You Know What's Funny?

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I'm sure, by now, everyone's seen the outcry over NC's defense-of-marriage constitutional amendment. The media's got the sheep into a frenzy, and they're going to revolt by posting incorrect Facebook status and general whining and moaning.

 

You know what's funny? THE FACTS.

 

Where was this outrage when the 24 states before NC passed their constitutional amendments?

Where was this outrage when the 18 states before NC banned ANY kind of same-sex union?

Where was this outrage when 5 other states, including WV and my adopted state of PA, enacted statutes banning it?

Where was this outrage when Virginia passed its constitutional amendment in 2006?

 

The next time you hear someone gripining about NC's law, ask them what rock they've been hiding under.

[deuceswild 15]

There is nothing funny about those facts. I think everyone with a sense of the situation has displayed some form of outcry for every moronic move each state has passed regarding those law types.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

There is nothing funny about those facts. I think everyone with a sense of the situation has displayed some form of outcry for every moronic move each state has passed regarding those law types.

 

Obviously, I didn't mean "haha" funny. I meant an "ironic" funny. A "where the Hell has everyone been" funny. And perhaps we listen to different media outlets, but there wasn't nearly this level of protest when VA did its thing in 2006. Not even where I was, in the heart of liberal VA. Not on the big 3 or CNN.

 

This is a media ploy by gay rights groups the closer the nation gets to being 50/50 on gay marriage. The groups sense that this is the moment to attack, and they're unleashing the hounds. And I find that I'm perturbed in the number of people who are acting like this is something on the level of "Rosa Parks" and "Jim Crow" (to quote some friends), when this is literally older than Thomas Jefferson's wine...

 

To quote a friend of mine, it's like scheduling a party for 8:00 PM, and everyone shows up at 10:30.

[deuceswild 15]

I know what you meant... and I'm still not getting it.

 

I think now is the tipping point. We're starting to see how blissful ignorance is. People will vote down a bill just because the word "gay" is in it.

 

It's a media ploy because a number of Americans want the same rights everyone else has in a country founded on the separation of church and state? Cool story bro.

 

Hey the 1950's called. They miss you.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I know what you meant... and I'm still not getting it.

 

I think now is the tipping point. We're starting to see how blissful ignorance is. People will vote down a bill just because the word "gay" is in it.

 

It's a media ploy because a number of Americans want the same rights everyone else has in a country founded on the separation of church and state? Cool story bro.

 

Hey the 1950's called. They miss you.

 

If you knew how I actually feel on the issue, you wouldn't be half as derisive as you are right now.

 

It's by all means a media ploy. If you think that there aren't gay-rights watchdog groups, then you're kidding yourself. If you think that the media, with a long-documented liberal bias on social issues, isn't salivating like Pavlov's dog at the engagement of the watchdog groups, then you're fooling yourself. It's fairly obvious what's going on here. Too many people fail to see it, though.

 

Hence, why I find dark "humor" in seeing who's a media sheeple and who is actually engaged enough in politics to see that this isn't anything new. Denying someone a civil liberty isn't humorous, but it was inevitable: it's NC, for God's sake. It was going to pass. That's not funny. Finding out whom of your acquaintances just knows what the media tells them to know, on the other hand, is unsettling at best.

Edited May 9, 2012 by UVAObserver

[Guest king kone]

Virginia was the last state to allow interracial marriage......

[deuceswild 15]

If you knew how I actually feel on the issue, you wouldn't be half as derisive as you are right now.

 

It's by all means a media ploy. If you think that there aren't gay-rights watchdog groups, then you're kidding yourself. If you think that the media, with a long-documented liberal bias on social issues, isn't salivating like Pavlov's dog at the engagement of the watchdog groups, then you're fooling yourself. It's fairly obvious what's going on here. Too many people fail to see it, though.

 

Hence, why I find dark "humor" in seeing who's a media sheeple and who is actually engaged enough in politics to see that this isn't anything new. Denying someone a civil liberty isn't humorous, but it was inevitable: it's NC, for God's sake. It was going to pass. That's not funny. Finding out whom of your acquaintances just knows what the media tells them to know, on the other hand, is unsettling at best.

 

I'm not arguing that the media is going to be infatuated with it or any opportunity they get to mock bumpkin' legislation but it sounded as if you were simplifying the outcry as strictly media driven. In my personal atmosphere, I sense more people think independently on the matter but that might not be the case everywhere else, I understand that. I can tell this morning that several of my friends still watch FoxNews - as you're probably pleased to hear.

 

Yes, it was NC. I didn't have a lot of hope for it which is why I'm not all up in arms about the decision. Maybe I misread your initial post as being ultra-conservative against the stance itself. I see now that your point is how the media is driving the bus on how people are reacting... and I agree with you there to an extent.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I'm not arguing that the media is going to be infatuated with it or any opportunity they get to mock bumpkin' legislation but it sounded as if you were simplifying the outcry as strictly media driven. In my personal atmosphere, I sense more people think independently on the matter but that might not be the case everywhere else, I understand that. I can tell this morning that several of my friends still watch FoxNews - as you're probably pleased to hear.

 

Yes, it was NC. I didn't have a lot of hope for it which is why I'm not all up in arms about the decision. Maybe I misread your initial post as being ultra-conservative against the stance itself. I see now that your point is how the media is driving the bus on how people are reacting... and I agree with you there to an extent.

 

As long as gay couples cannot force pastors and/or churches who are morally opposed to marry them, I couldn't honestly care less. On my own moral grounds, I would immediately stop attending such a church, because I don't like it when any church picks and chooses what to believe from the New Testament. Quit a couple in my life over just that (not about homosexuality, either). Anyway, it would probably fail on the public/private distinction and First Amendment challenges, but I would prefer if states would do like NY (the only time I'll ever say that...the state's a mess) and write it in there.

 

It's those individuals' lives: they're the ones that'll have to stand before God and give an account of why they didn't follow Romans 1:26-27 more closely. It doesn't affect me, so long as they don't make out in front of me, but it upsets me when heterosexual couples do that, too. Legally, I don't find it as appalling to have a gay couple who contributes well to society as I do a husband who does heroin and a wife who beats her 4 children while living on food stamps.

 

I think it's morally repugnant, but I think getting a girl drunk for the purpose of sleeping with her is morally repugnant, too. That's not illegal if she has the iota of wherewithal to consent. Let gay people marry if they want. That's how I feel about it.

 

I think that the gay rights groups are the ones going to the media based on their own agendas. The media, being mostly pro-gay marriage anyway, all too happy to make a larger issue than it is. That in turn fuels the sheep's fire, which in turn gives the story more life, which in turn...

[1inStripes 933]

You would think with over 50% of todays marriages ending in divorce, they would figure out we are trying to protect them.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

You would think with over 50% of todays marriages ending in divorce, they would figure out we are trying to protect them.

 

Well done, sir.

[deuceswild 15]

As long as gay couples cannot force pastors and/or churches who are morally opposed to marry them, I couldn't honestly care less. On my own moral grounds, I would immediately stop attending such a church, because I don't like it when any church picks and chooses what to believe from the New Testament. Quit a couple in my life over just that (not about homosexuality, either). Anyway, it would probably fail on the public/private distinction and First Amendment challenges, but I would prefer if states would do like NY (the only time I'll ever say that...the state's a mess) and write it in there.

 

It's those individuals' lives: they're the ones that'll have to stand before God and give an account of why they didn't follow Romans 1:26-27 more closely. It doesn't affect me, so long as they don't make out in front of me, but it upsets me when heterosexual couples do that, too. Legally, I don't find it as appalling to have a gay couple who contributes well to society as I do a husband who does heroin and a wife who beats her 4 children while living on food stamps.

 

I think it's morally repugnant, but I think getting a girl drunk for the purpose of sleeping with her is morally repugnant, too. That's not illegal if she has the iota of wherewithal to consent. Let gay people marry if they want. That's how I feel about it.

 

I think that the gay rights groups are the ones going to the media based on their own agendas. The media, being mostly pro-gay marriage anyway, all too happy to make a larger issue than it is. That in turn fuels the sheep's fire, which in turn gives the story more life, which in turn...

 

Yeah yeah, church and stuff.

 

Ultimately, common sense says... they're humans, they deserve the same rights as other humans. I'm glad you have the stance you have and I'm not far from it. If your God dismisses a person because of the sexuality they were born with, then that's a petty shame. I think as people doing right by other people, whatever higher power there is, He will be grateful no matter who they chose to love.

 

I won't judge how important the issue is as I'm not gay (regardless of whether or not I think Mario Lopez has maintained a great body over the years) but I won't downplay it. It's a big issue in the sense that it's even an issue.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Obama just comes out and says that he's in favor of gay marriage.

 

Personal conviction? Or "you'd have to be nuts not to see that this is a" political ploy?

[deuceswild 15]

Obama just comes out and says that he's in favor of gay marriage.

 

Personal conviction? Or "you'd have to be nuts not to see that this is a" political ploy?

 

Just supporting what we long suspected already. It's time he put his foot down.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Yeah yeah, church and stuff.

 

Ultimately, common sense says... they're humans, they deserve the same rights as other humans. I'm glad you have the stance you have and I'm not far from it. If your God dismisses a person because of the sexuality they were born with, then that's a petty shame. I think as people doing right by other people, whatever higher power there is, He will be grateful no matter who they chose to love.

 

I won't judge how important the issue is as I'm not gay (regardless of whether or not I think Mario Lopez has maintained a great body over the years) but I won't downplay it. It's a big issue in the sense that it's even an issue.

 

Let's have a one-question quiz, shall we?

 

1. The best way to get people to engage in an active discussion is:

(a) Hold a respectful debate with point/counterpoint.

(b) Keep a lighthearted banter going while touching upon important points.

© Completely marginalize and dismiss someone's deeply-held beliefs.

 

You picked C...

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Just supporting what we long suspected already. It's time he put his foot down.

 

He's got a D next to his name. More likely than not, he's going to support gay marriage.

It's not like he's letting some cougar out of the bag here.

 

The timing's the entire issue here. He could've done this four months ago. He could have done this on the platform in January 2009. Nope, now. UK and Cal getting investigated is more shocking than this.

[deuceswild 15]

Let's have a one-question quiz, shall we?

 

1. The best way to get people to engage in an active discussion is:

(a) Hold a respectful debate with point/counterpoint.

(b) Keep a lighthearted banter going while touching upon important points.

© Completely marginalize and dismiss someone's deeply-held beliefs.

 

You picked C...

 

I didn't dismiss it. I told you I share many of the views you do and was glad you hold the beliefs you do. I, myself, wasn't going into any church discussion. That's for someone else, not me. Sorry if you feel offended.

[deuceswild 15]

He's got a D next to his name. More likely than not, he's going to support gay marriage.

It's not like he's letting some cougar out of the bag here.

 

The timing's the entire issue here. He could've done this four months ago. He could have done this on the platform in January 2009. Nope, now. UK and Cal getting investigated is more shocking than this.

 

Soo..I'm failing to understand the big deal?

[hokie07 11]

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...

 

Just kidding...

 

Seriously though, gay marriage or not, I really couldn't care less. If two people of the same sex want to "get married" and enjoy life together, then so be it. It doesn't bother me at all. Whether or not I believe it is moral isn't the question, I don't believe I have the right to tell them they can't be gay together. When gays reach Heaven's gates, and if God wants to stack 11 in the box on defense and make the ultimate goal line stand then that's up to him. Not me.

 

Ultimately, I think the best thing for any politician to do would be to create a type of tax reform that gives gay couples the same breaks that hetero married couples enjoy. It would shut up the Evangelical crowd and get rid of gay marriage in the church so they could quit whining about that and it would also appease the homosexual couples and solve the "unequal" problems that they face.

[ThomasDenton 79]

If they're going to vote issues like this into law, then why not make it strictly local decisions (for example, let residents of the City of Bristol, VA, vote on it for the city and the people of Washington County vote on the issue for themselves...the majority in each locality may actually want different things)? Like voting on allowing/recognizing same-sex marriages for each city/county instead of making it a state-wide law or federal law. People think differently from region to region. Even in VA, we're always talking about how the people in NOVA are very different than us here in SWVA. Maybe in NOVA, the majority would prefer to allow gay marriage while SWVA wouldn't. Why make a state-wide law then? Same goes for people in NC. Western part of the state is a lot different than the coast. This is just something I've never understood when it came to moral issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, church issues, etc.

Edited May 9, 2012 by ThomasDenton

[deuceswild 15]

If they're going to vote issues like this into law, then why not make it strictly local decisions? Like voting on allowing/recognizing same-sex marriages for each city/county instead of making it a state-wide law or federal law. People think differently from region to region. Even in VA, we're always talking about how the people in NOVA are very different than us here in SWVA. Maybe in NOVA, the majority would prefer to allow gay marriage while SWVA wouldn't. Why make a state-wide law then? Same goes for people in NC. Western part of the state is a lot different than the coast. This is just something I've never understood when it came to moral issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, church issues, etc.

 

Because a marriage license is issued through the state so the state has to approve it to start with.

 

Is that quasi-right lawyer guys?

[ThomasDenton 79]

Because a marriage license is issued through the state so the state has to approve it to start with.

 

Is that quasi-right lawyer guys?

 

Well, that answers that question. Never even thought about that.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Because a marriage license is issued through the state so the state has to approve it to start with.

 

Is that quasi-right lawyer guys?

 

Theoretically, a state could reformulate it so that the localities have the power to dictate and grant marriage licenses. So, yes, you could have 95 different counties and 23 different cities setting 118 entirely different standards of marriage.

 

If you can't see the problems if this were to happen, then I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps that's why Virginia, like every single other state, establishes guidelines at either a constitutional or statutory level.

[Moe Jontana 10]

When gays reach Heaven's gates, and if God wants to stack 11 in the box on defense and make the ultimate goal line stand then that's up to him.

 

if they're smart, they'll hit the Tight End on a drag.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Moe Jontana

[RichlandsAlum 678]

And the Democratic National Convention is being held in what state later this year, boys and girls?

 

Sorry, folks (on both sides of the issue). This isn't about rights, homosexuality, or anything else but political opportunism on the part of the incumbent president.

 

We're being played, people. That's truly offensive, IMO.

[deuceswild 15]

And the Democratic National Convention is being held in what state later this year, boys and girls?

 

Sorry, folks (on both sides of the issue). This isn't about rights, homosexuality, or anything else but political opportunism on the part of the incumbent president.

 

We're being played, people. That's truly offensive, IMO.

 

Play me all day with civil rights, I love it.