So if I don't like you and you are my neighbor, I can make you move? If I don't like conservatives, I can make them move out of my neighborhood? What about people of Northern European decent? Left-handers? People with an IQ under 120? People who use inferred when they mean implied? Hell, I can keep going until I'm the only one in my neighborhood. I could have all the houses to myself! And if anyone doesn't like it, (*)(*)(*)(*) 'em, they are just totalitarian fascists!
Government money = Your earning - Tax Your Earning - Tax - Tax Break > (greater then) Your Earning - Tax + No Tax Break - - - Updated - - - If I am paying for that it is exactly my business.
You are going to have to drop this nonsense about how much same sex marriage costs. Read this and then tell what your real reasons for your opposition is. Lets see if you have the guts to do that honestly. In doing so, try to discuss the issue without reference to various sex acts, genitals or the artificial distinction between what is public and what is private And here is more:
So, when confronted with irrefutable evidence that your whole economic argument about same sex marriage is a hoax, your going to run away and hide from it? Not so fast. You might be done with me but I'm not done with you. Here is how it works. You are free to continue to post ridiculous, inane, hateful clap trap. I am free to continue to call you out on it with facts and logic. You think that your arguments are logical? I don't even know what the augment is except something about gay people should not have marriage benefits because it costs you something and because you don't want to pay for their private sex, none of which makes the slightest amount of sense. Keep it up dude.
Well, if we truly live in a democracy(what I don't see, I see only a plutocracy), all these issues should be resolved by a popular vote, not by 1 person. If someone is bothered by the issues mentioned above I don't mind if they unite and form their own communities. Unlike LGBT supporters, I am not a totalitarian tyrant and not going to impose my will upon anyone. It's their free choice and I respect it-they just want to be around people like themselves, why its wrong? I don't see any point of forcing one community to tolerate other. Tolerating something means that you stay in a state of discomfort, dealing everyday with something you don't like. Why people need that if there is another choice- live in a harmony and happiness among people you love? I have to repeat this part, because it was ignored. So, right now our rights are violated - people who don't like you are forced to be around you. And I never suggested moving anyone, you've brought that up. "Gay free" areas are not necessary "gay free" on a physical way. The communities I am suggesting are simply places, where gay ways are not favored, advocated, promoted, etc. You can be here, but respect our rules or face a fine. The way out is a compromise. Have similar areas with your own ways, where people can't be anti-gay for example, favor yourselves, etc. What are you going really to loose? Do you really want to be around people who don't like you, these "hateful homophobes???! So, it's up to you whether you want to stay around me or it's up to me whether you want to stay around. No one is forcing you to move. This is the freedom I would call a true freedom, not what we have here now. You are have a choice, I have a choice. More choice - more freedom. Why you afraid, that people like me will gain the freedom to stay away from people like you? Part of the country might just run away from you and you will loose your ability to stay above someone, just because you are gay. Right? It would a great indicator, because people will be free to do something, unlike now, when you say, "I don't like gays, etc", you are harassed with "homophobia", etc.
And allowing you to marry but not them is fine, but allowing everyone to marry somehow "favors" SOME of those couples? I suppose I'll never understand how equal rights favor some people over others.
The new apartheid for gays in America. I actually find it hard to believe that you're serious. You're just playing us right? Nobody can be this far over the edge. The other possibility is that you're a troll bot, not even real. Which is it. Incase your are real, please note, we are in fact not a democracy. At least not a direct democracy. Voters do not get to decide on other people's rights.
He is a troll. They put trolls here with purpose of upsetting you, so that you would give up expressing yourself. They sit here 24-7. US democracy at work!
It's good that you two met. I hope that you will be happy together. Is marriage on the horizon? BTW, no one "put me here" and no one wants you to give up anything. Just try to make some sense once in awhile .
It's only a government hand out if it benefits gays. He might well be a republican who are usually in favor of lowering taxes. Notice how he turned and ran when I provided evidence that same sex marriage is good for the economy and good for business. He might want to try to make the argument that those economic benefits do not offset any "marriage bonus" that married couples enjoy ( although every situation is different, and some actually pay more taxes) but I don't think that he can do that. It's apparent a that this tax thing is just a way of avoiding the admission that he just hates gays.
I have a favorite quote that is sometimes attributed to Ben Franklin, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb". A democracy where the majority can take away the rights of a minority at their whim is a totalitarian government. Here's the thing. We have this set of rules called the Constitution, and it says that people have the right to express themselves anyway they want (as long it does not result in injury to another) and that the state has to treat everyone under the law equally. So if the gay community wants to have a parade, it is their Constitutional right to do so. Of course you have the Constitutional right to protest against it. You also have the Constitutional right to say you don't want to be around gays or that you think the gay lifestyle is wrong. However, others have the right to call you a homophobe. See, nowhere in the Constitution or the Declaration does it say we have the right NOT to be offended. If you look at the First Amendment, you actually have the right to offend others, just be prepared to have them offend you right back. If you want to run away and hide from the scary gays, that is your choice, I really could care less. However, it is when you try to take away, theirs, or anyone else's rights that I will take offence. Again, nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence that says you have the right not to be offended. One more thing... about my sexual preferences. I left a not so subtle hint in one of my previous posts as to my orientation.
Well, democracy is not 2 wolves, it can be 10, 20, 30 of them, yes, people can have all kind of views on a situation. How do you know who is right? You? Others think on the same way. You vote and this is how things are resolved in a democratic society by majority vote. I hear pretty often when people want to justify their tyranny and deny democracy, they purposely say something stupid like "what if people vote to nuke themselves" and etc. You answer is too broad and doesn't answer anything. I can find tons of places in constitution, which would support my views. This is why we see so many debates, what is constitutional and what is not, because there is no clear answer. So, tell me, why people with similar interests can't form the communities I proposed? Were it's said in constitution? Where in constitution it says that minority can take away rights of majority? People we don't like or afraid we throw in prisons. We forcibly isolate them from the society. Anything about that in constitution? When constitution was written? When there was no such thing as "gay"? If we are throwing people in prisons under this constitution, what is wrong if a group of people forms their own society, like I proposed, like towns or states without all these gay issues? Where is that answer? Give me links to parts of constitution. Don't mock me, I never called homos scary. You want me to think that I am scared, but I am not. You know, fear is not the only thing which people would want to avoid something. And you know it. Trying to gain control over me? You staring it first, I am flagging it. Looking for a war? Look I was kind to you. You perfectly know that my rights now are taking away - I am forced to coexist with you. You refereeing to Constitution, screaming about rights and in the same time stealing my rights. See, how hypocritical you are? I am offering you a society with more freedoms, where people are not forced neither to be with people you don't like, as well as form their own communities with similar interests. I don't see any violation of rights, when people with their similar are united, based on that interests, like having their own states, towns, etc. And lets say, we have a gay issue free town, why it's some kind of violation of rights? You can do the same. And why would you want to be around people who don't like you? Sound crazy, since you scream about violations of rights, it means that you do want to be around people who don't like you? And this is why you complain about your "rights" to force them to like you. This is where you are wrong and this is how you deny my rights and commit act of tyranny. Yes, using this compromise we loose a little-there will be places where I will have no desire to go and you will not have a desire to go, but why do you want to go where you don't want to go? So, the whole society gains more regarding freedoms - freedom to be around people you like and stay away from people you dislike, on a community wise way. I think it's better, then to live in a society, where people are forced to tolerate something they don't like.
The first section of the 14th Amendment says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This means that everyone is to be treated equally under the law and no community can deny anyone their rights. That means if there is a house for sale, anyone can buy it regardless of their race, religion, political beliefs, or sexual orientation. Segregation is against the law and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka upheld that. Can't get more specific than that. First, I want to apologize for my snarky comment. I didn't mean to offend, I was merely observing that the majority of prejudice comes from fear. If you say you are not afraid, then I will take your word for it. Now as for forcing you to coexist with me, no one is doing that. You are free to ignore me or move away, the choice is yours, no one is forcing you to do either. however, just because you are offended does not give you the right to take away anyone else's rights. That starts sounding like you want some kind of entitlement. Last time America let people make their communities separate from those they didn't like, it was called segregation. In South Africa it is called Apartheid. In both cases it was wrong and eventually outlawed. Is that what you call freedom? Is that the world you are offering to me? Forgive me if I decline.
Well, this doesn't explain anything, because it doesn't elaborate definition of "law" and how it should be created. States does have death penalty, imprisonment, they can take your house, etc. They are all forced measures. It looks to me that you misinterpreting a democratic forms of ruling. Lets say, we vote on something and by majority of votes some decision in some town or state is made, lets say some people want to allow to let people keep chicken in their backyards and some are against it. You were voting for keeping chickens in their backyards and you lost. By majority of votes, people decided that it's not good to have chickens Do you call it a "discrimination"? I think it is. But this is how democracy works, if majority votes for something, you have to respect and obey their decision(no stupid examples here, please). Yes, you are discriminated on a some way. But if you live in a democracy, then you have to deal with it. In any law you can find a discrimination. For example, I am fine driving 80mph on a highway, while the limit is 65. Or why do I have to stop on a "STOP" sign when there are no cars? I wish people would vote for which speed limit it should be there or should it be a "STOP"signs, while "yield" signs can be used instead. When people are denied a right to form and live in their own communities with similar interests is a clear violation of rights and goes against simple common sense. Again, I didn't proposed to have a gay free communities on a physical way, since it's hardly possible. I don't want to live in a communities with spies around me. I proposed a gay propaganda free, communities where no such thing as a "gay", etc. Please read it again. The thing is that I can't move away within the same country, since there is no place, which fits my interests, there are no gay propaganda free communities, towns or states. And this is what I am complaining about. It's a violation of my rights. Why homosexuals didn't move away and forced whole society into acceptance via gay propaganda? They could move to Amsterdam, right? And it was not done on an basis of equality, since anti-gay propaganda is outlawed or people are harassed with "homophobia". Did people vote to give up segregation? No. It was imposed, recall how people were reacting to it, which was called as a "white flight". South Africa didn't have a black-free states or towns, it was rather neighborhood-wise. Also South Africa was WAY above any other country in Africa by it's development. Look what was happing in black-only countries. Could they go there and enjoy being black? So, they "fought for their rights" to take everything what white man created there for themselves. And how what? What happened to Detroit, from where blacks moved in and all the whites flee?! Or Oakland, Richmond in CA? With 2 party system you can drag in anything and they will say "people voted for it". Simple example: We have 2 candidates - 1st for war and 2nd for gay rights. For which I would vote? I would vote for second guy, supporting "gay rights", since I hate war more. War is more evil then gay rights. But it doesn't mean that I am for "gay rights"? So, there is an extremely limited selection, 1 for 170 millions, since there are 340 millions in USA, plus why you need 100s of millions for elections... You can't elect precisely what you want and stuck with "worst evil". I rarely see any referendums as well, I do see some opinion pools, but how they function is obscure. Also, you canditate might not say what is going to do about some issue and after he is elected he can just do whatever, like Bush started a war in Iraq. Did he say anything in his campaign about it? Did Obama said that he plans to bomb Libya and kill their leader? I call it corruption.
"Proper marriage" is a funny term to use because the definition will depend on who you ask it from. You're idea is clearly a man and a woman, however that doesn't mean my idea doesn't include a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman, etc. Regarding your "gayness is just yucky" comment, to each their own but at least love and let love.
Good evening and welcome. I see that you are new here. You will find that there are a lot of rather obtuse, bigoted and unreasonable people here. Try not to let them suck you into an inane, pointless pissing match. They will make you crazy if you let them. State your case in rational, logical terms and hang back and watch heads explode, when they can't deal with reality. Often they will just slink away. See you around.
So let's take your chicken analogy and see where the problem is. What if the majority said that only people with brown eyes can have chickens, but people with blue eyes cannot? Or we can look at this through your traffic law analogy. What if only Liberals can drive about 65 MPH or only Christians have to stop and stop signs. Do you see the problem? Everyone needs to follow the same laws. You cannot have laws that affect only one class of people, that is called discrimination and that is what Gay Rights, Civil Rights and Women's Rights is against. This gay propaganda you talk about is protected by the First Amendment. You know, the whole freedom of speech thing? And here's the thing about the First Amendment, no where does it say you have the right NOT to be offended. Actually, the First Amendment pretty much guarantees that you are going to be offended sometime in your life by something someone says because it protects those who offend and there is nothing you can do about it (legally). Now, you believe we live in a democracy, but actually the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic which means that the people of the United States do not directly vote on national laws, rather they vote for representatives who then vote for the laws. Also, it means that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the people don't even get to vote on that. As for the rest of your post, it just starts mutating into a racist rant and then into some kind of political rant so I'm not going to bother to comment on those parts. So here's the bottom line. Everyone has the right to say what they want, even if it offends people. You can be called a homophobe and a racist and there is nothing you can do about it except use your First Amendment rights to disagree or call them something back. This not mean your rights are being trampled because as I keep saying, you do not have the right NOT to be offended. If you believe you do, please show me where in the Constitution it gives you this right.
You deliberately giving me stupid examples. I already told you, that many people like to justify a tyranny over democracy giving examples like that. I gave you examples of the real life, how laws can discriminate people. If they do vote like you said - so be it and let them learn a lesson. Democracy is democracy - we are democracy, we follow a wish of a majority, then we should do that. And what is really a "discrimination"? I don't like to be around some people and want to form communities with people based on a same interest. Why I am "discriminating" you? There are laws which are putting people to death, why it's not a discrimination? Prisons? Will you answer this finally? I don't see anything racist what I said. The First Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution It can be interpreted in so many ways. One of them - let's say I want to have a gay free religion. I have the same right of self expression-I don't want to live around open gays, hire them and listen their propaganda. Where does it say that I can't do that?! If under this Constitution people are thrown in a prisons or sentenced to death, why I can't have a gay propaganda free communities? You shouldn't scream about your rights, if let's say some people in some town expressed themselves that they don't want to have open gays and their propaganda around. You shouldn't be offended if you are called a "f*g" or when some company refused to hire you because you are gay. It's their self expression. Not sure what you are trying to say at all here, since we talked about that as well. I also don't see any kind of connection you are trying to make between laws, constitution and gay stuff. Keep in mind, that laws and Constitution are made to serve majority of people's interests, not otherwise. So, instead of constantly referring to laws and Constitution, why don't you refer to a common sense? If laws are wrong or Constitution doesn't have a good explanation, then it should be changed. You know that USA screams about "democracy" on whole world, like others don't have it, etc. You are trying to apply standards to others, which you don't have??? So, why such a hypocrisy? Looks like you are trying to sit on several chairs just to drag your way of thinking through. We can get lost here. I suggest to stop referring to constitution or laws, since interests of people comes first, then laws and constitution serve people. And if they serve only a minority of people, then it's a tyranny and not a democracy by definition.
