights, or are they just not natural rights? if you're going to split hairs on semantics, then you have to do it right. Your argument assumes a distinction that you aren't defining, whereas the counterpoint assumes that any such distinction is immaterial for the purposes of this matter.

[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 12:19 AM. Reason : ]

5/10/2012 12:15:43 AM

Did you know FOX is coming out with a dating show later this summer?

5/10/2012 12:16:18 AM

Sorry Divababy, I will quit tww for another couple of years. I cant play by the rules.
Later.

5/10/2012 12:19:58 AM

apparently you were playing by the rules

so you can stay

5/10/2012 12:28:08 AM

Plz do.

5/10/2012 12:28:33 AM

Here is what I just posted in SB in response to burro's continued, intentional obtuseness:

Quote :

"The equal protection clause does not apply only to what you insist on calling rights. It is equal protection under the law, as in you cannot deny one person a right, benefit, or protection based on their status as a protected class (race, gender, religious affiliation, country of origin, age, etc.). In this particular case you have codified into law something which does exactly that. A man and a woman may enter into a particular contract because they are a man and a woman. A man may not enter into the same contract with another man because they are both men. In what way is that not clearly and recognizably a violation of equal protection? The specific wording of this amendment makes it an even easier target for such an argument because it clearly sets up gender requirements for obtaining a government issued license. Imagine this were not about marriage and instead about obtaining a medical license or taxi cab medallion. The hammer would be dropped immediately if you tried to write a law stating that only a man can obtain a medical license in the state of NC. What would your argument be then, that women can still be doctors, just not licensed ones? The inequality in the law is written based on the gender of the two consenting parties involved. You cannot do that. Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down based on the exact same kind of logic because they specifically created an inequality based on race. Your argument is basically a fall back on separate but equal, "they can still get married, just not to the person they want" is substantively the same as saying, "they can still go to school, just not the same school.""

5/10/2012 12:29:34 AM

Quote :

""It's because NC is generally seen as one of the more progressive southern states" WTF? This is news to me."

This dates way back. Last state to enter the confederacy (not like we even had a choice after being surrounded by other seceders) and one of the first to start accepting equal rights for african-americans. I think we'll be the first southern state to completely allow gay marriage.

5/10/2012 1:46:18 AM

Ron Paul on the amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqKPOfOcRLQ

5/10/2012 11:25:48 AM

^good answer, though I don't think getting government out of marriage will happen. If there are legal, financial, etc. benefits to marriage, some official entity outside of the marriage would still have to recognize and enforce it, no?

5/10/2012 11:32:56 AM

The government could recognize a contract drawn up by consenting parties, as it already does.

There should be no tax or financial "breaks" for marriage.

[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ]

5/10/2012 11:37:56 AM

posted this in TSB thread, too
--

So NC had a law banning bestiality, which was overturned by the state court due to being unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law

5/10/2012 2:01:48 PM

Quote :

"good answer, though I don't think getting government out of marriage will happen"

Ok, so then we should give the same recognition to all couples.

5/10/2012 2:07:50 PM

^agreed. once the government created a government issued marriage license, it opened that license to any consenting adults, except close relatives. it's like the government not giving out driver licenses to asian women. we'd all be much safer, but you just can't do that.

^^^but that's not what RP is talking about. He is talking about getting government out of marriage. What's your point?

[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 2:17 PM. Reason : .]

5/10/2012 2:15:17 PM

5/10/2012 6:23:19 PM

How do people feel about the two Christian saints who were widely acknowledged gay lovers?

5/10/2012 6:29:58 PM

A pre amendment 1 Gallup poll has 40% of blax being okay with gay marriage.

5/10/2012 7:47:53 PM

nobody's going to watch this but oh well, i'll post it anyway


http://youtu.be/Sugp-F6VI7A

5/10/2012 9:59:04 PM

^^^Sergius and Bacchus? They weren't gay.

Neither was Abraham Lincoln.

Nor the vast majority of historical figures whose lives have been picked apart for 'signals' by people who don't understand, well, anything beyond knowing what they want to prove.

[Edited on May 10, 2012 at 10:58 PM. Reason : a]

5/10/2012 10:58:31 PM

^^ Watched it, and that why Ron Paul is the by far the best choice for president. It's also why he will never get elected, he actually employs common sense.

5/10/2012 11:02:19 PM

Quote :

"agreed. once the government created a government issued marriage license, it opened that license to any consenting adults, except close relatives."

the gov't doesn't have to give out the license to anyone who shows up. Does anyone who shows up and asks for a doctor's license get it? What about a real estate license? Law license? Hell, in your example, a driver's license? Or, does the gov't impose some kind of, say it with me, qualifications that applicants must meet in order to obtain the license? This certainly must be the case, as it we know that not just anyone can get a medical license. Not just anyone can get a real estate license. Not just anyone can get a driver's license. Under the conditions of your post, that would somehow be discriminatory, because not just any person who showed up would receive a license.

Now, I know where you are about to go: the gov't can't just impose any arbitrary set of qualifications. In your next statement, you mention denying a driver's license to an asian woman not being allowed. Thus, we would both agree that there are limits to what the qualification can be. The main limit is that the qualification cannot be specifically limiting to protected classes. Well, denying to asian women is clearly limiting to protected classes, as both national origin and gender are protected, so a combination of the two is also protected. In marriage, however, such a restriction does not exist. Both male and female are able to acquire the license, as can all races, creeds, national origins, etc. Even homosexuals can acquire the license, provided they apply with someone of the opposite sex (which doesn't ultimately matter because, IIRC, sexual orientation is not a federally protected class, nor is it protected in NC). The makeup of the two parties in the contract can thus be limited, as long as the restriction allows for all protected classes, and this clearly allows for that.

Quote :

"Now wait, are they not rights, or are they just not natural rights? if you're going to split hairs on semantics, then you have to do it right. Your argument assumes a distinction that you aren't defining, whereas the counterpoint assumes that any such distinction is immaterial for the purposes of this matter."

Well, the problem with this, duke, is that I am responding to others suggesting that people's rights are being restricted. I've specifically asked them what rights are being restricted, and they never respond. The only thing I can assume they therefor mean is the supposed right to gov't recognition. It seems quite silly to suggest that anyone has a right to make other people agree with and endorse their actions via gov't approval, unless we completely pervert what a right is. I'm probably more aiming towards a natural right in that regard. but at that point, bitching and moaning about having your "rights taken away from you" when using such a nebulous definition of "right" is akin to screaming "help, help, I'm being repressed."

5/10/2012 11:08:17 PM